We can clearly add perjury to this list, seeing as how Mueller said in the hearing that Trump's written answers to the interview questions were generally untruthful, and those answers were given under oath. As a kicker you could add in lying to a federal officer.

He's almost certainly involved in a cash for pardons scheme at this actual moment, or with an asterisk a favors for pardon scheme such as Paxton launching the suit on behalf of Texas to overturn the election.

I personally would add in reckless endangerment, since he went around infecting people with covid after having a confirmed diagnosis. Some people in California or somewhere were charged with this just earlier this week.

Further he's likely involved in several cases of conspiracy related to all of the above, as well as connected crimes like destruction of evidence and the obvious obstruction of justice.

He's also already likely under indictment for conspiracy in the matter relating to Michael Cohen and the payoff to Stormy Daniels.

So yeah, throw the book at the fat ****. **** him.

In the Mueller report, a legitimate expert on the subject laid out a case where, to paraphrase, he could not conclude that Trump was not guilty of multiple counts of obstruction of justice. He laid out extensive, conclusive evidence of lawbreaking, but phrased it as he did because of the standing opinion that the president could not be indicted.

Sounds nice, but personally for me, **** that. Sue the orange ****, his families, and associates to the ground. Sue them with the same level of integrity that they're using to screw over the American ppl and democracy itself.

Tangent rant: Trump and his base has an unfair advantage over those with integrity. They can play dirty, lie, and cheat. Their tactics are not being limited by integrity.

This is true in corporate America as well, where narcissistic a-holes step over others to climb the ladder has an unfair advantage. They can screw over their co-workers to get the promotion, once too many of their co-workers know, they now simply jump ship with a better title. And so on and on they climb. The system rewards a-holes.

Time to fight fire with fire, instead of having your hands tied behind your backs.

Time to send a message - show the world - that a-holes don't get away with it, that they get what they deserve.

You're dumb for misusing the word tolerant.

Liberals are not racists and bigots - that's how they're tolerant.

They're not nor should they be tolerant of stupid ideas.

A wound doesn't heal until the germs are all killed and eliminated.

I'm aware. Obstruction is the charge where I have the most information. It's certainly permissible to prosecute people for obstruction only and not for the underlying offense that is being investigated. But it isn't common.

If evidence of other crimes besides obstruction is solid, I would prefer to see prosecutors focus on those crimes rather than on obstruction.

Cersei Lannister showed in a tv show how easy it is to destroy a person of honor when you abide by no such rules or limitations.

Trump did so in real life, time and again.

I don't disagree but it is interesting how far things have fallen.

In years past, and not that long ago, Politicians were expected to live at a standard well above what we would expect from average citizens. And the higher up you were the more that was expected for you.

We seem to have turned that upside down now. Instead it seems Politicians have to do the most egregious stuff and even then we hem and haw over whether they should pay any cost for it.

As our expectations of them fell our desire to see them held to account also fell but which is the chicken and which the egg?

Sure, ideals these days tend to sound naive, fluffy and like they won't amount too much.

That's why people like Trump manage to win elections.

It's not nonsense it's what I believe.
I wish I was. Please tell people I am.

It's an important distinction.What you're saying is like saying Murder, Rape, and punching a guy in the face are all examples of assault, which is technically true, but they are far from being the same thing.

Robbery, Burglary, and Theft are not the same thing. This distinction is very important in written law and especially important to people like me who think Robbery and Burglary are crimes and theft is an infraction. I'm not the only one who thinks theft shouldn't be an arrest-able offense

One thing about Trump a lot of people liked was that they found his narcissism to be refreshingly unconcealed. I found his narcissism to be refreshingly open.
It was enjoyable to watch people like Ted Cruz, who is a narcissist, have to deal with someone like Trump whose self-centerdness has no limits. A lot of people voted for him to punish the "pencil pushers" and in a way they were right.

How far are you willing to go to pursue an "uncontaminated" population?

I honestly have no idea what you are trying to say with this nonsense.

I think you are saying 'i ignore the actual law on theft and am just applying my own personal definition to it?'


Theft is a serious crime.

Maybe you shouldn't say something is nonsense if you don't even know what it means

No that's not what I'm saying.

Read my post again and this time try to comprehend it.

I never said I don't know what it means. I stated I cannot discern what point you are trying to make with the nonsense you are saying.

And as I said, it seems you simply have made up your own definition for what theft is and are arguing by your own personal definition it is not serious.

It would be like you saying that to you 'theft = pie' and no matter how any one else defines it, to you pie is just not serious.

Not that far actually

The contamination in this analogy are ideas. To fight it you need to be direct and strong. Use strong clear language, not the soft indirect mush that democratic politicians has been using.

Call lies out as lies and don't use euphemisms like "alternative facts"

When something is dumb and stupid say it's dumb and stupid

Simple direct everyday language.

Yup first season. Ned Stark was the victim of honor and integrity. Loved season 1, and I was hooked after that!

I say we Nuremberg Trump and all the traitors.

The allies thought it might be counter productive, perceived as a show trial, or foster hatred and resentment from the German people.


Many Germans claimed they didn’t know the depths of the depravity until the bright lights were shined on it for months and months of trial. Of course many of them were fos, but the sheer weight of evidence ultimately became insurmountably factual.

The best disinfectant is sunlight, and we need a lot of it now to purge this country of its diseased 73 million adults.

Ignoring the solemn duty to cut out this tumor from the body politic will do nothing but embolden those who continue to fill our lungs with toxic smoke.

It wasn’t so long ago that Alex Jones was “the chemtrails guy”. Now he and his ilk are directly shaping policy and threatening democracy. Alex Jones holds more sway over the GOP than Mitch McConnell.

Are you seriously afraid of Alex Jones?

The point you’re missing is that the GOP prole birch society types used to just shoot each other in their backyards and now they’re ~everywhere.

It occurred to me that we are using a different definition of theft . I was thinking, "whats not to understand theft is theft, and I think it should be a non arrest able offense" because what I consider theft is theft as it is understood in Kansas.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/theft This link defines theft in the most broadest sense, not what I understand to be theft in Kansas. I think this link has the best definition, in broad terms, of what theft is from a single source.
Under the definition laid out in Brittanica.com, What I am saying is that people should not be arrested for larceny. Under the definition laid out in my link, I think burglary and robbery should be arrestable, as I had previously stated. In many us states larceny and theft are used interchangeably and are a less serious offense than burglary or robbery.

So using a more broader concept of theft than the one I use in Kansas, what I am saying is that I think people shouldn't be arrested for larceny. I like Brittanicas definition better than the house ethics code because that version applies less to day to day or state law and more to maritime codes and stuff like that.

Bryce,
Your thoughts on the settlers theft of Natives’ land?