Trump pardons Nevada politician who paid for cosmetic surgery with funds to honor a slain officer (2 Viewers)

[W_Heisenberg]

Do you not understand the question?

Cosmo, I suppose not, but did it occur to your question wasn't written well? Communication is a two-way street.

I mean draw out the case of corruption against Trump, from start to finish, pledge to prestige. Should be easy for this "most corrupt President ever."

I think I gave you a pretty good list. Did you find the list confusing? You know what? I got something better for you.

Senator Murphy does a much better job than me anyway. Murphy made the case about two days ago. Watch the whole thing and tell me what you think:



Highlights:

Ramping up public corruption: turning public office into a profit center, openly selling policy favors, contracts, and access.

Dismantling of oversight: In the first days, Trump fired inspectors general, and ethics watchdogs.

Pay‑to‑play policymaking: Major donors get executive orders and dropped investigations: oil and gas contributors saw environmental rollbacks. Good examples include, Amazon paid $40 million for a Trump family documentary, Tesla/Starlink won huge contracts.

Selling access and influence: From the Trump meme coin to $1–5 million Mar‑a‑Lago meetings, plus a $500 k Executive Branch club, Trump is openly trading face‑time with the president for cash.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

You attend expensive, exclusive clubs, you get access to rich, powerful people. You never networked before?

Wow.

Cosmo, how do you define public corruption, and is it your opinion that public corruption a bad thing? Do you think it's something people shouldn't engage in? Can you give me a few examples of public corruption that you would consider bad enough to prosecute? Let me also put it another way, is there any form of misconduct in the form of public corruption that Trump could engage in that would turn you against him?

I ask because I sort of get the sense you don't a shit about anything involving public corruption. I run into this all the time with Trump supporters. It's like they can no longer recognize the difference between right and wrong.

I ask you because to me this club seems corrupt on its face, and it confuses me that you don't immediately recognize the corruption. The club is being advertised as a way to meet Trump-appointed officials. The club itself is directly connected, financially, to Trump's son and Trump's political allies. They are the owners of this club. This is pay-to-play politics in its purest form. How can you not see the blatant corruption happening here?

This is not normal. Surely you understand this?

 

[bomberfox]

So when do we start raiding mar a lago?

 

[Cosmo]

Cosmo, I suppose not, but did it occur to your question wasn't written well? Communication is a two-way street.



I think I gave you a pretty good list.

It's like asking for specific instructions on how to replace a car engine and getting a list of car parts with no instructions. Clearly, no, you didn't and still don't understand the question.

Did you find the list confusing? You know what? I got something better for you.

Senator Murphy does a much better job than me anyway. Murphy made the case about two days ago. Watch the whole thing and tell me what you think:

The video is basically: people who think Trump will push for policies that benefit them give Trump political contributions, Trump wins and pushes policies that will benefit said people. Like...no shit! Is it different with other politicians? Do other politicians get political contributions only from people who think he's a terrible President that won't do anything to benefit them? Do you not understand why people support and vote for one politician over another?

Highlights:

Ramping up public corruption: turning public office into a profit center, openly selling policy favors, contracts, and access.

Dismantling of oversight: In the first days, Trump fired inspectors general, and ethics watchdogs.

Pay‑to‑play policymaking: Major donors get executive orders and dropped investigations: oil and gas contributors saw environmental rollbacks. Good examples include, Amazon paid $40 million for a Trump family documentary, Tesla/Starlink won huge contracts.

Selling access and influence: From the Trump meme coin to $1–5 million Mar‑a‑Lago meetings, plus a $500 k Executive Branch club, Trump is openly trading face‑time with the president for cash.

 

[Cosmo]

Wow.

Cosmo, how do you define public corruption, and is it your opinion that public corruption a bad thing? Do you think it's something people shouldn't engage in? Can you give me a few examples of public corruption that you would consider bad enough to prosecute? Let me also put it another way, is there any form of misconduct in the form of public corruption that Trump could engage in that would turn you against him?

I ask because I sort of get the sense you don't a shit about anything involving public corruption. I run into this all the time with Trump supporters. It's like they can no longer recognize the difference between right and wrong.

I ask you because to me this club seems corrupt on its face, and it confuses me that you don't immediately recognize the corruption. The club is being advertised as a way to meet Trump-appointed officials. The club itself is directly connected, financially, to Trump's son and Trump's political allies. They are the owners of this club. This is pay-to-play politics in its purest form. How can you not see the blatant corruption happening here?

This is not normal. Surely you understand this?

Whatever public corruption is, I'd say it's sometimes difficult to separate it from legitimate actions of politicians acting to further the goals of their constituents. Here, let's look at an example:

Michael Bloomberg supports the trans agenda, at least in part:

Mike Bloomberg on the Issues

www.ontheissues.org

Mike will reverse President Trump's ban on transgender people serving in the military and grant an honorabledischarge to servicemembers who were forced out under the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy.

Source: 2020 Presidential campaign website MikeBloomberg.com, Jan 20, 2020

Michael Bloomberg gives Joe Biden a donation:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-09-13/michael-bloomberg-to-spend-100-million-in-florida-to-help-biden

Biden "expands" Title IX to include gender identity, but it's ruled unlawful and struck down.

Federal Judge Strikes Down Biden Administration’s Title IX Rule - CUPA-HR

On January 9, a federal judge in the Eastern District of Kentucky Court vacated the Biden administration’s Title IX regulations. The order strikes down the regulations nationwide, reverting enforcement back to the 2019 Title IX regulations set by the Trump administration.

www.cupahr.org

So there you have it: rich person wants something, rich person pays Biden, Biden commits what could be considered an abuse of power to try and get that rich person what he wants.

So is that corruption? Why or why not?

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Whatever public corruption is, I'd say it's sometimes difficult to separate it from legitimate actions of politicians acting to further the goals of their constituents.

So, the goal here is to try and define what would be a legitimate action and what would be public corruption.

So there you have it: rich person wants something, rich person pays Biden, Biden commits what could be considered an abuse of power to try and get that rich person what he wants.

For the time being let's put aside politics. Let's just simply define public corruption in the abstract.

You wrote: "rich person wants something, rich person pays public official, public official does what could be considered an abuse of power to get what rich person wants."

Is that your definition of public corruption?

So is that corruption? Why or why not?

I'm asking you. What is your definition of public corruption? Is it what you wrote above?

Is it simply: "rich person wants something, rich person pays public official, public official does what could be considered an abuse of power to get what rich person wants."

 

[Cosmo]

So, the goal here is to try and define what would be a legitimate action and what would be public corruption.



For the time being let's put aside politics. Let's just simply define public corruption in the abstract.

Earlier you asked for examples. I introduce an example for us to discuss, and now you want to go back to abstracts? Why don't you address the example I provided? Is that corruption or not? If so, why? If not, why not? You asked for this!

You wrote: "rich person wants something, rich person pays public official, public official does what could be considered an abuse of power to get what rich person wants."

Is that your definition of public corruption?

No, from the evidence I posted regarding the Biden Title IX case, I can't say it's corruption. It sounds more like a case of special interests, but that alone is not necessarily corruption.

I'm asking you. What is your definition of public corruption? Is it what you wrote above?

Is it simply: "rich person wants something, rich person pays public official, public official does what could be considered an abuse of power to get what rich person wants."

 

[CaughtInThe]

I don't have an angle. I just think Trump is the most corrupt President we've ever had.

He is.

And he's supported by "Christians".

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Earlier you asked for examples. I introduce an example for us to discuss, and now you want to go back to abstracts? Why don't you address the example I provided? Is that corruption or not? If so, why? If not, why not? You asked for this!

After reading your post it occurred to me that we might have a better discussion if we arrive at a definition of public corruption that is detached from our contemporary political discourse. When I asked the question, and asked for a few examples, it did not occur to me that you'd immediately make it about Biden. We can talk about contemporary politics later, but I think it might be more helpful to arrive a definition we both agree on first.

No, from the evidence I posted regarding the Biden Title IX case, I can't say it's corruption. It sounds more like a case of special interests, but that alone is not necessarily corruption.

Okay, so, let me give you a few "textbook" definitions of public corruption and see if you agree with any of them:

1. Cornell Law School's Legal Dictionary:

Public corruption involves a breach of public trust and/or abuse of position by federal, state, or local officials and their private sector accomplices. By broad definition, a government official, whether elected, appointed or hired, may violate federal law when he/she asks, demands, solicits, accepts, or agrees to receive anything of value in return for being influenced in the performance of their official duties.

public corruption

www.law.cornell.edu

2. Transparency International's Definition:

We define corruption as the abuse of entrusted power for private gain.

Corruption can take many forms, and can include behaviours like:

• public servants demanding or taking money or favours in exchange for services,
• politicians misusing public money or granting public jobs or contracts to their sponsors, friends and families,
• corporations bribing officials to get lucrative deals

3. DOJ's Definition (General Definition from the Northern District of Florida):

Public corruption is a breach of the public’s trust by government officials who use their public office to obtain personal gain. It is a violation of federal law for any federal, state, or local government official to ask for or receive anything of value in exchange for, or because of, any official act. Under federal law, any person who offers or pays a bribe is also guilty. These crimes are the result of secret deals, sealed with whispered conversations, quick handshakes, and money paid “under the table.” Because of the secretive nature of bribes and shady deals, such crimes are often difficult to detect and even more difficult to prove without the assistance of concerned citizens.

Let me give you some generalized examples based on a sort of loose definition from those listed above, and see if you agree with any being good examples of public corruption

Example 1: A city building inspector tells a developer that the new apartment tower cannot open until several costly safety fixes are done. Off the record, the inspector says the tower can pass tomorrow if the developer hands over twenty‑five thousand dollars. The developer pays. The inspector signs the occupancy permit even though the fire exits are still blocked.

Example 2: A state purchasing officer controls which company repaves a busy highway. Her cousin owns a small paving firm that bids two million dollars above the next lowest offer. The officer secretly edits the bid rules so only her cousin’s firm meets the new “experience” requirement, then awards the contract. Later she receives a hidden share of the inflated payment through a sham “consulting” fee.

Example 3: A federal lawmaker sits on a committee that will vote on rules affecting cell providers. A lobbyist flies the lawmaker and his spouse to a private island resort, pays for meals, and promises campaign donations. After the trip the lawmaker votes for an amendment that weakens consumer protections and directly boosts the provider’s profits.

What do you think?

From these 3 examples above, what sort of general principles can be derived that would help us agree on a common definition?

 

[Cosmo]

After reading your post it occurred to me that we might have a better discussion if we arrive at a definition of public corruption that is detached from our contemporary political discourse. When I asked the question, and asked for a few examples, it did not occur to me that you'd immediately make it about Biden.

So basically you're protecting your pro-Biden/Democrat double standard and why you're changing your approach.

We can talk about contemporary politics later, but I think it might be more helpful to arrive a definition we both agree on first.



Okay, so, let me give you a few "textbook" definitions of public corruption and see if you agree with any of them:

1. Cornell Law School's Legal Dictionary:

Public corruption involves a breach of public trust and/or abuse of position by federal, state, or local officials and their private sector accomplices. By broad definition, a government official, whether elected, appointed or hired, may violate federal law when he/she asks, demands, solicits, accepts, or agrees to receive anything of value in return for being influenced in the performance of their official duties.

public corruption

www.law.cornell.edu

2. Transparency International's Definition:

We define corruption as the abuse of entrusted power for private gain.

Corruption can take many forms, and can include behaviours like:

• public servants demanding or taking money or favours in exchange for services,
• politicians misusing public money or granting public jobs or contracts to their sponsors, friends and families,
• corporations bribing officials to get lucrative deals

3. DOJ's Definition (General Definition from the Northern District of Florida):

Public corruption is a breach of the public’s trust by government officials who use their public office to obtain personal gain. It is a violation of federal law for any federal, state, or local government official to ask for or receive anything of value in exchange for, or because of, any official act. Under federal law, any person who offers or pays a bribe is also guilty. These crimes are the result of secret deals, sealed with whispered conversations, quick handshakes, and money paid “under the table.” Because of the secretive nature of bribes and shady deals, such crimes are often difficult to detect and even more difficult to prove without the assistance of concerned citizens.

Let me give you some generalized examples based on a sort of loose definition from those listed above, and see if you agree with any being good examples of public corruption

Example 1: A city building inspector tells a developer that the new apartment tower cannot open until several costly safety fixes are done. Off the record, the inspector says the tower can pass tomorrow if the developer hands over twenty‑five thousand dollars. The developer pays. The inspector signs the occupancy permit even though the fire exits are still blocked.

Example 2: A state purchasing officer controls which company repaves a busy highway. Her cousin owns a small paving firm that bids two million dollars above the next lowest offer. The officer secretly edits the bid rules so only her cousin’s firm meets the new “experience” requirement, then awards the contract. Later she receives a hidden share of the inflated payment through a sham “consulting” fee.

Example 3: A federal lawmaker sits on a committee that will vote on rules affecting cell providers. A lobbyist flies the lawmaker and his spouse to a private island resort, pays for meals, and promises campaign donations. After the trip the lawmaker votes for an amendment that weakens consumer protections and directly boosts the provider’s profits.

What do you think?

I think your definition is vague, but I'll use it anyway: Biden is a public servant who took money from Bloomberg in exchange for the service of unlawfully expanding Title IX. This is not the definition of corruption I picked, by the way, it's the one you posted. So based on this definition you provided, are you ready to declare Biden corrupt?

From these 3 examples above, what sort of general principles can be derived that would help us agree on a common definition, and do they line up with any of the 3 definitions I gave above?

 

[CaughtInThe]

Maybe Trump will sit her on top of one of his birthday tanks.

 

[rhinefire]

Is Trump deliberately trying to piss of his own red hats?

 

[W_Heisenberg]

So basically you're protecting your pro-Biden/Democrat double standard and why you're changing your approach.

I want to engage in a discussion with you about both Biden and Trump, but it's going to be difficult for both of us if we can't agree on a definition of public corruption.

I think your definition is vague, but I'll use it anyway: Biden is a public servant who took money from Bloomberg in exchange for the service of unlawfully expanding Title IX. This is not the definition of corruption I picked, by the way, it's the one you posted. So based on this definition you provided, are you ready to declare Biden corrupt?

I didn't actually present a definition I agreed with yet. I was trying to give you more options and let you choose which definition you prefer, or allow you to come up with your own definition.

My definition might be:

Public corruption is the abuse of entrusted public power by officials, often in concert with private actors, who solicit or accept something of value in exchange for influencing how they perform their official duties, thereby securing a private gain.

Is this a good definition? Do you agree with it?

The generic case examples I gave above are examples that meet the definition.

I don't agree with your Bloomberg example as being evidence of public corruption. Just donating money and hoping for a policy change does not meet my definition of public corruption.

Public corruption happens when an official misuses public power, takes something of value, and gives an official favor in return, letting someone walk away with private gain. Bloomberg’s contribution doesn’t fit: it was an open, regulated campaign donation with no quid pro quo or private payoff, so it isn’t public corruption.

The 2024 Title IX rewrite was tossed because a judge said the agency overreached, not because of Bloomberg's donation. The fact the policy change was found to have violated the law is not relevant to whether or not Bloomberg or Biden engaged in public corruption. You can argue it was bad, generally, maybe, but I don't think you can argue it was public corruption, at least not according to the definition I outline.

Do you agree with my definition?

 

[Cosmo]

I want to engage in a discussion with you about both Biden and Trump, but it's going to be difficult for both of us if we can't agree on a definition of public corruption.



I didn't actually present a definition I agreed with yet.

No, you presented a definition which I demonstrated could be usable against Biden, so now you're gonna scrap it and look for another one because you don't want to accuse your beloved former President of corruption. Predictable.

I was trying to give you more options and let you choose which definition you prefer, or allow you to come up with your own definition.

My definition might be:

Public corruption is the abuse of entrusted public power by officials, often in concert with private actors, who solicit or accept something of value in exchange for influencing how they perform their official duties, thereby securing a private gain.

Is this a good definition? Do you agree with it?

Looks like yet another vague, useless definition that could be applied to either Biden or Trump.

The generic case examples I gave above are examples that meet the definition.

I don't agree with your Bloomberg example as being evidence of public corruption. Just donating money and hoping for a policy change does not meet my definition of public corruption.

Public corruption happens when an official misuses public power, takes something of value, and gives an official favor in return, letting someone walk away with private gain. Bloomberg’s contribution doesn’t fit: it was an open, regulated campaign donation with no quid pro quo or private payoff, so it isn’t public corruption.

First of all, your argument doesn't make sense. You're attempting to say it's not corruption because it's "open," but being "closed" isn't even a requirement of the corruption definition in your preceding sentence.

The 2024 Title IX rewrite was tossed because a judge said the agency overreached, not because of Bloomberg's donation.

It's just a piece of the puzzle. Try to follow along:

"Biden is a public servant (this is the public official part) who took money (this is the takes something of value part) from Bloomberg in exchange for the service of unlawfully (this is the misuses public power part) expanding Title IX (this is the letting someone walk away with private gain part)."

The fact the policy change was found to have violated the law is not relevant to whether or not Bloomberg or Biden engaged in public corruption. You can argue it was bad, generally, maybe, but I don't think you can argue it was public corruption, at least not according to the definition I outline.

Do you agree with my definition?

Even you don't seem to agree with your definition given that you're acquitting Biden of corruption by referencing a parameter not present in your own definition just one sentence prior to the acquittal. Honestly, any serious debate that involves Trump being corrupt and Biden not being corrupt went out the window a long time ago, certainly by the time he gave a general, unlimited pardon to Hunter.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

No, you presented a definition which I demonstrated could be usable against Biden, so now you're gonna scrap it and look for another one because you don't want to accuse your beloved former President of corruption. Predictable.

Looks like yet another vague, useless definition that could be applied to either Biden or Trump.

What I wanted to do was to agree on a common, working definition of public corruption before we began debating.

And, I gave you three different definitions, from what I would consider highly reputable, definitive sources.

I gave you an example from Cornell Law School's legal dictionary.

I gave you an example from Transparency International.

I gave you an example from the U.S. District Attorney's office of the Northern District of Florida.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

First of all, your argument doesn't make sense. You're attempting to say it's not corruption because it's "open," but being "closed" isn't even a requirement of the corruption definition in your preceding sentence.

Help me understand which definition of public corruption you would prefer. And let's do this before we engage in a discussion about Trump or Biden.

It's just a piece of the puzzle. Try to follow along:

"Biden is a public servant (this is the public official part) who took money (this is the takes something of value part) from Bloomberg in exchange for the service of unlawfully (this is the misuses public power part) expanding Title IX (this is the letting someone walk away with private gain part)."

Cosmo, I'm confused, how did Title IX benefit Bloomberg? Is there something about Title IX I'm missing here? What private gain do you think Bloomberg received from Biden's change in the Title IX policy? Why would you think this is anything other than Bloomberg advocating for a policy he preferred that he thought would benefit everyone as a whole, which is what nearly everyone who volunteers or contributes to a politician does.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Even you don't seem to agree with your definition given that you're acquitting Biden of corruption by referencing a parameter not present in your own definition just one sentence prior to the acquittal.

I am just spit-balling, dude. Relax. The Open/Closed reference to Biden/Bloomberg isn't essential to my emerging understanding of the definition of public corruption.

My good-faith invitation to you was to help us both agree on a common definition of public corruption. And your reaction was basically to refuse to engage on this idea and attack Biden. Or, maybe you were just too lazy or tired or something. I don't know.

So, what I did instead, instead of just not replying, was to come up with a bunch of ideas and examples to help us both think through it. If you don't want to participate in this process, if you don't want to think through it, that's fine. I'll just do something else.

Honestly, any serious debate that involves Trump being corrupt and Biden not being corrupt went out the window a long time ago, certainly by the time he gave a general, unlimited pardon to Hunter.

I think any serious debate first involves agreeing on a common definition of public corruption.

If you don't like my definition of public corruption, the one I tried to craft from the definitions from Cornell Law School, Transparency International, and DOJ's Northern District of Florida, maybe you have some suggestions? I am all ears.

And when we have the definition we agree with we can apply it to Trump or to Biden, or to anyone else. But at least we'll have a common reference point.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Honestly, any serious debate that involves Trump being corrupt and Biden not being corrupt went out the window a long time ago, certainly by the time he gave a general, unlimited pardon to Hunter.

If we agree on the definition and it fits any of Biden's actions, then it applies.

If this same agreed-upon definition is applied to Trump, and it fits any of Trump's actions, then it applies as well.

What are you afraid of?

 

[reflechissez]

Maybe in the form of a referral for Maxine Waters so someone can make it look like she has a soul and isn’t 800 years old.

What are you babbling about?

 

[Cosmo]

Help me understand which definition of public corruption you would prefer. And let's do this before we engage in a discussion about Trump or Biden.



Cosmo, I'm confused, how did Title IX benefit Bloomberg? Is there something about Title IX I'm missing here? What private gain do you think Bloomberg received from Biden's change in the Title IX policy? Why would you think this is anything other than Bloomberg advocating for a policy he preferred that he thought would benefit everyone as a whole, which is what nearly everyone who volunteers or contributes to a politician does.

He supported the trans agenda. So anything furthering it benefits him.

If we agree on the definition and it fits any of Biden's actions, then it applies.

If this same agreed-upon definition is applied to Trump, and it fits any of Trump's actions, then it applies as well.

What are you afraid of?

I don't think there is a concrete, specific definition of corruption. Since any Presidential action can hurt or help someone, you'd essentially have to completely ban any contributions to any President or politician that ever does anything to not proclaim all of them to be corrupt. The bottom line is any contributor to a politician is done because that person will benefit from that politician acquiring power to use said power to do something that benefits said contributor.

But if you really want to play the game, for the sake of argument, I think the Cornell definition is about as good as most vague definitions. So what do you think Trump did that makes him corrupt per their definition?

 

[W_Heisenberg]

He supported the trans agenda. So anything furthering it benefits him.

But how is this any different than any random voter or any random campaign contributor supporting a candidate financially because they are ideologically committed to some particular policy or political agenda?

I don't think there is a concrete, specific definition of corruption.

Seriously?

Since any Presidential action can hurt or help someone, you'd essentially have to completely ban any contributions to any President or politician that ever does anything to not proclaim all of them to be corrupt.

But that’s not the definition of public corruption I am proposing. The mere implementation of policy or a change in policy does not, in and of itself, does not represent the breach of trust that public corruption represents.

It’s about placing trust in a person to do the job they were assigned, and that person abusing their authority to achieve a private gain at the expense of the public good.

Let’s just take the simple example of bribery, which is a sub-category of public corruption. Maybe this will help us?

Let’s say a government contractor bribes a public official so the government assigns a lucrative contract, above market value, to them instead of going through a formal review process where they try to get the lowest bid. In this case the public, taxpayers pay the inflated price, not because it helps the public, but because the official swapped public authority for private money. That swap, private gain at the public’s expense, is the essence of corruption.

Can I at least get you to agree to this?

 

[W_Heisenberg]

But if you really want to play the game, for the sake of argument, I think the Cornell definition is about as good as most vague definitions. So what do you think Trump did that makes him corrupt per their definition?

I'd love to, but before we begin I'd like you to be very comfortable with the definition. Are you sure there is nothing you'd like to add to the definition to make it less vague? I ask because I sort of get the sense you're not fully on board with the definition I've proposed. And when you offer up the Title IX example, it makes it seem like you don't accept my definition.

 

[Cosmo]

But how is this any different than any random voter or any random campaign contributor supporting a candidate financially because they are ideologically committed to some particular policy or political agenda?

Other than the money-per-contributor being much bigger, not much, I suppose. But then I wasn't using this to claim Biden is corrupt, just showing how a vague definition can lead one to that conclusion.

Seriously?



But that’s not the definition of public corruption I am proposing. The mere implementation of policy or a change in policy does not, in and of itself, does not represent the breach of trust that public corruption represents.

It’s about placing trust in a person to do the job they were assigned, and that person abusing their authority to achieve a private gain at the expense of the public good.

Let’s just take the simple example of bribery, which is a sub-category of public corruption. Maybe this will help us?

Let’s say a government contractor bribes a public official so the government assigns a lucrative contract, above market value, to them instead of going through a formal review process where they try to get the lowest bid. In this case the public, taxpayers pay the inflated price, not because it helps the public, but because the official swapped public authority for private money. That swap, private gain at the public’s expense, is the essence of corruption.

Can I at least get you to agree to this?

Yes.

I'd love to, but before we begin I'd like you to be very comfortable with the definition. Are you sure there is nothing you'd like to add to the definition to make it less vague? I ask because I sort of get the sense you're not fully on board with the definition I've proposed. And when you offer up the Title IX example, it makes it seem like you don't accept my definition.

I think it's a good general definition. Let it rip!

 

[CaughtInThe]

To be honest, I think MAGA is getting more and more stressed out.

 

[Jay Falcon]

There were only, what, two Presidents who never pardoned anyone. Is the left going to claim that any President who ever pardoned anyone is a "criminal?"

This might be one of the weakest Trump ass-kissing defenses I've ever read. Why even post this dumb shit?