Being ID’d like that must have been Terryfying

I mean, ask yourself how many times you’ve seen Biden and other Dems insist that is very important we have a strong and respectable Republican party in this country?

I think they’re in on the game.

Looks like I found a new book to read

Conspiracy theory in the sense that they are, in fact, conspiring lol

Consent manufacturing machine goes brrrrrr

No doubt, but I’m specifically referring to comment sections of news agency posts. I feel (very anecdotally) that it seemed like the reception was near universally positive in the immediate aftermath of the event and the day after, but checking the comments on newer posts from those same news media accounts today feels like a switch has flipped and the sentiments expressed are now much closer to a 50:50 positive to bootlicker ratio.

I don’t know how accurate my observations are, and I partly posted this to see if others have noticed the same shift or if I am just extrapolating from too small of a sample size.

Oh, I’m sure there is organic versions of these sentiments going around.

It’s more that, anecdotally for me at least, in the immediate aftermath of this event and the day after, the reaction seemed to be near universally positive even on the news agency posts, with only a few bootlicker posts sprinkled in.

Whereas today, the ratio to positive reaction to bootlicker seemed a lot closer to 50:50. I know it’s not exactly a rigorous measure, but if it was entirely organic sentiment I don’t think there would be such a rapid shift (that I may or may not just be imagining)

Yeah, that’s the idea. This hearing was not the murder trial, so evidence pertaining to guilt or innocence is unlikely to have been discussed since it was not relevant to the matter at hand.

Which, as you said, means we have to wait for the trial to know anything conclusively. But the fact that he only disputed the cash does not necessarily mean he is admitting to the rest of it.

It’s me, I’m everyone

You are either very credulous or intentionally engaging in bad faith, and I don’t much care to figure out which

I admire your continued professionalism

Kremlin-aligned government

Me when I want to make having completely normal relations with a directly neighboring country sound sinister, when everyone knows that a Ukraine with true self determination obviously welcomes an administration installed by a US backed coup in order to use the country as a forward outpost/cannon fodder in their ceaseless aggression and military encirclement of their geopolitical targets.

This is some professional level obliviousness, willful ignorance, and weaponized misunderstanding on display. Bravo.

Remember when burning a police precinct had a higher approval rating than any of the presidential candidates?

Pepridge Farms remembers

They’ve provided a source, indicating that they have done investigation into the issue.

The quote isn’t “If you don’t do the specific investigation that I want you to do and come to the same conclusion that I have, then no right to speak.”

If you believe their investigation led them to an erroneous position, it is now incumbent on you to make that case and provide your supporting evidence.

I just saw CNN’s reporting on the hearing, and they only refer to it as foreign currency and didn’t give specifics.

I don’t know if other sources give more detail.

Like a wise man once said, “Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good”

Regarding the “he only disputed the cash” bit:

My understanding is that this isn’t the murder trial, so none of the other items would have been brought up because they aren’t relevant to the hearing. The only thing this hearing was for is whether he should be held behind bars and for how long, and the cash was relevant to make that determination because it was being argued that the cash (and in particular the fact that part of it was foreign currency) indicates that he’s a flight risk and is trying to flee the country. That was being used as the basis for asking the judge to rule that he should be held without bail pending trial.

This wouldn’t be the time or place for disputing the facts of the case because there is no case at this moment. No trial has occurred, and this courtroom doesn’t even have jurisdiction to hold a trial for this case. The New York prosecutors office would need to make a request for extradition and he would need to be tried in a New York court.

So the fact that he only disputed the cash doesn’t necessarily mean he is admitting the rest belonged to him. It’s just as likely that the cash is the only thing that was disputed because it was the only thing that was presented as being relevant to make a decision regarding bail, and the other items weren’t commented on because they weren’t relevant to the matter being discussed.

If someone has more knowledge on everything that was presented in court and can comment further on the matter, feel free to correct me!