Trump’s revenge

[Big Jim]

2 hours ago, Setton said:

More accurately, Trump is presumed innocent of the charges levelled against him. 

By rejecting that you are presuming him to be something else.  Presumed innocent is the same as innocent.  Parsing sentences and dissecting words doesn't change that.

[Big Jim]

10 minutes ago, Doug1029 said:

Trump is innocent of "high crimes and misdemeanors."  The Senate has spoken and that;s the end of it.

BUT, once he is out of office, he can still be tried for crimes committed under statutory law.  This is not over.

And then there are civil suits.

Doug

As desperate as the Dems were, if there was the slightest evidence of any crimes committed it would have been their main accusation.  

Who would have standing to bring a civil suit?  Who was harmed?

[Big Jim]

4 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

But doesn't Nancy look composed and in charge. 

In the photo below, the left was taken in Sept. of 2016, the right in Jan. 2020.

[Doug1029]

39 minutes ago, Big Jim said:

As desperate as the Dems were, if there was the slightest evidence of any crimes committed it would have been their main accusation.  

Who would have standing to bring a civil suit?  Who was harmed?

Crimes against statutory law are irrelevant in an impeachment hearing.  If one was committed, that's extra political browny points, but it does not affect "high crimes and misdemeanors."  As far as I can remember, statutory charges against Trump have not been filed because that would violate the DOJ memorandum.  Filing will have to wait until he leaves office.

Trump has already lost the Trump University case,  but is defying the court order to pay $25 million in damages.  There probably isn't much his victims can do for the time being, but once he's out of office, they can foreclose.

There is a civil suit in progress over Trump's violation of the Emoluments Clause.  The people harmed are the Citizens of the United States.

Several building contractors have won judgments against Trump for work on his hotels for which they were not paid.  I'm not up to date on these, but I am wondering if they have filed construction liens against those properties.  Even if they haven't they should still be able to foreclose.

Once Trump is out of office, GAO will seek restitution of funds taken illegally by Trump appointees and possibly, amounts paid to Mar-a-Lago in excess of the standard travel allowances.  That will be in the millions.

Doug

[Doug1029]

49 minutes ago, Big Jim said:

In the photo below, the left was taken in Sept. of 2016, the right in Jan. 2020.

Just for the fun of it, post a picture of Trump taken in 2016 and another taken in 2020.  Washington politics ages people.

Doug

[Unusual Tournament]

2 hours ago, Big Jim said:

In the photo below, the left was taken in Sept. of 2016, the right in Jan. 2020.

Hi Jim. Mate it looks like one photo with make up and another without. She is getting old. Surely retirement should be close. At least Trump would be hoping so.

Edited February 10, 2020 by Captain Risky

[Setton]

2 hours ago, Big Jim said:

By rejecting that you are presuming him to be something else. 

I'm not rejecting anything. I'm correcting.

Quote

Presumed innocent is the same as innocent.  

No, it isn't. One is a legal (or in this case political) fact, the other is an absolute fact. 

If you kill someone and get away with it, it doesn't change the fact that you killed them. 

[Setton]

2 hours ago, Big Jim said:

In the photo below, the left was taken in Sept. of 2016, the right in Jan. 2020.

Wait, what? 

People AGE?!!! 

This is shocking news! Just how did you stumble on this great discovery? 

 

 

Oh, and what's your point? Other than you prefer your politicians in orangeface. 

Because remember kids, so long as you paint a different face over your own, you are a good politician. 

[simplybill]

2 hours ago, Doug1029 said:

There is a civil suit in progress over Trump's violation of the Emoluments Clause.  The people harmed are the Citizens of the United States.

The civil suit ended a few days ago:

“A federal appeals court tossed out a lawsuit by congressional Democrats who had sued President Donald Trump for allegedly violating the Constitution’s emoluments clause.”

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/07/trump-wins-appeal-of-emoluments-clause-lawsuit-by-democrats.html

[simplybill]

2 hours ago, Doug1029 said:

Several building contractors have won judgments against Trump for work on his hotels for which they were not paid.  I'm not up to date on these, but I am wondering if they have filed construction liens against those properties.  Even if they haven't they should still be able to foreclose.

I’ve been waiting for someone to approach Larry Flynt with paperwork from the court proceedings. It’s not that I doubt the judgments occurred, but I would think Mr. Flynt and President Trump’s other opponents would’ve been all over this. They could score some big political points by investigating the claims and the courts’ decisions. To be honest, I think the allegations were just typical contractor/customer disagreements.

The Trump University judgment seems to be a much more serious matter. However, using the word ‘defying’ is a bit biased. ‘Appealing’ would be a better word.

2 hours ago, Doug1029 said:

defying the court order 

 

[Doug1029]

1 hour ago, simplybill said:

The civil suit ended a few days ago:

“A federal appeals court tossed out a lawsuit by congressional Democrats who had sued President Donald Trump for allegedly violating the Constitution’s emoluments clause.”

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/07/trump-wins-appeal-of-emoluments-clause-lawsuit-by-democrats.html

Thanks.

Doug

[Doug1029]

45 minutes ago, simplybill said:

I’ve been waiting for someone to approach Larry Flynt with paperwork from the court proceedings. It’s not that I doubt the judgments occurred, but I would think Mr. Flynt and President Trump’s other opponents would’ve been all over this. They could score some big political points by investigating the claims and the courts’ decisions. To be honest, I think the allegations were just typical contractor/customer disagreements.

The Trump University judgment seems to be a much more serious matter. However, using the word ‘defying’ is a bit biased. ‘Appealing’ would be a better word.

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/contractor-lawsuit-trump-never-settled-bill-old-post-office-dc-hotel/

https://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2017/01/trump-hotel-lawsuit-contractor-electrical-234167

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-bills-specialrepor-idUSKCN0T214Q20151113

https://www.inc.com/jessica-stillman/meet-the-many-small-business-owners-stiffed-by-donald-trump.html

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/hundreds-claim-donald-trump-doesn-t-pay-his-bills-n589261

https://www.theweek.com/articles/783976/brief-history-trumps-smalltime-swindles

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/04/12/trump-testifies-in-breach-of-contract-lawsuit/2073681/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/09/donald-trump-unpaid-bills-republican-president-laswuits/85297274/

 

This is as close as I could come to an actual complaint:  https://www.scribd.com/document/365766750/Donald-Trump-Bonwit-Teller-Demolition-Memorandum-in-Support#from_embed

 

It is remarkably easy to find newspaper articles about Trump swindling people.  Some probably were ordinary contractor/contractee disputes, but there are an awful lot of them.

Doug

[simplybill]

@Doug1029

Thanks. I’ll look those over later this evening. We have nice weather today here in Iowa, and I need to go outside and walk off my cabin fever!

[Swede]

22 hours ago, acute said:

Does anyone understand this?

If so, please translate it into something I can grasp.

Oh, my. Let us review. The definition in question:

acquittal

(əˈkwɪtəl)

n

1. (Law) criminal law the deliverance and release of a person appearing before a court on a charge of crime, as by a finding of not guilty.

 

What this definition is distinctly saying is that in criminal law, acquittal means, to quote, "the deliverance and release of a person appearing before a court on a charge of crime" via the adjudication of a "finding of not guilty". Thus, an acquittal by a court is a finding of not guilty. This definition is, of course, echoed by the other definitions provided.

 

If you are too functionally illiterate to grasp these definitions, there is little more that I can do for you.

 

Edit: Format.

Edited February 10, 2020 by Swede

[Golden Duck]

On 2/9/2020 at 6:47 PM, and then said:

Did it ever occur to you that they actually believe what they've been saying in support of Trump?  Yeah, politicians are always, first and foremost, politicians but the arguments in defense of how he handled that call are at LEAST as valid a narrative as the Nadler/Schiff/Pelosi rantings.  If you really want to go down the road and supporting a lynch mob based on opinions alone then I'd conclude that you wouldn't feel the same if it were YOU under the Dem's microscope.

The call transcript would raise flags conduct in a finance section.  POTUS is held to a higher standard - it's a high office.  Judgment and opinion concerning the standard of evidence would be important.

My cycniscism was inspired by a Gallup poll.

Quote

Some 15% of Democrats say the Senate should vote to acquit, compared with 7% of Republicans who say the Senate should convict. 

Three votes to convict wouldn't be that unexpected.

[+and-then]

10 hours ago, Big Jim said:

By rejecting that you are presuming him to be something else.  Presumed innocent is the same as innocent.  Parsing sentences and dissecting words doesn't change that.

It does provide a glimpse into the mindset of a Liberal.  In their world, you are guilty until you can prove - to THEIR satisfaction - that you are innocent.  It amazes me that our culture seems to have fundamentally changed so quickly.  These folks would NEVER accept that same standard being applied in their lives yet they feel completely justified to apply it to those who think differently.  

[Big Jim]

25 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

The call transcript would raise flags conduct in a finance section.  POTUS is held to a higher standard - it's a high office.  Judgment and opinion concerning the standard of evidence would be important.

My cycniscism was inspired by a Gallup poll.

Three votes to convict wouldn't be that unexpected.

The votes needed to dismiss the charges are different than the votes needed to remove the President from office.  To dismiss only requires a simple majority, 51/49.  The actual votes were 52/48 and 53/47 on each of the charges.  To convict requires a 2/3 majority, or 67 votes in favor.  So they didn't lack just 3 votes, they lacked 19 or 20.

[Big Jim]

12 minutes ago, and then said:

It does provide a glimpse into the mindset of a Liberal.  In their world, you are guilty until you can prove - to THEIR satisfaction - that you are innocent.  It amazes me that our culture seems to have fundamentally changed so quickly.  These folks would NEVER accept that same standard being applied in their lives yet they feel completely justified to apply it to those who think differently.  

Their treatment of a President who beat them fair and square in a free election contrasts with their acceptance of brutal crimes committed by illegal aliens. 

[+and-then]

25 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

Judgment and opinion concerning the standard of evidence would be important.

Fair enough.  Here is my perspective... technically, he had every right to request help with an investigation into corruption and he was keyed in to that corruption by news reports with Biden publicly demanding an actual quid pro quo that was of direct benefit to his son.  The legality of what Biden did isn't my first concern.  I'm more interested in the mindset we have been saturated by for 3+ years that whatever this president does is illegitimate or even criminal and when he dares to strike back in any way, they use it to attempt to remove him.  THAT is what millions of his supporters see in this debacle.  

Both sides can make arguments of how they perceived his call and his request but when the call happened at the end of 3 years of attacks, his supporters are going to give him the benefit of a doubt.  I keep telling you, the attacks have been so constant and so vicious, often with false or misleading storylines, that the media and their Democrat puppets have essentially inoculated Trump from all criticism.  THEY have created their "monster".  Apparently, they have nothing else or have no self control and are doubling down in plain site.

I'm just waiting for the next dud to land and the feeding frenzy to begin all over again.  Reasonable people who see Trump for what he is and are judging him on his accomplishments, are getting weary of this noise and I really think they are going to make a statement in November.  It remains to be seen what form the tantrums will take after that but I have absolute confidence that the attacks will not stop.  The question people should be asking is, what are they trying to distract our attention from?  Durham's criminal investigation of the lead up to the special counsel is supposed to be close to completion in late spring.  He's a prosecutor and his "report" is just going to be indictments for any crimes he finds.

The DemMedia will make every effort to slander and skew perceptions about his work but if he's as solid and as unbiased as his reputation claims, they may have trouble contaminating jury pools.  The only problem I foresee is the inability to try any cases outside DC.  Without a change of venue, there will be automatic jury nullification.

[Golden Duck]

1 minute ago, Big Jim said:

The votes needed to dismiss the charges are different than the votes needed to remove the President from office.  To dismiss only requires a simple majority, 51/49.  The actual votes were 52/48 and 53/47 on each of the charges.  To convict requires a 2/3 majority, or 67 votes in favor.  So they didn't lack just 3 votes, they lacked 19 or 20.

Cool story; but, this sub-thread has been about cynicism and a show of impartiality.  The speculation is that the Rebublicans up for re-election in 2024 could take-one--for-the-team.

Based on a 7 per cent probability you could expect 3.71 senators to convict. But that's impossible right?

The binomial distribution is as follows

0	0.02136
1	0.085209
2	0.166754
3	0.213373
4	0.200754
5	0.148083
6	0.089168
7	0.045064
8	0.019503
9	0.00734
10	0.002431
11	0.000715
12	0.000188
13	4.47E-05
14	9.62E-06
15	1.88E-06
16	3.37E-07
17	5.51E-08
18	8.3E-09
19	1.15E-09
20	1.47E-10

Again, three votes to convict is not outrageous; and, it would not hurt.

 

[Big Jim]

4 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

Cool story; but, this sub-thread has been about cynicism and a show of impartiality.  The speculation is that the Rebublicans up for re-election in 2024 could take-one--for-the-team.

Based on a 7 per cent probability you could expect 3.71 senators to convict. But that's impossible right?

The binomial distribution is as follows

0	0.02136
1	0.085209
2	0.166754
3	0.213373
4	0.200754
5	0.148083
6	0.089168
7	0.045064
8	0.019503
9	0.00734
10	0.002431
11	0.000715
12	0.000188
13	4.47E-05
14	9.62E-06
15	1.88E-06
16	3.37E-07
17	5.51E-08
18	8.3E-09
19	1.15E-09
20	1.47E-10

Again, three votes to convict is not outrageous; and, it would not hurt.

 

Interesting prediction about something that happened last week.  

[Golden Duck]

4 minutes ago, Big Jim said:

Interesting prediction about something that happened last week.  

It's interesting that you interpret past tense as a prediction.

[+Hammerclaw]

7 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

It's interesting that you interpret past tense as a prediction.

It is predictive mathematics that reality Trumped. Well, except for one bitter also-ran.

[Golden Duck]

14 minutes ago, and then said:

Fair enough.  Here is my perspective... technically, he had every right to request help with an investigation into corruption and he was keyed in to that corruption by news reports with Biden publicly demanding an actual quid pro quo that was of direct benefit to his son.  The legality of what Biden did isn't my first concern.  I'm more interested in the mindset we have been saturated by for 3+ years that whatever this president does is illegitimate or even criminal and when he dares to strike back in any way, they use it to attempt to remove him.  THAT is what millions of his supporters see in this debacle.  

Both sides can make arguments of how they perceived his call and his request but when the call happened at the end of 3 years of attacks, his supporters are going to give him the benefit of a doubt.  I keep telling you, the attacks have been so constant and so vicious, often with false or misleading storylines, that the media and their Democrat puppets have essentially inoculated Trump from all criticism.  THEY have created their "monster".  Apparently, they have nothing else or have no self control and are doubling down in plain site.

I'm just waiting for the next dud to land and the feeding frenzy to begin all over again.  Reasonable people who see Trump for what he is and are judging him on his accomplishments, are getting weary of this noise and I really think they are going to make a statement in November.  It remains to be seen what form the tantrums will take after that but I have absolute confidence that the attacks will not stop.  The question people should be asking is, what are they trying to distract our attention from?  Durham's criminal investigation of the lead up to the special counsel is supposed to be close to completion in late spring.  He's a prosecutor and his "report" is just going to be indictments for any crimes he finds.

The DemMedia will make every effort to slander and skew perceptions about his work but if he's as solid and as unbiased as his reputation claims, they may have trouble contaminating jury pools.  The only problem I foresee is the inability to try any cases outside DC.  Without a change of venue, there will be automatic jury nullification.

I think I said it before, but the New York Times report, on the activity in the White House, weakened or didn't support the bribery allegation.  It painted Trump in a more whimsical light.  He made a decision and flip-flopped with no real reason why.

Trump is entertaining.  He hasn't destroyed the world; and, really I expect him to do even less after he is re-elected.

I've referenced this answer - which destroys the Australian Green's Manifesto - before:

Quote

HASSETT: I think that it’s the best explanation for what we’re seeing, and that if you want to think about the economics debate, the academic debate, or the political debate, because they both were interlaced while the tax bill was hot, then there’s one school of thought that thinks that capital’s highly mobile, if you try to tax the highly mobile thing, it moves and you don’t get much revenue from that. And when you do that the immobile factor ends up bearing the cost. And so in that view, we’ve had this unprecedented slow wage growth and slow economic growth because we tried to tax the mobile thing, the mobile thing ran away. And then the immobile thing, which in this case would be workers, ended up holding the bag. And so the workers saw their wages not go up because the firms were locating the jobs over there and moving the capital that could have driven their productivity up over there, and so they were stuck basically holding the bag. And then the other school of thought is, well, marginal incentives don’t really matter that much. Investment’s not that responsive to these things, people are going to locate where they’re going to locate. But taxes are a small part of that puzzle. And the reason that we’re growing slowly is not because the Obama team enacted unwise policies, but because the whole world is slowing down.

That's a pretty big tick right there.

[Golden Duck]

14 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

It is predictive mathematics that reality Trumped. Well, except for one bitter also-ran.

Well they're talking about him now.

You have to wonder what's wrong with Mike Kennedy for Trump to endorse a 'choker'.