It’s Kamala…

If reality were written by Stephen King, the ghost of Joannie would drag him off to Hell, and then he'd have to act out "Charles in Charge" "Happy Days" and "Joannie Loves Chachi" reruns forever.
Reality instead seems to be written by a Babylon Bee writer who's stopped giving a shit, and is trying to drink himself to death.
So, an average Babylon Bee writer.
Hey, maybe Babylon Bee is Hell for some other dimension!

Perception isn't reality.
How's that Game of Thrones quote go again? "Power is power."

Whether or not his followers believe he's being unjustly persecuted doesn't really matter.
Although your prior posts indicate you believe that as well.

Did you think I would dispute that?

Agreed. Even when you pretend it doesn't apply.

Sounds like a perception.

I think you were hoping no-one would bring it up.

Because you fucking haven't any time Trump actually did it.

Sounds like it's exactly what you said. No perception or interpretation necessary.

Saying it seems questionable is the same as claiming he was unjustly persecuted?

OK, Skippy. Whatever you say.

Claiming it's questionable is voicing support. It's expressing doubt in the veracity of the charges.
So I ask you again, what seems questionable?

Fucking Christ Italy.

It’s been five hundred god damn years. How are y’all still fucking up Indians v Indians?!?!?

The translation of that headline is "white manhunt" so I'm going to go out on a limb and say these aren't Italy's most racially aware cunts (except insofar as other races exist and they're peeved about it).

Here's what Google Translate reckons:

Ummm…. I would like to know more about the Premier Melons.

that's the beauty of it. He didn't make any false or disputed claim, he simply said a sentence with the word "couch" in it and let the internet do the rest.

Getting a lot of laughs out of the whiny snowflake Republicans like "How uncivil that lowbrow Democrat candidates would presume to reference the trash humor of gutter rats on the Interwebs! We object in the strongest terms!"

When they are the same crowd that's been saying deranged stuff like "Michelle Obama is a man actually" for 15 years.

No the fuck it isn't.

I don't have time to indulge you with a sourced book report.

The real estate thing, done by everyone. (Right, John stewart? ) And what's his name had to convene a meeting of realtors in NY to reassure them that this would only be applied to Trump.

The lesser charges elevated to felonies just this once.

The rape accusation that was radio silence until it had political value.

Classified documents, yes he could have surrendered them more gracefully, but when the FBI coordinates a raid with media presence, it's pretty clear what the intent was.

I'm not voting for the guy, but it's pretty obvious the democrats are terrified of facing him in an election.

If by "the real estate thing" you are referring to the charges for which a New York jury convicted Trump, I would think that the very fact that a jury looked at the evidence and found him guilty proves that it is not just a Democratic plot, but that there's proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he was in fact guilty. It's not really a defense to say "Everybody does it, and yet not everybody gets prosecuted for it." (If that is even true.)

The same thing goes for if by "the real estate thing" you are referring to the fraud that a New York judge found his organization guilty of. (Although there I suppose it's more fair to argue -- albeit incorrect -- that the judge himself was biased and out to get Trump).

I don't think it is accurate that the rape accusation was radio silence. The suit was filed when it was because NY passed a law that extended the statute of limitations for sexual assault cases at some point. Trump was in office and there's a standing rule that civil and criminal cases are on hold against a sitting president. Then it took time for the discovery to happen, and then the case happened. And again, I think the default should be that a jury looking at the evidence is better equipped to know the validity of the charge than us on the outside, unless we can point to specific things in the evidence or the law that suggest that the jury got it wrong.

I don't think that the FBI coordinated its raid of Mar-A-Lago was "coordinated with the media" in any meaningful sense of that phrase -- i.e., the media was not tipped off beforehand, was not filming the raid as it was going on or anything like that.

Here's a link to the CNN story about it:

https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/08/politics/mar-a-lago-search-warrant-fbi-donald-trump/index.html

Note that they learned about the search after the fact, and further note according to the story Trump put out word about the search on Truth Social about the same time.

If you have evidence to the contrary suggesting that the media had teamed up to cover it in advance, please share when you do have time.

In any event, it's not a question of surrendering the classified documents more gracefully. The evidence is pretty clear that he induced his attorneys to sign off on a certification that he had turned over all the classified documents in his possession when he knew he hadn't, that he tried to move the classified documents to avoid them being discovered. A federal judge signed off on the search warrant, because the FBI convinced him that there was probable cause to believe that Trump was knowingly withholding classified documents that he had been asked politely to return for over a year in violation of the law, and knowing that it is an extraordinary step to conduct an involuntary search of a former president's home.

You don't mention the fake electors thing, or the stirring up the Jan. 6 rioters thing. What's your stance on those? Questionable or not?

It is pretty undeniable that the Democrats do not want to run against Trump. But the implication that any of these cases are fake or meritless and engineered to prevent Trump's candidacy seems far-fetched.

Everyone do a shot!

We all need to remember that any reading level beyond the third grade is a Commie plot, so if you want Uncle Albert to read your posts they need to be 500 characters or less, with easy to understand phrasing. Illustrations are helpful, preferably in crayon or watercolor paints.

I didn't say they were meritless. Just that they seem to bee exaggerated and/or conveniently timed for political effect. Which, fine, is SOP for politics.

@Raoul the Red Shirt did, frankly, a masterful job of rebutting you. No notes, Raoul. Fantastic post.
So I will just chime in on what you said directly to me:
Legally speaking, questioning the merits of the case when it's been litigated through legitimate means is a tact that Trump's own attorneys used. Under normal circumstances, being told that someone was indicted on 34 counts from a grand jury would not prompt you to say "Well, that seems questionable."

You are right that you didn't say the charges were "meritless". You didn't state anything strongly enough that you can't, in your own mind at least, wriggle out of it if you are backed into a corner.
You say Democrats are terrified of running against Trump like that's something negative. But anyone opposed to authoritarianism should rightly be terrified of the possibility of an unchecked Trump presidency.
He should be in prison, not running the country. I don't really care how they get him there, either. Capone went away on taxes. Let Trump go away on real estate.