"If you have access to transportation"
And what if you don't?
#24 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

You shouldn't be having sex.

Classic, Bragg is breaking NY's own election law.
#12 | POSTED BY FISHPAW

to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means.

Damn you dumb.

Donner it's just about making sure everyone is safe and held accountable. Again ... much like Biden's gun registry.
#30 | POSTED BY BLUEWAFFLES

What a naive take. HAHAHA!

#2 | POSTED BY LAMPLIGHTER

How about Hope Hicks? Does that fit your bill?

#31 | POSTED BY BLUEWAFFLES

Who gives ----.

Oh no's ... Babies will live. How unfortunate.
#71 | POSTED BY BLUEWAFFLES

Some of those "babies" are already dead and yet you choose to support the State in forcing the mothers to give birth to dead babies. YOU support that, sicko.

When was the last time you gave birth to a dead baby?

Oh no's...you dumb as fnkc.

It's so morally righteous!
#4 | POSTED BY HUMTAKE

You're so fnkcin' stupid.

#10 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

GTF out of here, hypocrite. And that's not personal, that's official.

Prior to the 1950s, nearly 80% of white adults in the 11 states of the former Confederacy identified as Democrats, compared to only about 40% of white adults in other parts of the country.

However, over time, white Southerners began to leave the Democratic Party and join the Republican Party, with the percentage of white Southerners identifying as Democrats dropping to around 30% by the early 2000s.

This shift is attributed primarily to "racially conservative" attitudes among white Southerners, rather than just the Democratic Party's support for civil rights legislation in the 1960s.

It's the company he keeps, BLUEWAFFLES.

Are you really that short-sighted? Or just begging for attention?

Let us know when you see a Nazi flag at a Biden campaign event. Until then....

#7 | POSTED BY EBERLY

The vast majority of voters on both sides are NOT like us, they are not paying attention in any significant manner.

#4 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

You of all people asking for specifics?

JFC have some self-awareness for one time in your pitiful existence.

As for Russian collusion - it doesn't get more blatant and corrupt than the Steele Dossier.
#23 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Oh yes it does. But wouldn't expect a political hack like yourself to recognize it.

Yeah, Trump didn't need Hankey's donation of $80K, but he certainly took it without blinking an eye. That and a middle finger to his MAGA supporters who were duped into thinking Trump didn't need ANYBODY's money to run for POTUS.

What a bunch of suckers.

Good thing that the country has no serious problems that need addressed....
#10 | POSTED BY MSGT

Yeah like impeaching Biden for...nothing? Absolutely agree with you.

#18 | POSTED BY CORKY

You make it sound soooooo simple

Had Trump conceded the election, just like every other losing POTUS candidate in history, Ashli Babbitt and five police officers would still be alive.

Quit complaining about the stink and go wash your upper lip already.

That Guy Who Backed Trump's Bond? He May Not Have the Money

In a court filing on Thursday, Knight Speciality Insurance Company revealed that its liquid assets don't meet the needs of Trump's already minimized bond. According to a financial assessment, the company, owned by billionaire Don Hankey, has just $138 million in "surplus." Knight would therefore need to spend 127 percent of its reserves in order to cover Trump's bond"far more than the 10 percent of a state-regulated suretor's surplus that's allowed by New York law.

Shah also claimed that his company had more than $1 billion in equity, despite financial statements"which were only obtained after New York court clerks rejected the company's original bond posting and ordered it to refile"indicating the firm only held $26 million in "cash and bank deposits," with $483 million in stocks and bonds.

James's office has given Trump and his new financial bedfellows 10 days to "justify the surety."

Trump's Lawyers Told the Court That No One Would Give Him a Bond. Then He Got a Lifeline, but They Didn't Tell the Judges.

[Trump's] lawyers had told the appellate court it was a "practical impossibility" to get a bond for the full amount of the lower court's judgment, $464 million. All of the 30 or so firms Trump had approached balked, either refusing to take the risk or not wanting to accept real estate as collateral, they said. That made raising the full amount "an impossible bond requirement."

But before the judges ruled, the impossible became possible: A billionaire lender approached Trump about providing a bond for the full amount.

The lawyers never filed paperwork alerting the appeals court. That failure may have violated ethics rules, legal experts say.

In an interview with ProPublica, billionaire California financier Don Hankey said he reached out to Trump's camp several days before the bond was lowered, expressing willingness to offer the full amount and to use real estate as collateral.

"I saw that they were rejected by everyone and I said, Gee, that doesn't seem like a difficult bond to post,'" Hankey said.

As negotiations between Hankey and Trump's representatives were underway, the appellate court ruled in Trump's favor, lowering the bond to $175 million. The court did not give an explanation for its ruling.

Hankey ended up giving Trump a bond for the lowered amount.

It's unclear if Trump lawyer Alina Habba or the rest of his legal team were made aware that Hankey reached out about a deal for the full amount. Trump's legal team did not respond to requests for comment.

After ProPublica reached out to Trump's representatives, Hankey called back and revised his account. He said he had heard "indirectly" about ProPublica's subsequent inquiries to Trump's lawyers. In the second conversation, he said that accepting the real estate as collateral would have been complicated and that he wouldn't have been able to "commit" to providing a bond in the full amount "until I evaluate the assets."

...

New York state's rules of professional conduct for lawyers forbid attorneys from knowingly making false statements to a court. At the time Trump's lawyers told the court that meeting the bond would be impossible, Hankey said he had not yet reached out to the Trump team.

But the rules of conduct also dictate that lawyers must "correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made" to the court.

"If that deal was on the table for the taking, the representation from the earlier time would be untrue, and the lawyer would have an obligation to correct," said Stephen Gillers, a legal ethics professor at New York University Law School.

In the rules of conduct for lawyers, the failure to update an important piece of evidence would fall under what's referred to as the "duty of candor to a tribunal," said Ellen Yaroshefsky, a professor of legal ethics at Hofstra Law.

"Any judge is going to be furious that this wasn't corrected," she said.

...

In his first interview with ProPublica, Hankey said that when he heard Trump was having trouble getting a bond, he reached out to Trump's camp, several days before the bond was reduced, with an offer to help.

course it came from the lab but there's still people in denial.
#81 | POSTED BY BILLJOHNSON

No direct evidence, which to your point, is why people are debating.

Swallow it.

Nothing but wah wah wah Trump isn't implementing mandatory stay home.
#66 | POSTED BY BILLJOHNSON

By whom. Be specific.

There are a few people who get into conspiracy theories for pure entertainment value, but for the True Believers it's a mythology that provides a scapegoat when what they really need is an education and a mirror.
#7 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Interestingly enough, this is how the systemic racism in the justice system narrative started out. The difference being, researchers actuallyed delved into the data and proved the conspiracy theory as being accurate. Dr. Michelle Alexander, author of "The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness" initially sought out to disprove systemic racism in the criminal justice system, but when confronted with the data and evidence, acquiesced that it's true.

Not supporting RFK Jr.'s suggestion here, for the record.

The parasite has entered my ----

#216 | POSTED BY EBERLY

Meeeow

So Trump needs his supporters to think we are screwed if he doesn't win. Yet, Biden and his media Allie's claim our Democracy will end if Trump wins.
#205 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

That's very good. You have any reason to believe one is less likely than the other?