Iconic WWII photo canceled, then uncanceled

That's not really an answer. The question begs a 'yes' or 'no'. You can discuss the other factors afterwards.

You believe that the USA cannot conduct a fair trial? Really?

Yes, that's a fair point. It would be a good idea to have a process to ensure that the politician wasn't being persecuted. Possibly before the indictment a randomly selected (so as to prevent bias) group of citizens could go over the evidence and decide whether or not there was a case to answer or whether it was persecution. If they didn't think that there was evidence to support the indictment it would not go ahead. What do you think of that idea?

For a start, the question is irrelevant, since in none of the cases is Mr Trump being charged with insurrection (although a court in Colorado has found as a matter of fact that he did engage in insurrection, and the US Supreme court did not strike that finding down). Next, it's not up to me to believe or not believe it. That is up to a jury - which is something that you likely wouldn't get in a banana republic. Anyhow, I did witness via modern communications media, the events of January 6th in real time. I remember being aghast. In most countries in the world if a group of people had stormed the seat of governement like that they would have been shot immediately. I do remember them erecting a gallows and shouting 'hang Mike Pence'. It seems to me that had it just been a demonstration of discontent with the conduct of the election they would have demonstrated outside, as most peaceful demonstrators do. They wouldn't have broken into the building, they wouldn't have ransacked offices (and by the way, I don't think that it's credible to say that those things didn't happen). For myself I would have thought that the only credible reason for invading the House chamber was to interfere with the conduct of proceedings and prevent the person with the most electoral college votes being duly declared president. I did see all that happening in real time, and if it was a fake then it was the best one ever in history. And yes, that qualifies as an 'insurrection', though an incompetently organised one.

No, I developed my opinions on it in real time as it happened, even before commentators started commentating.

I've just seen a report on the TV where Trump says "there will be a bloodbath if I am not re-elected". How is that in any way democracy?

[I am sitting in an airport lounge, so I don't know if it's true or not - but why would a news program say that if he hadn't said it?]

Alan

Wrong again
www.jstor.org/stable/3993292

Alan, you've clearly been reading the lamestream mediatards too much. He's not threatening a blood bath, he's just pointing out that if the election doesn't declare him the winner the entire population of the US will be so aggrieved that they'll rise in bloody rebellion against themselves and it will have nothing to do with him, completely the fault of the people who fixed an election that he's already won. You have to remember that in 2020 he won every state because people love him so much.

And shine bright lights inside themselves. He's not the sharpest knife in the drawer. I do have to admit, the look on Deborah Birx's face when he said that was priceless. Possibly the best bit of unscripted comedy of the decade.

It's an international conspiracy. Even Modi's in on it.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=rah1COtAzFM