It wasn't a concession. It was the central point of my post.

I am very sorry I agree with you.

Let’s not forget that m has ‘allegedly’ been funnelled to the Biden family over the last 5 years for absolutely no legitimate business reason other than that Hunter Biden has peddled his Dad’s influence over the world. That is bribery and corruption at its highest level.

The banks who dealt with transfers filed 150 SARS (suspicious activity reports) to the authorities (FBI, NIS and DOJ) who did nothing but now as a result of the Durham report and the Senate Oversight Committee investigation are starting to release the truth.

The Biden’s set up numerous nominee and offshore companies to funnel the funds back to their family. No legitimate legal reason exist to justify that. The poster on here Wisbech tried to defend and argue that the structure could have been for tax or regulatory reasons. Utter bollox! Wisbech has worked in the food industry and is an apologist for left wing bad behaviour or criminal activity. I’m a lawyer and banker and know the red flags of money laundering and fraud.

It’s under investigation so let’s wait and see but it makes Trumps issues look small.

The never ending frustrating issue is that the mainstream liberal left wing media refuses to properly report in an impartial way.

You can say that no-one is beneath the law and will get widespread support. You can also say that a president (or ex) has to act to a higher standard and will be brought to account if he falls beneath that and I suspect most won't argue with that either. However, since when has it been a factor that running for office is a consideration that any prosecuting authority can factor in when deciding whether or not to prosecute?

I would argue that targeting one man for clearly political reasons is an affront to the stable democratic framework of executive, administration and judiciary. In this case, the executive is seeking to direct the actions of the judiciary. I I am aware that the US judiciary is politicized at senior appellate level, but it is supposed to be blind to political bias at the coal face.

For instance, the New York Stormy Daniels prosecution. The D.A is a stated Democrat and, to all appearances, is directing that prosecution in order to further his political career. How is that well-functioning democracy made manifest?

I hope another poster on this thread who characterized the various courts he is going to have to attend as "kangaroo" is wrong. I hope we are not in the world of Kafka. If the allegations fall beneath the necessarily high threshold required for criminal matters, they must and hopefully will be thrown out.

I can't stand Trump and everything he represents. However, directing public funds to hound him out of the running is beyond the pale for me.

That DAs are elected in NY is understood as is that the current one is a Democrat. They still though need to follow the law and have their allegations judged.

This case is of Trump's business and not his politics. NY has long sought to bring the Trump business to book. This case has been years in the making. So why now? He can no longer claim he is immune because he is President. He might be immune again. So now is the time. I think they would have prosecuted Trump whatever the politics he claimed to hold.

So yes, they are out to get Trump, but not because of his politics. It's much more to do with his ethics.

[Link]

Defend this one !