He was an adviser in the sense that he gave them all sorts of useful information without having the first clue what the hell he was giving them. I feel oddly sorry for whoever was stuck being his handler.

““Treason” was not technically the charge” - and with that statement, you actually just undercut your entire argument.

You’re making two mistakes. First, no one has said he’s been under surveillance since 2013. What was said is that he’s been “on the radar” since 2013. There’s no hard-and-fast definition of what that involves, but generally what it means is that law enforcement is pretty well aware of what you’ve been up to, and…

Hint: stop listening to people who keep saying that Trump can’t be indicted while in office. That’s very much a maybe, maybe not situation. And despite what Night-Watchman says, there most definitely is NOT a consensus on the issue.

Not so fast, there. There’s nothing remotely resembling a consensus on the question of whether a sitting president can be indicted. You’re saying pretty much the same thing that was being said 20 years ago about the possibility of deposing and/or proceeding with a civil suit against a sitting president. In case you’ve…

The next Andrea Yates.

Well, she’s getting treatment at least for the moment - as long as the cop feels like helping out. Just like she’ll be able to stay in touch with her child - as long as the cop feels like it. And you don’t actually have any idea whether the child is in a healthy setting. All you know is that the cop has a job and that…

But he wasn’t interested in or willing to help her unless she handed over her child. So apparently he was quite willing to leave her to die if he didn’t get what he wanted.

Your sister had a loving, non-judgmental support system and eventually made the decision on her own to make permanent arrangements regarding her child.

And of course, completely sober, good Christian parents have *never* abused or killed a child, right?

Are we sure they’re dead?

Not really, though. The EC ceased to be any kind of check on the possibility of preventing a total lunatic from sitting in the Oval Office the minute states passed laws criminalizing the so-called “faithless electors”.

Well, aside from the fact that that the supposed Russian uranium investor had sold out his interest in the company years before the donations were made, there’s also the less-than-minor detail that those donations were made to a charitable foundation that didn’t personally benefit HRC in the slightest.

“I will not accept the notion that Russia swayed the election to Trump.”

As long as they order by yelling, “Motherfucker, bring me some more iced tea!”

I’m not sure what a collectivist game is, but I know that if you want to be an individualist, you can’t play them, because none of the individualists play such games.

You seem a bit confused. Nothing in the Civil Rights Act calls for a government shutdown of a business because of the owner’s beliefs. He can believe whatever nonsense he wants - he just has to treat everyone who walks through his door the same way, regardless of race, gender, or religion.

“No one who is openly racist in 2018 is going to have a business thrive.”

Except polls don’t say that “x” will be the result. Polls do not predict the future. They can tell you what a representative sample of people said they were going to do at that moment in time. They can’t promise you that people won’t change their minds. That’s why polls have a margin of error.

Oh, for heaven’s sake. It’s not ‘editorializing’ to point out that mutually exclusive statements are, in fact, confusing. Frankly, I’d like to see more pushback from reporters when SHS starts with the “the president’s words speak for themselves” nonsense. Something along the lines of, “Well, no, they don’t, or we…