‘Abuse of Power’: Alvin Bragg Slams Jim Jordan for Subpoena

[Rumpole]

You are just another word salad troll, who mistakes quantity for quality.

I'll remember that the next time you link to or quote something that has more than one line.

And that would make you a hypocrite, would it not?

Cheer,
Rumpole

 

[Rumpole]

I would call you the silliest sock puppet ever.

Such mediocrity, Flops. You're not the mendacious mediocrity your comments appear to be on par with, ey?
Say it isn't so, Flops.

By Allah, I did not know any of that!

Present your evidence for any of that, quickly!

Did you not see words that were underlined? They link to substantiation. One of the links is to Propublica, whose methods are that of documenting meticulously all of their claims.

Oooooh, what happenened to all the fruity talk?

Again, just evidence please. Evidence that Thomas voted counter to his long held conservative views as a result of this supposed influence bought by Crowe. Or better yet, just admit you hate black guys.

The underlined words link to substantiation. One I believe is Propublica, who meticulously document their claims.

Credible witnesses? You mean like that Blasey-Ford idiot?

Anita Hill is credible, an Blasey-Ford, is, as well. No credible counter has ever been put forth, beyond blind partisan attacks which do not understand how a woman deals with the complex issue of being sexually mistreated.

Given the tone and caliber of your response, it is clear that you fall into that category, so there is no point in debating this with you, it's beating a dead horse, as the metaphor goes.

 

[martybegan]

Your mind is mush.

That ought to be a short enough line your short attention span can undertand.

Cheers
Rumpole

Short and simple, Like all Engineers I put my effort into the understanding to simplify the explaining.

 

[martybegan]

I'll remember that the next time you link to or quote something that has more than one line.

And that would make you a hypocrite, would it not?

Cheer,
Rumpole

Argumentum ad absurdum. There is room for long explanations, but you choose those more than a person should.

It indicates a lack of conviction or understanding, being hidden by verbosity and tangents.

 

[bodecea]

"unprecedented campaign of harassment and intimidation"

P R O J E C T I O N

Gym Jordan is lucky Bragg has no legal authority in Ohio.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Evidence isn't evidence for you, it's evidence for all. Evidence isn't personal.

Since there are no white collar criminal circumstances the President could be prosecuted for without you rending that opinion, clearly, your point of view is partisan and not objective.

Cheers,
Rumpole

The whole point in going after Trump is partisan. Stormy Daniels was not some Chinese spy who slept with him or served as his driver. Then, I would be very concerned. Like Clinton, it appears Trump tried to hush her up and /or obstruct Justice but you can’t impeach him now like you people have already done so twice so you are going after him retroactively because you are afraid you can’t beat him in the ‘24 Elections.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Such mediocrity, Flops. You're not the mendacious mediocrity your comments appear to be on par with, ey?
Say it isn't so, Flops.

Did you not see words that were underlined? They link to substantiation. One of the links is to Propublica, whose methods are that of documenting meticulously all of their claims.

The underlined words link to substantiation. One I believe is Propublica, who meticulously document their claims.


Anita Hill is credible, an Blasey-Ford, is, as well. No credible counter has ever been put forth, beyond blind partisan attacks which do not understand how a woman deals with the complex issue of being sexually mistreated.

Given the tone and caliber of your response, it is clear that you fall into that category, so there is no point in debating this with you, it's beating a dead horse, as the metaphor goes.

I read your links. I saw many outlandish claims but no evidence.

 

[Rumpole]

I read your links. I saw many outlandish claims but no evidence.

the ProPublica articled linked to their evidentiary sources in several places,
clearly you didn't read it.

 

[Rumpole]

The whole point in going after Trump is partisan.

Says you? Only Trump defenders are saying that, so that proves your view is partisan.

Stormy Daniels was not some Chinese spy who slept with him or served as his driver.

So? Trump committed a crime in NY which several others in NY have been indicted for the same Crime. No one is above the law, not even the president. Does another person committing the same crime need to have slept with a spy to have been indicted? No. so your premise doesn't wash.

Then, I would be very concerned. Like Clinton, it appears Trump tried to hush her up and /or obstruct Justice but you can’t impeach him now like you people have already done so twice so you are going after him retroactively

That doesn't make sense. You are saying that it only legit indictment are for crimes committed proactively (not yet committed)?

ALL indictments are retroactive. It cannot be any other way.

because you are afraid you can’t beat him in the ‘24 Elections.

We beat him in 2020, and he has never won the majority vote.

No criminal should even be allowed on the ballot.

He is indefensible and you are defending him.

 

[Rumpole]

Argumentum ad absurdum. There is room for long explanations, but you choose those more than a person should.

It indicates a lack of conviction or understanding, being hidden by verbosity and tangents.

No, politics is highly nuanced, and you assume that all points and ideas in a nuanced field can be reduced to a line or two.
Proof that that is a falsehood is in any Op-Ed, magazine article, Book, essay, etc., etc., etc., and failure to accept that fact is revealing your ignorance. So, You have earned this one, so, congratulations! But, as the cert reveals, you just can't help yourself!

 

[Seymour Flops]

the ProPublica articled linked to their evidentiary sources in several places,
clearly you didn't read it.

Just tell me what the evidence is if you're mot embarrassed by how lame it is. Not my job to follow link to link.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Says you? Only Trump defenders are saying that, so that proves your view is partisan.

So? Trump committed a crime in NY which several others in NY have been indicted for the same Crime. No one is above the law, not even the president. Does another person committing the same crime need to have slept with a spy to have been indicted? No. so your premise doesn't wash.


That doesn't make sense. You are saying that it only legit indictment are for crimes committed proactively (not yet committed)?

ALL indictments are retroactive. It cannot be any other way.



We beat him in 2020, and he has never won the majority vote.

No criminal should even be allowed on the ballot.

He is indefensible and you are defending him.

only Partisans accuse each other as being partisans. You people clearly proved that people are above the law with the Clintons and Biden. They are above the law.

 

[Rumpole]

only Partisans accuse each other as being partisans. You people clearly proved that people are above the law with the Clintons and Biden. They are above the law.

Incompetent rebuttal; Weasel words are not an argument.

Look, if you can't frame a proper rebuttal, I'll have to put you on ignore.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Incompetent rebuttal; Weasel words are not an argument.

Look, if you can't frame a proper rebuttal, I'll have to put you on ignore.

By all means.

 

[beagle9]

Double standards? Are your frickin' kidding me?

Even if that were true, and it isn't, but IF it were true, why do you even care?

You don't give a damn that Billionaire Harlan Crow, on the board of the American Enterprise Institute, a right wing think tank
involved in just about every right wing cause, has been subsidizing Justice Thomas for 20 years to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars.

You don't give a damn about Jared's family business receiving large investments (to the tune of $2,000,000,000 for which he received a 1.25% $25,000,000 management fee) from brutal murderer Mohammed Bin Salman while he was serving as a Senior White House advisor.

You don't give a damn about Ivanka's receiving trademarks from China for her fashion brand while she made millions from China while was serving in an official White House capacity while her father was negotiating with China which raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest and misuse of her position.

So why do you even care about any abuse of power? (even though Bragg, in point fact, hasn't abused his power)

why?

Cheers,
Rumpole

If they did thing's just like the Biden's did thing's, then they should be looked at also. The American people want balance and equal justice to reign supreme, and not these witch hunts and political assassinations used in order to maintain power over the people like third world shite holes do.

 

[Rumpole]

If they did thing's just like the Biden's did thing's,

"Just like Biden did thing's"? And how did Biden do things? Hmmm?
Your question has an assumed premise.
You need to prove your assumption that Biden did anything wrong
BEFORE you can ask such a question, because that is your assumption, right?

then they should be looked at also. The American people want balance and equal justice to reign supreme, and not these witch hunts and political assassinations used in order to maintain power over the people like third world shite holes do.

Moot point, see above.

 

[SeaMajor7]

Fat Alvin Bragg citing abuse of power is the ultimate fucking ironic JOKE of the century!!!

 

[Rumpole]

Fuck off again, verbose concern troll.

Sorry, I don't honor requests from mental midgets.

Clearly you can't be taken seriously. You don't' have the intellectual chops.

Cheers,
Rumpole

 

[martybegan]

No, politics is highly nuanced, and you assume that all points and ideas in a nuanced field can be reduced to a line or two.
Proof that that is a falsehood is in any Op-Ed, magazine article, Book, essay, etc., etc., etc., and failure to accept that fact is revealing your ignorance. So, You have earned this one, so, congratulations! But, as the cert reveals, you just can't help yourself!


View attachment 776424

What an arrogant sack of shit you are. Figures you are an SJW. unwarranted and unearned arrogance is the hallmark of bougie assholes like you.

 

[martybegan]

Sorry, I don't honor requests from mental midgets.

Clearly you can't be taken seriously. You don't' have the intellectual chops.

Cheers,
Rumpole

More of that unearned arrogance.

Walrus troll is walrusing.