You're correct about the immigrants. My post discusses what the Good Guys inherited. That it's possible that they are "making lemon aid out of lemons. " My post was not about the immigrants, rather it's about trapping the terrorists.
You're correct about the immigrants. My post discusses what the Good Guys inherited. That it's possible that they are "making lemon aid out of lemons. " My post was not about the immigrants, rather it's about trapping the terrorists.
You're correct about the immigrants. My post discusses what the Good Guys inherited. That it's possible that they are "making lemon aid out of lemons. " My post was not about the immigrants, rather it's about trapping the terrorists.
You're correct about the immigrants. My post discusses what the Good Guys inherited. That it's possible that they are "making lemon aid out of lemons. " My post was not about the immigrants, rather it's about trapping the terrorists.
With half of Israel's population Khazarians, and similar and the other half Abrahamic Jews or Hebrews, YES, it's definitely hard to know which side they are on. Maybe THAT'S why "we're saving Israel for last" makes sense. The Alliance is also trying to figure that out also.
I'm sure she didn't know the bigger picture Trump was playing. Trump needed the "pause" but he needed to at least show he was "trying" to contest the election. Sidney did the right thing, and she played her part perfectly. IMHO, her part is now complete. Same for Rudy, Linn, and others.
I'm sure she didn't know the bigger picture Trump was playing. Trump needed the "pause" but he needed to at least show he was "trying" to contest the election. Sidney did the right thing, and she played her part perfectly. IMHO, her part is now complete. Same for Rudy, Linn, and others.
While this is true, Sidney is not a member of the politicians. She is an independent lawyer, not a staff or Trump lawyer. I'm confident she still supports and stands with Trump and MAGA. In this situation, (IMHO) she's making a business decision. Thank you for the update.
I can't say you're alone on that. In fact, you're probably in the majority. I would also advise the R's to learn the difference between the R's and MAGA. They are NOT the same. For myself, I think JJ is better either where he is, or as FBI director. He can kick butt better there than being speaker. IMHO.
While I completely agree, and while everything you say is 100% true, I'm not sure I see that in this situation.
Sidney is simply making a business decision. Gamble $500k-$1m of a 50/50 guilty verdict or spend $2,700.00 on a sure thing. Not a hard decision.
BUT: When she has to make the plea in court (I forget the name of this process) if I were her, I'd sure explain the blackmail that the prosecution is playing. I'd say that I do NOT enter this plea voluntarily, but rather that I was coerced and blackmailed by legal thuggery. But then again, that's the type of person I am.
Its a bait and trap.
As another anon said. Look at it this way. She can fight the case, and spend $500K for a 50/50 chance for a guilty verdict or take the $2,700.00 fine. It's a legal dirty trick for the prosecution to get a "guilty" plea. That will allow the headlines "Trump attorney pleads guilty." Lawfare at it's finest! All legal shit.
Option #2