Trump's Second and Third year in office
Quote: SOOPOOSorry BBB. So you agree with me that NO woman has seemed credible enough to ANY prosecutor to even file charges, let alone go to court, not even close to convict. Ty
I'm not going to pretend I know enough about any specifics to have an argument about this. However, a judge ruled last week that DJT would have to give a deposition in Sumner somebody's lawsuit against him. She's somehow connected to The Apprentice. Trump's lawyers immediately appealed, so that process is stalled. Supposedly, there are other things going on about other women, but we're not being informed about it.
So, I believe you are incorrect. And I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make. In all, not much reason to argue about it either way. I'm sure, if it happens, we'll get entirely too much of it then.
Quote: ams288Forget about taking a knee, THIS is what disrespecting the US flag truly looks like:
Where was that picture taken?
Quote: beachbumbabsThat's in Singapore, where Drumpf has offered a dictator equal status with this country tonight.
Sometimes you have to:
Bend a little
Kiss a little
Even tickle their balls a little
That's the story of
That's the glory of
Detante
Quote: EvenBobSometimes you have to:
Bend a little
Kiss a little
Even tickle their balls a little
That's the story of
That's the glory of
Detante
Sounds like
England
Germany
1939
Peace accords
Always works
Quote: SOOPOOUh. No!!! Having sex with your intern unless coercion can be proven, is likely consensual. It is also a fireable offense in any major corporation. Which woman has attempted to prosecute DJT for any sexual offense? None. Right?
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/05/02/nyregion/summer-zervos-trump-apprentice.html
So you do agree that running up to candidates for your television show "the apprentice" and grabbing their breasts is a firable offense for most corporations?
BTW - your question here is what woman attempted to prosecute djt. Then it changed in later posts to prosecutors. Trump has multiple accusations and lawsuits
One more thing: please point to prosecution for sexual misconduct for bill clinton. He was not found guilty of such. He was taken to impeachment for perjury. Not over sexual misconduct (and acquitted) so by your stringent standards ("show me where ... was prosecuted) clinton didnt do anything either
Quote: darkoz
Peace accords
Always works
They usually don't work. They are always
happy and jolly at the accord, and say
glowing things when it's over. But it's
the months afterwards where the rubber
meets road. We'll see what happens
from here on.
Right now Trump is saying, who does that
fat little prick think he is. And Kim is
saying, oh yeah, grandpa with the funny
hair, I got nukes hidden where nobody
can find them. LOLOLOLOL!!!!!
Quote: SOOPOOSorry BBB. So you agree with me that NO woman has seemed credible enough to ANY prosecutor to even file charges, let alone go to court, not even close to convict. Ty
Lets not forget that the women did not see the need to come forward until weeks before the election. Why did they not come forward when he announced? In the primaries? Any earlier time?
The physical appearance of several of them kills their credibility with me. Just some women looking for attention and a payday, IMHO. Trump does not go after unattractive women.
Quote: darkozhttps://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/05/02/nyregion/summer-zervos-trump-apprentice.html
So you do agree that running up to candidates for your television show "the apprentice" and grabbing their breasts is a firable offense for most corporations?
BTW - your question here is what woman attempted to prosecute djt. Then it changed in later posts to prosecutors. Trump has multiple accusations and lawsuits
One more thing: please point to prosecution for sexual misconduct for bill clinton. He was not found guilty of such. He was taken to impeachment for perjury. Not over sexual misconduct (and acquitted) so by your stringent standards ("show me where ... was prosecuted) clinton didnt do anything either
By my standards WJC was NOT guilty of any crime, but I do believe he was 'guilty' of poor judgment, and in my opinion, a fireable offense. But my opinion on this does not carry much weight, obviously. If I was 'CEO' of America, and Trump was an 'at will' employee of mine, he'd be long ago fired for a pattern of improper comments. But I do not believe he has done anything that rises to an impeachable offense. And after the 'optics' success last night in Singapore, I now give him a better chance at winning re election than I did a week ago.
Quote: SOOPOOBy my standards WJC was NOT guilty of any crime, but I do believe he was 'guilty' of poor judgment, and in my opinion, a fireable offense. But my opinion on this does not carry much weight, obviously. If I was 'CEO' of America, and Trump was an 'at will' employee of mine, he'd be long ago fired for a pattern of improper comments. But I do not believe he has done anything that rises to an impeachable offense. And after the 'optics' success last night in Singapore, I now give him a better chance at winning re election than I did a week ago.
You are one of the few righties on here who makes sense
I was impressed with the meeting last night in much the same way i am still impressed with Nixons China visit
I agree trump raised his chances of re-election last night. But 2-1/2 years to anger americans and the world is an eternity to mess up with any president much less this one. He should have done this 2 months before 2020 election. But he probably felt hed miss some campaign speeches
The history repeats slogan keeps going through my head. The similarities between this administration and nixons keep happening.
And that doesnt bode well for this administration
It's a start.
For two very desperate men.Quote: MrVIt's a start.
Quote: darkozYou are one of the few righties on here who makes sense
I was impressed with the meeting last night in much the same way i am still impressed with Nixons China visit
I agree trump raised his chances of re-election last night. ...
While I'm independent, THIS TO ME is the difference between republicans/conservatives and dems/liberals... if this was the other way around and Obama did this, the republicans could NEVER man up and admit when the "other side" does anything of merit. EVER. They put party of country and that's a losing strategy for our country, in my opinion... and it all started when Obama was elected and instead of working with him, after he won fair and square, to them making their mission statement "make obama a 1 term president" (which they failed at). Like damn hypocritical children... yet the libs are the snowflakes... LOL.Quote: MrVKudos to Trump.
It's a start.
I think it's clear I hate trump, but I even did the same with one of his first presidential addresses/speeches. Everyone I knew said "omg watch it he's a blubbering fool!" and the speech was bland, but not really that bad in my opinion. Trust me, he's since then done many moronic things, but even then I said "Yeah, I didn't think it was that terrible." I just wish conservatives/republicans/tinfoil's/whatever you call them could share the same mantra and actually admit obvious facts when things are good, IRREGARDLESS of party affiliation.
Quote: RomesWhile I'm independent, THIS TO ME is the difference between republicans/conservatives and dems/liberals... if this was the other way around and Obama did this, the republicans could NEVER man up and admit when the "other side" does anything of merit. EVER. They put party of country and that's a losing strategy for our country, in my opinion... and it all started when Obama was elected and instead of working with him, after he won fair and square, to them making their mission statement "make obama a 1 term president" (which they failed at). Like damn hypocritical children... yet the libs are the snowflakes... LOL.
Please stop acting like this is the first time a party did this. When Bush was elected, the liberals went so far as to say he was "selected, not elected." Liberals put party ahead of country all the time.
Quote: darkoz
The history repeats slogan keeps going through my head. The similarities between this administration and nixons keep happening.
Hopefully we end up with a 49 state landslide against a far-left crazy in 2020!
Which is why I hate both parties, but I'm glad you pulled an example from over a decade ago. Perhaps if people didn't just blindly listen to their parties and all just acted independently based on the information and facts at hand then we'd all be better off???Quote: AZDuffmanPlease stop acting like this is the first time a party did this. When Bush was elected, the liberals went so far as to say he was "selected, not elected." Liberals put party ahead of country all the time.
Quote: RomesWhich is why I hate both parties, but I'm glad you pulled an example from over a decade ago. Perhaps if people didn't just blindly listen to their parties and all just acted independently based on the information and facts at hand then we'd all be better off???
As is your example a decade old. I could pull more, though. Tip calling any Reagan budget "dead on arrival" before it was even sent for one. Our history is littered with these examples. Obama was not special.
But how about Obama? The thing is, the GOP Congress treated him mostly as he treated Bush when he was a Senator. Remember when Obama voted against increasing the debt ceiling? Or against Bush judicial appointees? Bush reached out to the Democrats for the NCLB bill, Kennedy more or less got to write it. Then they turned on him over it.
People are always going to line up along party lines. It is human nature. The alternative is one-party rule, which is one of the things that makes Mexico the awful place it has become. Corruption and inefficiency there is legendary. But the people get no choice when election time comes.
"I may be wrong. I may stand before you in six months and say, 'Hey, I was wrong.' "
"I don't know that I'll ever admit that, but I'll find some kind of an excuse,"
As much as I hate him, sometimes (and those times are few) I can't help but like him.
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-06-12/mueller-scrambles-limit-evidence-after-indicted-russians-actually-show-court
Quote: petroglyph"Mueller Scrambles To Limit Evidence After Indicted Russians Actually Show Up In Court"
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-06-12/mueller-scrambles-limit-evidence-after-indicted-russians-actually-show-court
I will pass after reading the below from wikipedia
"Zero Hedge's content has been classified as "alt-right",[2] anti-establishment, conspiratorial, and economically pessimistic,[3][4] and has been criticized for presenting extreme and sometimes pro-Russian view"
"scrambles" ?????????????
I found this statement in a more even handed article
"The special counsel Robert Mueller's office filed a protective order Tuesday to limit evidence sharing in the case against the 13 Russian nationals and three Russian entities indicted in February as part of the Russia investigation. "
"In its motion on Tuesday, Mueller's office cited the risk of revealing to Russian intelligence the identities of "uncharged individuals and entities" believed to be "continuing to engage in interference operations" in the US. "
Just as I totally supported the Ken Starr and the Benghazi investigation
I of course totally support Mueller and his investigation
Suit yourself, the article quotes Bloomberg and Powerline multiple times.Quote: terapinedI will pass after reading the below from wikipedia
"Zero Hedge's content has been classified as "alt-right",[2] anti-establishment, conspiratorial, and economically pessimistic,[3][4] and has been criticized for presenting extreme and sometimes pro-Russian view"
You need diversity in your sources to not be brainwashed by the msm pablum.
Quote: petroglyphSuit yourself, the article quotes Bloomberg and Powerline multiple times.Quote: terapinedI will pass after reading the below from wikipedia
"Zero Hedge's content has been classified as "alt-right",[2] anti-establishment, conspiratorial, and economically pessimistic,[3][4] and has been criticized for presenting extreme and sometimes pro-Russian view"
You need diversity in your sources to not be brainwashed by the msm pablum.
Filing a protective order is not scrambling.
Your article is spin
Regardless of what source you prefer. Mueller made charges and the defendants show up for court, than Mueller try's to postpone the trial.Quote: terapinedJust as I totally supported the Ken Starr and the Benghazi investigation
I of course totally support Mueller and his investigation
It's hilarious, he is backpedaling as fast as he can. The defendants want their day in court, and you want to blame alternative news for making it public.
Wikipedia, pfft.
And yet you say you haven't read it?Quote: terapinedFiling a protective order is not scrambling.
Your article is spin
That's like saying "My uncle is an alt-right redneck racist guy, and he has a pod cast every night... You need to diversify your news and get some news from him!!!"Quote: petroglyph...You need diversity in your sources to not be brainwashed by the msm pablum.
No. You get news from credible news sources. You don't waste time with lies/spins from non-credible sources that leads to brain washing with non-facts and the SPREAD of miss-information, which is what happened here when you posted an article spin from a non-trustworthy site.
lol yeah I know right, even though they were proven to be more exact/factual than Encyclopedia Britannica, I mean, who could trust that information, AMMI-RIGHT?!?Quote: petroglyph...Wikipedia, pfft.
How does it feel to be brain washed in to spreading fake news for russia??? No joke, that's really what you're doing... supporting the regime that most righties claim doesn't exist. This is why we need real facts, real fact checking, and credible sources. To "help" some people open their eyes to facts/truth and not the "alternative facts" or "alternative truth" spewed out by sh*t sites like these.Quote: WikipediaZero Hedge's content has been classified as "alt-right",[2] anti-establishment, conspiratorial, and economically pessimistic,[3][4] and has been criticized for presenting extreme and sometimes pro-Russian view
Quote: petroglyph"Mueller Scrambles To Limit Evidence After Indicted Russians Actually Show Up In Court"
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-06-12/mueller-scrambles-limit-evidence-after-indicted-russians-actually-show-court
What a weird situation...
From what I'm understanding, the Russians didn't respond to the summons, then just show up out of nowhere, ready to go...
But Mueller's not ready because they never gave any indication they would show up, and on top of that the evidence they're requesting is being used for some other investigations....
And the Trump-appointee judge just says, "Tough darts."
Sounds like Mueller dropped the ball, the Russians are being smarta$$es, and the judge is being a jerk.
Sounds about right .Quote: TigerWuWhat a weird situation...
From what I'm understanding, the Russians didn't respond to the summons, then just show up out of nowhere, ready to go...
But Mueller's not ready because they never gave any indication they would show up, and on top of that the evidence they're requesting is being used for some other investigations....
And the Trump-appointee judge just says, "Tough darts."
Sounds like Mueller dropped the ball, the Russians are being smarta$$es, and the judge is being a jerk.
But on the other hand, many posters here have been worried about 13 bloggers going to collapse the American way of life. Getting most of their news from facebook.
Quote: petroglyphSuit yourself, the article quotes Bloomberg and Powerline multiple times.
So why didn't you just link to the Bloomberg article instead of something with a political spin to it?
Bloomberg doesn't make it sound like a big deal at all.
Sounds like Mueller is saying, "Yeah, you can have the evidence. In court. Not before." I don't see the problem.
EDIT: I'm also not a lawyer dealing with international investigations on a federal level, so what do I know.
Where are your credible news sources regarding the US and SA devastating Yemen, bombing them while they face starvation and the largest cholera epidemic ever?Quote: RomesThat's like saying "My uncle is an alt-right redneck racist guy, and he has a pod cast every night... You need to diversify your news and get some news from him!!!"
No. You get news from credible news sources.
Where were your credible sources during Iraq's WMD's?
Or the phony anthrax attacks after nine one one, or the the chem attacks in Dhouma Syria. Where are the credible reports of why America is at war with Syria, or Yemen or Libya or a host of other African nations?
There is a lot of good news stories, and some crap, that I prefer sifting through, rather than the 30 minute propaganda put out by the msm.
Quote: petroglyphAnd yet you say you haven't read it?
Of course not
It cant be as good as The Obsidian Chamber by Preston and Child
The book I am currently reading :-)
Do you not think Bloomberg spins?Quote: TigerWuSo why didn't you just link to the Bloomberg article instead of something with a political spin to it?
If I were to watch Bloomberg, I could change the channel and the same story would be on at least 5 other supposedly independent sites. Everybody has their opinion.
I try to get several angles before making up my mind, just as the link I provided was pooh pooed by TP who did not read it, I had already looked at B Berg.
I also get locked out of NYT and WaPo monthly, because I'm not spending more money to be client. It only takes a very few words to significantly change a story.
Read two or three differing opinions and the truth probably lays in between.
If I posted the msm's story's here, it wouldn't be news to most members, as that is their only exposure to what is news. I'm actually providing a service.
Quote: petroglyph"Mueller Scrambles To Limit Evidence After Indicted Russians Actually Show Up In Court"
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-06-12/mueller-scrambles-limit-evidence-after-indicted-russians-actually-show-court
I think it's hilarious the responses to this have been something akin to "That's fake news" without even trying to actually dispute what was written in the article. If it is so easily debunked, why not actually debunk whatever was written in the article? To be fair, I didn't read the article either.
Quote: RSI think it's hilarious the responses to this have been something akin to "That's fake news" without even trying to actually dispute what was written in the article. If it is so easily debunked, why not actually debunk whatever was written in the article? To be fair, I didn't read the article either.
Oh, look. Someone on here finally used the phrase "to be fair" to indicate an internal discrepancy, rather than an accusation of unfairness towards someone else .
Will wonders never cease?
Quote: RSI think it's hilarious the responses to this have been something akin to "That's fake news" without even trying to actually dispute what was written in the article. If it is so easily debunked, why not actually debunk whatever was written in the article? To be fair, I didn't read the article either.
From what i read no one said fake news. Just that it had slanted anti-dem spin
Prosecutors often make moves and counter-moves.
Quote: RSI think it's hilarious the responses to this have been something akin to "That's fake news" without even trying to actually dispute what was written in the article. If it is so easily debunked, why not actually debunk whatever was written in the article? To be fair, I didn't read the article either. (emphasis mine)
Too bad you didn't "read" the article. I was hoping for an opportunity to participate in this discussion relying on your reading comprehension. And to be fair, I can't say that your reading comprehension is atrociously awful, simply awful or other bad/good attributes. Please go back and read the article.
Quote: ams288lol
Sounds like thin-skinned Donnie needs a safe space...
Yesterday he enters into a one page agreement with NK for the same thing
The US again in embarrassed and morons wave their rebel flags and chant Maga.
Quote: billryanrebel flags and chant Maga.
Someone should really tell those people the Confederacy lost...
Quote: TigerWuSomeone should really tell those people the Confederacy lost...
Fake News.
It's 2018 and we have a Southern White House.
Quote: billryanFake News.
It's 2018 and we have a Southern White House.
I hope y'all saved your Confederate money...!
Quote: RomesThat's like saying "My uncle is an alt-right redneck racist guy, and he has a pod cast every night... You need to diversify your news and get some news from him!!!"
No. You get news from credible news sources. You don't waste time with lies/spins from non-credible sources that leads to brain washing with non-facts and the SPREAD of miss-information, which is what happened here when you posted an article spin from a non-trustworthy site.
Here is your "credible news source," and no, it's not any major achievement to access:
(CNN)Special counsel Robert Mueller's office is asking federal Judge Dabney Friedrich for an order that would lock down documents shared with the Russian company Concord Management and Consulting, because of the potential for the information to be shared with foreign nationals and intelligence officials still working to sow discord in the US.
Prosecutors must turn over millions of pieces of data to the alleged Russian troll farm-backer in the coming months because the company has pleaded not guilty to a conspiracy charge Mueller filed in February and is preparing for a trial.
--cnn
In other words, Mueller got bitten by his own arrogance. On this particular case, he and his fancy team have been shown to be utterly unprepared to substantiate its baloney show of indictments.
Quote: SanchoPanzaHere is your "credible news source," and no, it's not any major achievement to access:
(CNN)Special counsel Robert Mueller's office is asking federal Judge Dabney Friedrich for an order that would lock down documents shared with the Russian company Concord Management and Consulting, because of the potential for the information to be shared with foreign nationals and intelligence officials still working to sow discord in the US.
Prosecutors must turn over millions of pieces of data to the alleged Russian troll farm-backer in the coming months because the company has pleaded not guilty to a conspiracy charge Mueller filed in February and is preparing for a trial.
--cnn
In other words, Mueller got bitten by his own arrogance. On this particular case, he and his fancy team have been shown to be utterly unprepared to substantiate its baloney show of indictments.
Its amazing how people read something and then come to some other conclusion
Basically
Mueller is protecting the US from having documents fall into foreign adversaries hands
And that somehow translates into not having evidence?
Quote: darkoz
Mueller is protecting the US from having documents fall into foreign adversaries hands
No no no, you're not getting it. When Mueller
indicted the Russian's, if it was a legit indictment,
he knew that of course the defendant would
ask for the documents, they always do, it's
how it's done. You accuse somebody of a crime,
you have to show them what you have on them.
Duh duh and duh.
But Mueller didn't think the Russian's would
show up and now he's squealing like a stuffed
pig. It's such an obvious sham that the judge
has to be laughing his ass off. If your documents
are that secret, don't indict anybody, duh duh and
duh..
Quote: EvenBobNo no no, you're not getting it. When Mueller
indicted the Russian's, if it was a legit indictment,
he knew that of course the defendant would
ask for the documents, they always do, it's
how it's done. You accuse somebody of a crime,
you have to show them what you have on them.
Duh duh and duh.
But Mueller didn't think the Russian's would
show up and now he's squealing like a stuffed
pig. It's such an obvious sham that the judge
has to be laughing his ass off. If your documents
are that secret, don't indict anybody, duh duh and
duh..
No.
Quote: darkozQuote: aceofspadesQuote: TigerWuPresidential Records Act, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 22, Section 2203, Subsections (a) and (c):
"(a) Through the implementation of records management controls and other necessary actions, the President shall take all such steps as may be necessary to assure that the activities, deliberations, decisions, and policies that reflect the performance of the President’s constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties are adequately documented and that such records are preserved and maintained as Presidential records pursuant to the requirements of this section and other provisions of law." (emphasis added)
By tearing up documents and throwing them in the garbage, Trump is not taking all steps necessary to preserve and maintain Presidential records.
(c) During the President’s term of office, the President may dispose of those Presidential records of such President that no longer have administrative, historical, informational, or evidentiary value if--
(1) the President obtains the views, in writing, of the Archivist concerning the proposed disposal of such Presidential records; and
(2) the Archivist states that the Archivist does not intend to take any action under subsection (e) of this section.
Trump did not acquire permission in writing from the Archivist to destroy Presidential records.
I didn't see an Obama exemption therein:
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/general/30375-trumps-second-and-third-year-in-office/329/#post653646
What a horrible tv lawyer
'But your honor. Yes my client trump committed murder. But what about obama. He did too"
No need to attack me personally
I was merely pointing out that Trump ripping up a letter is not akin to Obama's systematic destruction of records
