Trump "Convicted"!! - Trump's Fraudulent "Fraud" Conviction

Donald Trump has been ordered to pay $354.9 Million in a civil fraud case in New York. He has also been barred from being an officer or director of a company doing business in New York for three years, and his assets will be overseen by an independent "compliance director".

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/2/16/trump-ordered-to-pay-354-9m-by-new-york-court-in-civil-fraud-case#:~:text=Donald%20Trump%20must%20pay%20%24354.9,imperils%20his%20real%20estate%20empire.

He was accused by the New York State Attorney General of inflating the stated value of his real estate holdings and of committing fraud in order to obtain loans from banks. 

It is important to emphasize that no banks approached the New York State Attorney General who brought this matter before the courts and complained that they had been defrauded. 

In fact, the testimony of bankers during the proceeding showed that they had no problem with the valuations presented by Trump to secure loans, and they were more than capable of assessing and even reassessing the valuations of his properties.

This case is outrageous and sets a terrifying precedent. 

The state moved ahead with a legal proceeding against a business under consumer protection laws where there was no actual complaint against that business from anyone. There is a legitimate role for the state in protecting consumers against predatory businesses that take advantage of a lack of sophistication and knowledge on the part of the consumer. That was not this case where multinational banking conglomerates were more than capable of understanding their business dealings with Donald Trump.

The allegedly aggrieved parties here not only did not complain, but they actually did the complete opposite and went under oath and stated that there was no problem with their business dealings with Donald Trump at all.

They effectively swore under oath that they were not victims! 

These supposed "victims" would not have launched any legal process to recover any funds that they thought they had lost to Donald Trump owing to fraud as they did not think they had been defrauded. There was no criminal trial because no one complained that Trump committed fraud. No victims; no fraud.

See here...

https://www.reuters.com/legal/trumps-civil-fraud-verdict-appeal-may-hinge-no-victims-defense-2024-02-16/

This judgment will be appealed, and this may be the crux of the issue...

"'I think the judges are going to have to look carefully at what the powers of the attorney general are here," Germain said. "Are they so broad that any lie can put you out of business, even if nobody believed it?'"

Or, "Can the state find fraud where there are no victims, and where all possible victims assert that they are not victims at all?"

The state should not look behind private business deals to find "fraud" where the participants, who were better able than the state to decide the merits of their own business deals and their actual motivations, did not think there was a problem. If this is allowable, than the state will have adopted to itself the ability to review any business deal at any time to assess what it, and not the participants, deem to be the merits of the arrangement. 

That approach may pass muster in countries that are autocracies, where the real point of such state oversight is to coerce the participants in such business dealings into providing kick-backs to enrich the autocrats and others, or to adjust their personal political beliefs and behaviour. But that is not the American way. This was massive state overreach that has no precedent in New York State. That this has actually happened should cause anyone who believes in basic economic freedom - the freedom to enter into contracts - to pause and reflect. 

This entire charade will be thrown out on appeal, much to the chagrin of Trump haters everywhere. 

 

Trump and Biden - Cognitive Impairment? - With Addendum!!

Trump's recent speech in New Hampshire...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXSy3XyF-eA

Trump made two slight missteps, which any normal person could have made.

Biden's recent speech re: Hamas attack on Israel...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1ukaC9cSKQ

Biden made a few minor missteps, but not more than any normal person could have made.

Biden had a few slight missteps more than Trump, but Biden's speech was compact and quite complex, while Trump simply chatted with his audience. 

Biden also had a teleprompter. This was not an advantage - if you think it was, just try following a teleprompter for over 15 minutes sometime. Doing this is not easier than just chatting with your audience.

These men are not cognitively impaired. 

Their missteps, as reported in the American propaganda press recently, both Left and Right, likely come when they are tired. The reality is that old people slow down. These guys are old and they are slowing down. That is all that is happening,

One of them will be the next president of the United States. 

As long as whoever wins the next presidential election has their afternoon naps; and drinks their Ensure; and goes for walkies so they can keep their bodies functional; and spends some time playing with their cats and/or dogs; and remains mentally engaged by playing bingo or parcheesi with the oldsters in any nearby old age home, he will maintain his faculties.

Addendum! 

Biden has been cleared of any wrong-doing related to his ILLEGAL retention of classified materials at his home. As part of the police rationale for giving Biden a pass, the police have questioned his mental acuity, noting things such as he could not remember the timing of his son's death from cancer.

The police must be taken as being neutral actors in matters such as this. If they had concerns about Biden's memory, then we should all have similar concerns.

Biden should have to prove his mental acuity in a public, wide-ranging and neutral series of medical tests as a precondition for running for office in 2024. If, as he claims, there is no problem, then he should pass with flying colours. If there is an issue, he needs to retire, asap.

The Office of the President of the United States is too important to be left to the hubris of the potentially befuddled...

 

 

 

Questionable Georgia Charges against Trump!

Donald Trump has been charged, along with 18 others, with a total of 41 election-related crimes in Georgia, including charges of racketeering, which is normally used to target members of organized crime groups and carries a penalty of up to 20 years in prison.  

The indictment says this...

"Trump and the other defendants charged in this indictment refused to accept that Trump lost, and they knowingly and willfully joined a conspiracy to unlawfully change the outcome of the election in favor of Trump,"

The first part of the indictment that says this..."Trump and the other defendants charged in this indictment refused to accept that Trump lost,..." This is totally bizarre. Any candidate is permitted to review an election to the point that they, not some attorney general, are satisfied that they actually lost before conceding, and before the election has actually been certified by Congress, which, at that point, had not happened. So, during the point in time in question - that is, before the certification of the election by Congress - Trump was absolutely within his rights to question the outcome of the election, especially if some of his advisors had been telling him that there was even a long-shot reason to do so, and especially if he thought that the outcome made no sense.

Regarding the charge of trying to unlawfully change the outcome of the election, the case stems, in large part, from a Jan. 2, 2021, phone call in which Trump urged Georgia's top election official, Brad Raffensperger, to "find" enough votes to reverse his narrow loss in the state. Without this call, the charges would very likely not have been brought against Trump. 

Trump said this to Mr. Raffensperger, “So look. All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes..."

This quote has appeared repeatedly in the press as purported proof that Trump was asking Mr. Raffensperger to do something illegal, namely, to falsify the results of the presidential election in Georgia, effectively handing it to Trump by inappropriately according him the 11,700 votes he would need to beat Biden.

In fact, during the telephone call between Raffensperger and Trump, which was witnessed by numerous other persons, Trump always included the request to find 11,700 votes within his stated belief that he actually won the state by between 200,000 and 300,000 votes. Asking that 11,700 votes be attributed to him was Trump asking that a fraction of the votes that he thought were actually attributable to him be properly attributed, therefore allowing him to win the state, which he repeatedly stated in the telephone call he thought he did win.

Absent this context, the press reports that include the quote above regarding the request to "find" 11,700 votes are extremely misleading - that is not all that he said, and what the press leaves out is the actual crux of the matter, which is that he repeatedly said that he thought he won.  

More to the point, at no time did Trump say anything like, "I know I lost the election. Could you just send me 11,7000 votes so that I can win, and if you do, I'll make sure you are taken care of?"...

Not only that, but unless one of his associates is going to testify that he actually thought that he had lost the election, and he was trying to perpetrate a fraud in asking for the 11,700 votes, there will be no evidence presented at his trial supporting the charges of "...conspiracy to unlawfully change the outcome of the election..." simply because there would be no evidence that he had the guilty mind necessary to make out the charge. 

In short, if the evidence shows that he still believed that he won when he asked for the 11,700 votes, and he still believed that a fraud had been perpetrated, he likely cannot be convicted.

Here is a URL of the call with Raffensperger. I defy anyone to say that Trump had thought that he actually lost, and he had the guilty mind necessary to form an illicit conspiracy to steal the election when the call was made. The transcript simply doesn't support that interpretation.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/03/politics/trump-brad-raffensperger-phone-call-transcript/index.html

Trump and the 14th Amendment

The Former President and the 14the Amendment - First Glance

Former President Donald Trump has been disqualified from appearing on the ballot in two states - Maine and Colorado - based on the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, and the allegation that he engaged in "insurrection" against the United States. 

Here is what Section 3 to the 14th Amendment says:

Section 3.

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. 

Note that "Rebellion and Insurrection" are also illegal in the United States as follows:

"Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States." [18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection]

In spite of a massive investigation into the actions of Donald Trump on January 6, 2021, he has not been charged with "rebellion or insurrection" under 18 U.S. Code. He has been charged with: i) conspiracy to violate civil rights; ii) conspiracy to defraud the government; iii) the corrupt obstruction of an official proceeding; and iv) conspiracy to carry out such obstruction. "Insurrection" isn't on this list.

How is it possible that former President Trump was disqualified from running for office based on his allegedly having engaged in an "insurrection" when he has not actually been charged with that very thing? 

Put another way, if there is insufficient evidence to charge him with insurrection under 18 U.S. Code based on his actions on January 6, 2021, what is his disqualification from running for office under the 14th Amendment based on?

The Coming Supreme Court Decision on the 14th Amendment

The Supreme Court of the United States has not weighed in one the meaning of the 14th Amendment. That court is guaranteed to hear this case. What follows is a short discussion of how they may dispose of the issue.

The prohibition in the 14th Amendment and the prohibition in 18 U.S. Code are potentially massive in scope. Both could be interpreted as including an intention to overthrow the established political order, and even just dissent, with no actual actions having been taken in that regard. 

This is because of the definition of "insurrection" is as follows: "An act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government."

We have a definition in a definition here. The legal definition of the word "revolting", is as follows: "...a renouncing of allegiance (as to a government or party) especially: a determined armed uprising: a movement or expression of vigorous dissent."

These definitions are taken from Merriam-Webster because, incredibly, these terms do not appear to have been defined in the U.S. Code!

So "insurrection" includes "revolt" that can include "expressions of vigorous dissent". This would imply that anyone who even dissents from the established political order in the United States could be barred from running for office under the 14th Amendment. 

This potential interpretation is so massive that many Socialists and all American Communists could be barred from running for office as both, in different ways, dissent from the established US political, and related to it, the economic order. As well, it could include the Black Lives Matter folks and the MAGA people who also often call for massive changes in the established political order, but for different reasons and to different ends.

There is no way that the US Supreme Court will interpret the prohibition in the 14th Amendment broadly enough to include "expressions of vigorous dissent", as that would upend much of the political order in the United States, and could make a mockery of other rights in the Bill of Rights such as Freedom of Speech in the First Amendment.

At the other end of the spectrum we have the Civil War, which sparked the 14th Amendment in the first place. This is clearly an example of "insurrection".

Regarding the potential disqualification of Donald Trump, what the United States Supreme Court will have to decide is where, on the spectrum between legal dissent on the one hand, and actual illegal war on the other, would Donald Trump's actions on January 6, 2021 lie?  

In deciding this issue, it is suggested here that the test they may use could include the likelihood that the alleged insurrection could have actually succeeded in overthrowing the established political order in the USA. Simple dissent could not ever do this, but the Civil War certainly could have.

So the question may be something like, "Could the insurrection launched by Donald Trump that coalesced on January 6, 2021, have actually overthrown the established political order of the United States of America?"

With former Vice President Pence having refused to participate in the insurrection, and determined to certify the election as he was required to do under the Constitution, the answer is clearly "no". 

As there was no chance that the insurrection could have succeeded, the United States Supreme Court will not disqualified Donald Trump from running for office under 14th Amendment.

Donald Trump needs to buy Mike Pence lunch.

Kissinger's Supposed Crimes

Kissinger has passed away. I strongly suggest reading Diplomacy, which is a seminal work on the subject.

He is widely accused of having committed numerous war crimes. Ok, let's discuss Kissinger's crimes. Here is a good summary. I numbered them in bold and red...

During his brief tenure at the forefront of U.S. foreign policy, Kissinger got a lot done. In his first two years in office, he helped Richard Nixon 1. sabotage Vietnamese peace talks for his own political gain, 2. expanded that war into Laos and Cambodia (the destabilizing effects of which would pave the way for the rise of the Khmer Rouge and the death of up to two million people), and 3. advocated the bombing of, in his own words, “anything that moves.”

In 1971, Kissinger 4. backed Pakistan in its war against Bangladesh despite evidence of massacre and rape. In ‘73, he 5. orchestrated a military coup against the democratically elected Allende regime of Chile, installing in its stead the violently oppressive Pinochet dictatorship. And in ‘75, the then-Secretary of State 6. lent his tacit support to President Suharto of Indonesia―himself a despot already responsible for the mass killings of hundreds of thousands―in the deadly conquest of East Timor. Kissinger himself, in proposing an intervention in Cyprus, summed up his philosophy best: “The illegal we do immediately; the unconstitutional takes a little longer"

You'll notice that his support of Suharto is listed as crime number 6. as he was killing people in East Timor.  So, where is Kissinger's support for Mao listed as a crime as he killed an estimated 80% of the population of Tibet in the 1950s?  It's not like no one was aware of what happened in Tibet by the early 1970's.  Mao was a Commie, so his mass murders are OK, and Kissinger's playing nicey-nice with Mao is forgiven. 

The problem that I have with all but two of these six crimes is that they aren't actually crimes, and even those two are questionable. 

As a starter, bombing in war is not illegal. His advocacy of the bombing of Cambodia and Laos is the one of two acts that I think could be a crime, as the USA was not at war with these countries at the time.  The fact that they were both being used as supply routes for the North Vietnamese could excuse this as, again, bombing is not illegal, and countries are not allowed to to permit their territory to be used against another territory as a base for war-like activities. Still, that may be a weak defence.

Oh ya! Obama killed thousands of people in countries against which the USA was not at war at the time, with drones and Hellfire missiles. If Kissinger is a criminal, then so is Obama.

Obama is a war criminal?!  NOOOOOOOO! He's sunshine and light, and he's a Left Democrat and Hope Incarnate, so we give him a pass. 

Oh, this from the Council on Foreign Relations "The 542 drone strikes that Obama authorized killed an estimated 3,797 people, including 324 civilians. As he reportedly told senior aides in 2011: “Turns out I'm really good at killing people. Didn't know that was gonna be a strong suit of mine.” 

While Kissinger only set policy and let others implement his policies, every single one of these 542 attacks was personally authorized by Obama himself...he came as close as you can to actually pulling the trigger.

Not a "strong suit" for Obama...isn't he from Chicago?

The other alleged crime that could be real was the overthrow of Allende.  This was undoubtedly a crime in Chile. It could also at least theoretically be a violation of the Neutrality Act, 1794. Numerous individuals have been charged under that act and its successor with attempting to overthrow foreign governments. Given that it was the US government itself that was doing this, however, it probably did not constitute a crime as the point of that act is to leave nasty business like overthrowing foreign governments to the US Government, not to individuals.

There is also a UN Resolution from 1965 called the "Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention in the Domestic Affairs of States and the Protection of Their Independence and Sovereignty General Assembly resolution 2131 (XX)" It says this..."No State has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any State."  

This seems to do it, but the USA is not bound by international law unless it adopts it into its domestic law and I'm not sure they adopted that resolution.  However, the UN Charter Article 2(4) and Article 2(7), also prohibit the UN as well as states from intervening in the domestic affairs of other states except where there is collective action. Based on this, it seems that his advocacy of the overthrow of Allende did constitute a crime. However, it is the country, not the person, that is culpable when there are violations against the Charter. I can't see how this is a personal crime committed by Kissinger himself.

I'll summarize his supposed crimes here - 

- sabotaging peace talks that didn't fit the internal politics of his country - not a crime;

- supporting bombing in a war against a belligerent - not a crime;

- supporting one side in a civil war, where there were war crimes being committed - not a crime;

- supporting bombing of third party countries which were aiding another country in attacking their neighbor, where the USA had an alliance with that same neighbor - may be a crime;

- supporting a dictator who was committing war crimes - not a crime;

- supporting the overthrow of a Commie - may be a crime of America but likely not Kissinger personally....

Ironically, he is almost always implicitly blamed for the Khmer Rouge coming to power and for everything that came afterward. This is idiotic. Um, like, didn't the USSR, North Vietnam and especially China support that despicable outfit in the overthrow of the recognized government of Cambodia at the time?  If so, why are they not listed as criminals as this is exactly the same supposed crime that Kissinger apparently committed in overthrowing in Allende in Chile?

Why, I ask? 

Because in the West, with its slavish adherence to "liberation journalism" where all West = Bad and all "Revolution" = Good, Commies simply didn't commit war crimes, only guys like Kissinger did.

He lived to 100. Good on him.

Say Hello To President Trump (er Kennedy?), 2024!

The game is afoot! 

Prognosticators are prognosticating about who will win the next US presidential election.

Let's take a stab at this, with key points in bold and italics. Caveat - This discussion ignores the possibility that Trump may be in prison during the next election, and just looks at polls!

An average of recent public opinion polls gives Trump a 2.3% lead over Biden at the moment, and many people on both sides of the aisle are saying that Biden should step aside as he is too old.

The day he becomes the nominee, the Democrats will get in line behind him, and all discussion of his age will end. This is mostly a diversion.

Unless Biden dies, his age is irrelevant.

An average of recent public opinion polls also gives the undecided and independents as about 9% of the population. The independents and undecided do not like Trump and all the "stuff" that surrounds him. They have swung the vote decisively in favour of the Democrats in recent elections, and one would expect this to continue in 2024.

As well, American elections since Roe v Wade was reversed have witnessed the aggressive mobilization of pro-abortion voters, which has dramatically favored Democratic candidates. This, coupled with the dislike of Trump by independents and the undecided, contributed to a series of unexpected election triumphs by the Democrats.

Absent other candidates who take votes from Biden, the swing votes of undecideds and independents to his cause and against Trump, plus the mobilization of the pro-abortion vote, should give him the presidency in 2024.

But the plot thickens.

Robert F Kennedy Jr. and Cornel West have announced that they will contest the presidency in 2024. They are virtually guaranteed to be on the ballot in most if not all states. These gentlemen change the calculus quite considerably.  

Some polls have Kennedy getting as high as 21% of the popular vote, and West getting as high as 4%. Given the divisiveness in the US polity right now, I think they may do far worse as voters coalesce around their champions, and avoid voting for candidates who simply can't win. (Note - there is a "wild card" discussion below that explores an alternative to this.)

Nonetheless, while adding Kennedy alone does not change things too much between Biden and Trump - maybe a slight advantage for Trump - with West in the race, Biden loses significantly more votes than Trump does. In this situation, Biden loses about 6% of the popular vote to Trump's 3 - 4%. West's assumed attractiveness to Black voters and to other voters of Left-wing persuasion will mean that Biden's advantages courtesy of the independents and undecided not liking Trump and courtesy of the pro-abortion vote will be overwhelmed.

With Kennedy and West in the race, and particularly West, Trump will eek out a slim victory in the 2024 presidential election.

Note that Jill Stein has also just announced that she will run for the Green Party in the 2024 presidential election. There isn't much polling about how this may affect the race, but one would have to think that she can only pull votes from Biden as Trump is basically the antithesis of "Green".

With both West and Stein running in the 2024 presidential election, Trump should be the odds-on favourite to win - they are "Biden killers".

What about Manchin?  

The "No Label's" people have been exploring the possibility of running a serious independent candidate, and Joe Manchin has announced that he will not run for re-election as a senator in 2024, making him the presumptive candidate. There isn't much polling looking at the effects of a Manchin candidacy, but the polling that does exist suggests next to no effect on the outcome between Biden and Trump. - Manchin would get between 5% and 10% of the vote, taking about equally from both of the other candidates. 

Note that Manchin would be running for No Labels based, in part, on the idea that Biden and Trump are too old, and that a younger third party candidate has a chance of succeeding at becoming president based on age alone. Um, like...Joe Manchin is 76 years old! No Labels looks to me like a complete waste of time, unless they put forward someone entirely different.

What about Cheney? 

Liz Cheney is the quintessential old school Republican, who essentially led the January 6th congressional committee that reached so many damning conclusions about Trump and his entourage. She does not want Trump to become president again. If she tossed her hat into the ring, one would think that she would attract most, if not all, of the anti-Trump Republican vote, and ruin his chances of a repeat performance in the White House. 

In fact, all polling reviewed for this blurb suggests that her candidacy - absent candidates other than Biden and Trump - almost guarantees a victory by Trump, with him getting 3% to 8% more of the popular vote than Biden. One has to wonder if this would be because the independent and undecided voters would move to her and not Biden, thereby starving him of that crucial support?

Cheney will not be announcing a run at the White House in 2024, and if Manchin does, it will be essentially irrelevant for the outcome of the election.

In conclusion...

Donald Trump will likely be the next President of the United States.

HOWEVER! There is a wildcard here.

Kennedy is nuts, but he is also interesting as he is running at a time when much of America is arguably also nuts. In sum, he is a Right-leaning conspiracy theorist with the surname of America's most famous Democratic politician and an icon of the Left.

If Kennedy can: 1. position himself as the champion of conspiracies, especially as related to COVID-19, and thereby grab some of the vote on the Right from Trump; and 2. also position himself as an icon of the Left -  especially on issues like the environment and abortion - and grab some of the vote from Biden and others; and if he can 3. seem like a real younger alternative to Trump and Biden and take much of the independent and undecided vote, well then, he may have a real chance at this!

His name alone seems to get him 10% of the vote. A six-way race - Trump, Biden, Kennedy, Stein, Manchin and West - could go as follows (pure speculation based very roughly on existing polling): Manchin - 8%; Stein - 1%; and West - 4%. They would effectively eat away at much of Biden's support, meaning Biden could end up as low as 28% - 30%. This leaves about 60% of the vote, of which maybe 7% could still be undecided and independent given the alternatives to Biden. 

What could happen with Kennedy in such a race vis a vis Trump?

Trump's "Always Trump" or core support is between 25% and 30% of the Republican Party, and he is polling at about 65% nationally of Republican Party supporters versus other GOP presidential candidates. With Republicans making up about 45% of voters, this suggest that Trump's rock solid base is about 12% of the electorate, and very strong support for him would come from about 30% of voters. 

If Kennedy could take essentially all of the undecided and independents left over above (7%) plus gain support from name recognition (10%), and convince some of the electorate who are very strong Trump supporters to support him, perhaps emphasizing Trump's role in developing COVID-19 vaccines (say 4%), as well as taking even more support from Biden than will be taken by Manchin, West and Stein (say 4%), perhaps pushing Biden as low as 25% to 27%, then it is conceivable that Biden, Trump and Kennedy would all be at about 25% - 30% of the popular vote. Yes, this is a stretch, but some polls already have Kennedy as high as 21% (...and, OK, as low as 7%)! 

This situation would be resolved state by state in the Electoral College where the overall national percentage of the electorate voting for one candidate or another is not the key consideration, and where the candidate with a slightly lower percentage of national support could still win, the point being that...

...If Kennedy can position himself carefully between the conspiracy theorists on the one hand and icon-loving Democrats on the other, while emphasizing that he is younger than Biden or Trump and thereby getting most of the undecided and independent vote, along with getting name recognition votes, then he could become a real threat, and this election would be a complete crap shoot. 

It is actually conceivable that Kennedy could win.

And if Kennedy were to win, the two places on earth that he should avoid visiting are Dallas and Los Angeles.  .

 

.  

 .    

HAMAS and ISRAEL

UPDATE!  This is evolving!

This is worth a look...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Egipqa0ZhUk

Questions...

1. Are the hostages even in Gaza now?  It makes sense for Hamas to move them to their allies outside of Gaza, where the Israelis can't get to them.

2. Did the Israeli security service know about this, but chose to let it happen so that they can have an excuse to deal with Hamas once and for all, consistent with preferences of the very right wing Israeli government?  The Israelis are the best in the world at thwarting this kind of thing.  Is it believable that they were this incompetent?

3. Will the Left supporters of Gaza and the Palestinians in the West eat their words of support for the violence - blaming all of it on Israel - when they find out what is likely happening to those many attractive young women who Hamas chose to take captive rather than kill?  Isn't it obvious what is happening to them?  In the minds of these people, who are likely on the cutting edge of women's rights, is sexual violence against women actually OK, just as long as they are Jews?  

Who else thought that?

4. What does Israel intend after it evicts Hamas from Gaza?  Palestinians are being encouraged to flee to the border with Egypt, or to actually go to Egypt to avoid the bloodshed.  Does Israel intend to stay in Gaza and to annex the territory after effectively evicting the population?  

Sides are coalescing....