@jady_andison That top has been a bit small for a little while I'm guessing...here, let's take that off & not get one that fits better until we workoutnrg2GmailDotCom
@Nikki_657 You have good looks but what else can you offer a "sugar daddy" that puts you ahead of all the other beautiful ladies that such a person should PREFER you?
I've read the new indictment of President Trump by his political opponent Joe Biden's DOJ. It is without a doubt the single worst act of political corruption by the Justice Department since its creation over 150 years ago.
The Biden administration has left the rule of law and the US Constitution behind by indicting President Trump for daring to dispute the 2020 presidential election, as is his God-given right as a president, a citizen and a candidate under state, federal and constitutional law.
This sham indictment is perfectly consistent with the partisan and political abuse I suffered as the hands of Jack Smith’s prosecutors for hours as they argued with me before their grand jury using Democratic talking points on the election controversy.
Let’s be blunt: This indictment is a naked threat and act of intimidation by the Democratic Party against any and all their political opponents. The message from the Biden regime is: “We will put you in jail if you dispute elections.” A free and fair 2024 election is is officially impossible.
And, of course, Joe Biden and his political appointee Merrick Garland at the Justice Department want to distract from the conclusive evidence of Biden’s personal corruption by trying to jail and turn Trump into a political prisoner.
It well past time for Congress to do everything possible under the law to undo this attempt to wreck our republican form of government.
Let’s hope the courts finally step up and shut down this unprecedented prosecutorial abuse.
In the meantime, Judicial Watch will continue to expose and hold accountable the criminal elements in the Biden administration seeking to undo our republican form of government.
Jack will need to prove Trump's claims are false. That would mean that Jack has to show in court that "no election fraud occurred". He cannot say, "there is no evidence of fraud", because that doesn't "prove" there is no fraud. Basically the claim "there is no evidence of fraud" is rhetoric, and disguises the underlying question which is "was there fraud'? So,to actually prove there was no fraud, Jack would be required to actually look at every election, in every state, and prove that every ballot was a legitimate ballot. However, he cannot prove every ballot is legitimate. It's impossible to prove, since there is no way to trace a ballot back to the voter that cast it.