8
WinsAnon 8 points ago +8 / -0

The first season of Reacher was great. The second season made me think the franchise is done. And that was largely due to Ritchson’s poor acting.

I was going to at least give any new season a fighting chance. No more. He is dead to me like Sean Penn or Robert DeNiro or Alec Baldwin.

3
WinsAnon 3 points ago +3 / -0

They don't need to say the oath to be bound by law and the Constitution.

10
WinsAnon 10 points ago +10 / -0

The movie was made to scare conservatives from considering taking this country back.

3
WinsAnon 3 points ago +3 / -0

The elements necessary to winning a defamation case are:

1. A statement of fact was made, and it was made to someone else (Kari admits this)
2. The statement was false (Kari does not admit this, it is now the plaintiff's burden to prove that the statements were false)
3. Kari was negligent or acted with absolute malice in determining the truth of the statement (Kari denies this so again the plaintiff would need to prove this)
4. The statement caused some demonstrable damage (Kari also denies this, so again the plaintiff will have to prove it)

There is no way the plaintiff gets a directed verdict here.

6
WinsAnon 6 points ago +6 / -0

They raided him for two reasons. One, to get almost half the voters to see him as a dangerous criminal. Two, to make him establish on the record that he does not have the most damaging material about the deep state. They think that will prevent him from later using that damaging material because he will be admitting that he's lied under oath and they will prosecute him fiercely for it.

Of course, when he is next inaugurated, he will be able to play all his cards and they can't then question where he got the damaging material. He'd have new access all over again, and he'd further pardon himself for having had it all that time if need be.

4
WinsAnon 4 points ago +4 / -0

The US also destroyed the pipeline, which is universally known by now. That’s a huge terrorist act right there, with untold billions in economic damage.

Russia has shown remarkable restraint by not retaliating in some way. And now this. I imagine Putin will need to retaliate now. And Biden deserves the blame for whatever comes next.

12
WinsAnon 12 points ago +12 / -0

You watch, next they will sue Trump for getting “improper” campaign support from these donors.

1
WinsAnon 1 point ago +1 / -0

After the Democratic National Convention has chosen its nominee, if Biden were to drop out, the DNC leadership gets to unilaterally decide on the successor. I promise you that’s what will happen.

https://ballotpedia.org/State_laws_and_party_rules_on_replacing_a_presidential_nominee,_2024#Replacing_a_nominee_between_the_national_convention_and_the_election

2
WinsAnon 2 points ago +2 / -0

I think Obama is locking down support for Michelle to step in for Biden.

3
WinsAnon 3 points ago +3 / -0

Just very strange that the judge would require her lover to withdraw, but not her. If there was impropriety at all, it was by BOTH of them and not just him.

Frankly, the much bigger impropriety was by her.

2
WinsAnon 2 points ago +2 / -0

Since the opinion goes beyond just overturning Colorado's attempt to keep Trump off the ballot, and instead explains that only the US Congress can do that, it follows that the majority believed weaponized prosecutors would try to gain a "conviction" against Trump for insurrection somewhere and then states would use that precedent to argue they have grounds now to keep Trump off the ballots.

So the majority knew that lawfare is a thing and they tried to head it off.

And the concurring minority cried foul because they too were acknowledging in their protestations that they didn't want to neuter the prosecutors.

Our SCOTUS is saying they see the lawfare and the conservatives are trying to stop it while the liberals are trying to encourage it.

16
WinsAnon 16 points ago +16 / -0

To me it’s impossible to consider that these two events are not connected.

5
WinsAnon 5 points ago +5 / -0

If I was Trump, when I get back to the White House I would say it was hidden all this time so he never has to admit he truly has it and ignores the subpoenas.

-1
WinsAnon -1 points ago +1 / -2

This story and others like it point out what a terrible job Trump’s lawyer did. After the verdict we’re seeing things that should’ve been presented as evidence during the trial.

A bad lawyer is not grounds for appeal.

view more: Next ›