₦airaland Forum

Deepthoughts:
He who laughs last laughs the best,the whole world can laugh at trump no problem,when I talk about embarrassment I'm referring to the possibility of trump getting hold of concrete evidence proving his claims n what he would do with it, your line of argument is same as those who said buhari producing a picture of his classmates against his credentials be was an enough proof but such can not be accepted from any other Nigerian but today the result is here for all to see.

Deepthoughts:
you are just been clever by half with your argument, how can people just change their signatures for an important document like that, besides mist of the ballots in question are mail in ballots, well don't worry trump will surely peacefully exit the white house by jan20 but pray the democrats Biden n the US are not eventually embarrassed,no one should blame trump then.

Deepthoughts:
let me ask you a simple question,what do you make of the vehement refusal to do ballots signatures verification? please be sincere.

Deepthoughts:
It's clear you hate trump to the point of been blind to fact,the ballot signature verification was never allowed n so was the publication of the results of the forensic analysis of the Dominion voting machines to produce incontrovertible evidences,so how did any judge rejected Trump's case based on merit?,say the truth, isn't it suspicious that the verification of ballots signatures was so vehemently opposed considering that if the elections were truly clean trump would have been disgraced finally yet his opponents opposed it n same with the forensic analysis of the Dominion voting machines?,trump will certainly leave the white house when his time is due but I fear the democrats n US will greatly embarrassed in the nearest future.

Deepthoughts:
You are underrating what men can do, surely trump was weird n he was hated much for it,his opponents felt he was embarrassing the US n must be gotten rid of at all cost,an innocent mind fears no accusation,I initially doubted Trump's claims but those two incidents made me to have a rethink because ballots signatures n forensic investigation would have prove or disprove the issue of fraud beyond doubt,so vehemently rejecting both creates serious doubts.

Deepthoughts:
Two incidents made me to believe there's some truth in Trump's claims of voter fraud,the vehement opposition fo Georgia governor to ballot signature verification n the refusal to allow the disclosure of the results of the forensic analysis of the Dominion voting machines,I hope the US would not be disgrace in the nearest future.

Next2Bezee:
WASHINGTON — President Trump said on Monday that Attorney General William P. Barr would depart next week, ending a tenure marked by Mr. Barr’s willingness to advance the president’s political agenda and criticism that he eroded the post-Watergate independence of the Justice Department.

Mr. Barr had in recent weeks fallen out of favor with the president after acknowledging that the department had found no widespread voter fraud, but Mr. Trump sought to play down their differences, saying in a tweet announcing Mr. Barr’s departure, “Our relationship has been a very good one, he has done an outstanding job!”

Still, his resignation allows Mr. Barr to avoid any confrontation with the president over his refusal to advance Mr. Trump’s efforts to rewrite the election results.

Mr. Barr praised Mr. Trump in a resignation letter for overcoming what the attorney general said was an unprecedented effort by his political opponents to take down the president.

“No tactic, no matter how abusive and deceitful, was out of bounds,” Mr. Barr said. “The nadir of this campaign was the effort to cripple, if not oust, your administration with frenzied and baseless accusations of collusion with Russia.”

Jeffrey A. Rosen, the No. 2 at the Justice Department, will take over as acting attorney general when Mr. Barr leaves on Dec. 23, and Richard Donoghue, an official in Mr. Rosen’s office, will become the deputy attorney general.

Mr. Barr, 70, who also served as attorney general in the George Bush administration, was viewed initially in Washington as a stabilizing force in the chaotic Trump era, but that expectation dissipated as he took aim at the Justice Department’s own investigation into the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia that had long antagonized the president.

Mr. Barr brought the Justice Department closer to the White House than any attorney general in a half-century. Defying the distance that federal law enforcement officials have typically maintained from campaign politics, Mr. Barr spent the months leading up to the election echoing Mr. Trump’s unsubstantiated claims of widespread voter fraud. He also told an interviewer that the country would be “irrevocably committed to the socialist path” if the president were not re-elected.

But he backed off the warnings of voter fraud after the election, saying little publicly for weeks until he said that the department had received no evidence that would overturn Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s election. “To date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election,” Mr. Barr told The Associated Press.

That departure from the president was a rare step for Mr. Barr, who had worked to undermine the most significant conclusions of the Russia investigation. Weeks after taking office, he released a summary of the report by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, that a judge later called distorted and misleading, and he held a news conference just before the full report was released where he described it in the best possible light for Mr. Trump.

Mr. Barr appointed a special prosecutor, John H. Durham, to inspect whether the inquiry was wrongfully opened and he sought the withdrawal of the prosecution of Michael T. Flynn, the president’s first national security adviser. He overruled prosecutors who requested a tough sentencing recommendation for Roger J. Stone Jr., one of Mr. Trump’s longtime advisers.

Mr. Trump also handed him sweeping declassification powers to learn about any intelligence gathered in 2016 about Russia’s election interference, giving Mr. Barr leverage to root around at the C.I.A. and other intelligence agencies.

His tenure prompted a handful of career prosecutors to publicly criticize him, highly unusual actions that flouted Justice Department rules prohibiting employees from publicly discussing sensitive internal matters.

“Prosecutors are supposed to do their jobs without regard to party or politics,” Michael Dion, a prosecutor in Seattle, wrote in a letter to the editor in The Seattle Times. “Barr, however, is turning the Justice Department into a shield to protect the president and his henchmen.”

Mr. Barr publicly broke with Mr. Trump rarely; before his dismissal of voter fraud claims, the most prominent example came during the fight over Mr. Stone’s sentencing recommendation. After prosecutors recommended that Mr. Stone be imprisoned for seven to nine years for obstructing a congressional inquiry that threatened to embarrass the president, Mr. Trump publicly called it “horrible and very unfair.”

Mr. Barr’s intervention hours later prompted widespread criticism that the Justice Department was bending to White House pressure. In an effort to quell the criticism, Mr. Barr publicly responded that Mr. Trump’s comments made his job “impossible” by impairing his ability to act without facing accusations of bowing to political interference.

Mr. Trump rebuffed him, continuing to assail the criminal prosecution of Mr. Stone and other issues related to the Russia investigation. But he did not fire Mr. Barr, who was also said to have considered resigning. Some suggested the president had mollified him by agreeing not to cite him in a way that made it seem like he was simply Mr. Trump’s lackey.

Mr. Barr took over the Justice Department after the president forced out Jeff Sessions as attorney general in November 2018, reassuming a position Mr. Barr held roughly a quarter of a century ago under President George H.W. Bush. He quickly became one of the most powerful members of Mr. Trump’s cabinet.

He swiftly used his discretion to disclose nearly all of a 448-page report by Mr. Mueller on Russian interference in the 2016 election. That decision gave some critics of Mr. Trump hope that the new attorney general would help curb the president’s excesses and protect the department from political interference.

But that faded as Mr. Barr made decisions that dovetailed precisely with Mr. Trump’s wishes and the demands of his political allies. In ever stronger terms, he attacked the F.B.I.’s investigation, instigating first a review, then criminal inquiry. Like the president himself, he suggested the inquiry was an abuse of the F.B.I.’s power.

Despite the fact “there was and never has been any evidence of collusion,” Mr. Barr said last December, “the president’s administration has been dominated by this investigation into what turns out to be completely baseless."

“And the question really is, what was the agenda after the election that kept them pressing ahead after their case collapsed? He’s the president of the United States,” he said.

Independent reviews have found that investigators opened the Russia inquiry without political bias. The investigation uncovered an elaborate Russian campaign to sabotage the 2016 campaign, the president’s repeated efforts to thwart the inquiry and the Trump campaign’s expectation that it would benefit from the Kremlin operations.

After a scathing report by the inspector general illuminated serious omissions and errors in the F.B.I.’s applications for warrant to wiretap Carter Page, a onetime Trump campaign adviser, Mr. Barr imposed new restrictions on inquiries directed at presidential campaigns, requiring his personal approval of any inquiry into a 2020 presidential candidate.

An unusually strong advocate of expansive presidential powers, Mr. Barr asserted that the administration had a wide legal berth to fight congressional subpoenas. His broad view of the executive branch’s authority, well known before Mr. Trump appointed him, made him a favorite target for Democrats in Congress. But it endeared him to some Republicans, and to the president, who had publicly complained that Mr. Sessions was too weak to stand up for him for months before he fired him.

Next2Bezee:
The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a long-shot bid by President Trump and the state of Texas to overturn the results in four states won by Democrat Joe Biden, blocking the president’s legal path to reverse his reelection loss.

The court’s unsigned order was short: “Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another state conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot.”

Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Clarence Thomas, as they have in the past, said they did not believe the court had the authority to simply reject Texas’s request. “I would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue.”

Trump, who has appointed three of the court’s nine members, has long viewed the Supreme Court as something of an ace-in-the-hole, and called for the justices to display “courage” and rescue him in post-election litigation.

After Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died in September, he said filling the seat was essential because of the possibility of litigation that might otherwise end in a tie. Justice Amy Coney Barrett was confirmed in a party-line vote by the Republican-controlled Senate to replace Ginsburg.

In a case earlier this week, the court turned down a request from Republican congressional candidates to overturn the the results in Pennsylvania in a one-sentence order. Barrett took part in the case, but neither she nor fellow Trump appointees Neil M. Gorsuch or Brett M. Kavanaugh noted their objection.

Trump has refused to acknowledge defeat, instead embarking on a noisy campaign to discredit the election. He has made unproven charges of corruption and a rigged election in states he lost and unsubstantiated claims of illegal voting, votes switched by computer software and rampant fraud.

None have come close to being proven, and Attorney General William P. Barr said U.S. attorneys and FBI agents running down specific complaints and information “have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election.”

Legal efforts by Trump and his allies filed in states he lost have been stunningly unsuccessful — one minor win compared to more than 50 losses in state and federal courts at both the trial and appellate level.

The election results have been certified in each state, and the Electoral College is scheduled to meet Monday. Biden has 306 electoral votes, exactly the number Trump had when he was elected in 2016. But while Trump lost the popular vote then, Biden has a margin of more than 7 million votes.

Texas, led by Trump partisan Attorney General Ken Paxton (R), tried to maneuver around the lower court losses by filing directly with the Supreme Court. States suing other states are allowed to ask the court to take up the case, although the court sometimes does not grant permission.

Trump tweeted that it was the “big one” that “everyone has been waiting for.”

Texas charged that actions by state officials in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin violated the Constitution, and diluted the impact of Texas voters.

Its major complaint was that state officials and courts in those states had changed election procedures to make it easier to vote by mail or other methods. It said that violated the Constitution’s direction that “the legislature” of each state set voting procedures.

It asked the justices to block those states from casting their combined 62 electoral votes for Biden and order the state legislatures, all Republican-controlled, to appoint either new electors or none at all. That would require the court to set aside the results in those states, which Biden won by a combined 300,000 votes.

Trump asked to intervene in the suit and 17 attorneys general from states where Trump won joined in — even when their own states had voting procedures altered by state officials or courts. A majority of House Republicans urged the Supreme Court to take the case.

The targeted states responded in blistering briefs, with Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro calling the Texas suit a “seditious abuse of the judicial process.”

Wisconsin Attorney General Joshua L. Kaul (D) said agreeing to the Texas request would thrust the court into the political sphere in a way never imagined.

“If Texas’s theory of injury were accepted , it would be too easy to reframe virtually any election or voting rights dispute as implicating injuries to a state and thereby invoke this court’s original jurisdiction,” he wrote.

“New York or California could sue Texas or Alabama in this court over their felon-disenfranchisement policies. Garden-variety election disputes would soon come to the court in droves.”

The states said Texas’s claims were hypocritical and cynical. Although Texas said in a filing that it “does not ask this court to reelect President Trump,” the suit does not ask the court to discount the votes in any state Trump won where state officials and courts altered voting procedures because of the coronavirus pandemic.

Among those states are Texas itself, where the governor made changes.

The case is Texas v. Pennsylvania.

Yello1:
Dis lie is irritating ooo. Make dem just stop

Angelfrost:
Meanwhile, Giroud just scored a hat trick against Mighty Sevilla of all teams!!!

While Martial is acting like a clueless Division 2 layabout!

lordprogress:
he will sub him at half time stop cussing at the manager not like we are loosing self.

Next2Bezee:
Martial is and always will be a mumu.

lordprogress:
solkjaer commot Fred sharp sharp the mumu one get red card by all means o.

scribble:

sulasa07:
We Don score two goals

queenice7:
I've been heartbroken so many times that I am starting to believe that I am possessed, pls I need some care, love and advice because I am losing it.
This is not the first, second, third, or fourth time I've been heartbroken or taken advantage of. I am 23, very hardworking, very beautiful, smart, kind, with a heart of gold, I get all these compliments often. I am also cool, calm and collected. I don't understand how someone would decide to take advantage of me.
It usually starts when I demand to be treated right.
This last heartbreak, I was dating a Nigerian guy in another continent, b4 we officially started dating, he pestered me to date him, I was so scared, told him about the heartbreaks I've suffered, how fragile and soft I am, how people has returned back my good with evil, how I am so scared of giving love another trial, and how i don't think long distance relationship is worth it. He told me how he has gotten a fair share of heartbreaks from ladies, and how he'll never do shit to me, he swore, promised, every every and I believed him.
And one thing with me is that when I love, I love wholeheartedly, I won't withhold anything, my spirit, soul, body, everything, you'll just know that I love, and that is when the other party usually starts misbehaves, when they've seen how deep I've gotten into them, how I create time from my very busy work schedule just to speak/chat them all the time, how I try my best to please them. The most painful thing is that this guy made me so committed to the relationship, when he saw that I really have less believe in long distance relationship, he did everything possible to win my trust and commitment, he assured me ours would be different. When he'd won my heart he started replying late, stopped video calling and started pretending he missed my video calls, and all. We had an argument after I complained about how cold he has become, and I told him I wanted to be left alone at that moment. And that was it, up till now, no call or chat from him. Its been almost 2 weeks, I tried reaching out to him to know if he's owk, but he ignored my chat.
I feel so bad even though we're yet to meet in person, but because I really opened my heart and soul to him, after he made me believe he'll not hurt me. I feel so bad that my only wrong was demanding to be treated right, that's the only thing I've ever demanded from him, I feel so bad that I've been heartbroken yet another time simply for loving with all my heart.
I feel sad that I've not had any relationship that didn't end in tears, any relationship that was worth it, I'm yet to experience it. I am now having a feeling that I have offended somebody I don't even know. Even aside relationship, love matter, I've often been taken advantage of by other people, colleagues, so called friends in such a way that I became a loner, lost some self esteem. Pls help me with advises or books to read, else I'll give up on love and humanity