You dont say.
Did it ever dawn on you that the women accusing Trump might also be politically motivated???
Wikileaks: The polls are rigged
- Thread starter AK-47
- Start date
Did it ever dawn on you that the women accusing Trump might also be politically motivated???
Funny you say this. I'm telling you, if Trump wins, he has a HUGE target on his back. These criminals are ruthless, it was a plot to damage his reputation. I hope he sues their asses off, for real.
Gloria Allred the lawyer of the groping allegation accusers was colluding with DNC about the fucking groping allegations since May, 5 months ago. This got real dirty! POS!
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/20593
From: Vaughn, Jordan [mailto:VaughnJ@dnc.org] Sent: Monday, May 16, 2016 8:49 AM To: Gloria Allred <GAllred@amglaw.com<mailto:GAllred@amglaw.com>>
Subject: RE: Blast Language - Approval Needed You got it. See below Friend
"Donald Trump is the presumptive Republican nominee for President of the United States in 2016. As a lifelong advocate for women’s rights, this statement is frightening. Donald Trump has pledged to reverse the vast amounts of great progress we have made over the years. His demeaning treatment of women and his stance on the Supreme Court and issues such as abortion would reverse this progress and negatively impact millions of Americans across the country – and that is unacceptable. The time to act is now. That is why I hope you will join myself, Tina Tchen, and Robbie Kaplan for a Democratic National Committee reception on May 31st at the home of Leatitia and Richard Garriott in New York. We will come together and discuss the upcoming race, and why we as Democrats must do everything we can to ensure a Democrat remains in the White House for the next four years. RSVP now via the attached invite or below"
He won't sue them. He yells alot about suing people but he rarely actually does it usually because he has no case.
So far since he won the nomination he has threatened to sue people twenty times but only actually filed two lawsuits.
Problem is for him that if he does sue them he will lose in court on the facts. No way he will risk that BEFORE the election, and after the election there will be no point.
So it won't happen.
So far since he won the nomination he has threatened to sue people twenty times but only actually filed two lawsuits.
Problem is for him that if he does sue them he will lose in court on the facts. No way he will risk that BEFORE the election, and after the election there will be no point.
So it won't happen.
The latest report on Russian from The Economist makes for explosive reading.
The FSB (successor to the KGB) controlled propaganda channel RT has been running on the corruption of Western democratic institutions. Disinformation is being spread about democratic elections being prearranged. There is a list of Western politicians that have taken part in RT programming. Among them are Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, Marine La Pen, Nigel Farage and Donald Trump. Which begs two interesting questions: Do the English anti-EU voters know that they were being duped? Did Dpnald Trump know what he was participating in?
The FSB (successor to the KGB) controlled propaganda channel RT has been running on the corruption of Western democratic institutions. Disinformation is being spread about democratic elections being prearranged. There is a list of Western politicians that have taken part in RT programming. Among them are Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, Marine La Pen, Nigel Farage and Donald Trump. Which begs two interesting questions: Do the English anti-EU voters know that they were being duped? Did Dpnald Trump know what he was participating in?
Didn't Trump only appear on Larry King's show on RT? Isn't Larry King a long time New Yorker whose show he's appeared on multiple times, and whose show used to air on American networks and/or syndication? Is Larry King now a Russian operative (at age 150, or whatever he is now)?
I can tell you this, RT's flagship show is Redacted Tonight. It's a comedy format news show, like Colbert or the The Daily Show. I've been watching it regularly during this election. That show has had nothing but criticism of Trump during this election. They unambiguously support Bernie. A strange position to take if they are trying to get Trump elected.
Yes, Trump has faults, contradictions, lies and controversies. So does Clinton. That doesn't explain the wildly disproportionate negative coverage devoted to Trump. Nobody, even in the media, seriously challenges that imbalance at this point. If you can't see this, you should stop reading and posting here until the election is over, because you're too blind to benefit from further discussion.
As to Assange hacking Trump, that's not WikiLeak's mandate. They expose GOVERNMENT corruption. Look at their mission statement on their website. Don't look to them to publish hacks of private citizens, unless they are connected to a government story. Btw, they have published documents in relation to Russian scandals in the past.
Oldjones, your memory is slipping. You and I have already talked about this. If she committed perjury in testifying before congress, or committed contempt of Congress in destroying evidence under subpoena, that would absolutely support impeachment proceedings against her (vis a vis her actions as SOS) and WOULD make her ineligible to run. Alternatively, it would make her ineligible to sit as President.
Whatever Trump did on his taxes, the IRS have laid no charges. None of it is even arguably disqualifying.
Howver, unlike you, the post I quote doesn't slip away even as I type my reply to it. So I remind you what I said, this time with emphasis, since your rely missed it:
That was 'run'. So why are you re-hashing that old exchange about impeachment? You didn't convince me back then that impeaching someone who had left office was a legal possibility. Are you now suggesting impeaching someone before they take office is? But let's assume you're right; why haven't they done it? Why is she still allowed to run? Answer: Because after investigation, no bar or impediment was found that would make her ineligible. But work up those alternate universe future fantasies for Black Mirror. They have zerop to do with what's happening in our present, now.
I stand by my original statements. Clinton has been open with the voters and disclosed her taxes and the Foundation's. Trump has been and continues to be entirely secretive about his finances and taxes. Trump's audit is still ongoing. Though a new Congress may decide to investigate any official, past or serving, the investigations of the old Congress concluded with no charges or actions against Clinton. Someday we may know how Trump's audit turned out (though I can't imagine he'll let us know) but no one can say the IRS is satisfied with his taxes yet.
Trump's the one hiding. Clinton's the one disclosing. She's been investigated, it concluded, and what they found is on record. Hes still being investigated — not to mention sued — and no one knows what they might find.
Done.
There's the problem, Oldjones, I wasn't trying to convince you of the ability to impeach someone who has already left office, I was informing you of the uncontroverted state of the law. Yet you, without any legal training or experience, are holding to your own view? Thank goodness for you Oldjones. I hope to profit from you one day. Long life to you!
As to impeaching Clinton after she takes office, it's quite clear that the FBI has no intention of finishing its pending investigations before the election. I'm sure they are hoping for a Democratic house to take them off the hook. They better be right, for their sakes.
Real Mature. You're beating a dead horse now, unlike you, I like to make sure what I put out there is legit, and if it's not, I pull it. In the trash, like 99.9999% of where your posts should be.
When she's impeached as the ex-Sec'y of State from four years back, or impeached as the President-Elect I'll be convinced. I was informed long ago: No one no longer in office has been impeached; the efforts were abandoned. What you say is the state of the law is 'uncontroverted' only because no one has yet attached themselves to the idiocy of carrying through the legalities of 'removing from office' someone who isn't actually holding that office. Can't 'controvert' a law when they repeatedly give up on applying it. Nothing to argue. Your case can be the first.
I sure will enjoy the Constitutional Circus that would be stirred up by anyone taking your legal position as any way to deal with the Arch-Criminal Clinton getting the Electoral College votes. Before or after the Inauguration d'ya think? What's fitting for the sins of a former swivel servant from two terms back, now that she's The People's Choice for the World's Biggest Job? Quick and clean
resident Kaine right from Day1? Or slow and safe, repeatng the Nixon and ClintonI slow death spirals?And if she's to be removed from the Presidency, or not allowed to assume it, for which there is no Constitutional precedent or provision (for what she did years ago in some other office, under supervision and authority of another President, deeds and doings already investigated and cleared) aren't you up against double jeopardy and/or ex post facto laws that protect every citizen from injustice? It's not like she and her lawyers will have no case to offer.
I know I said done, but this proposal is just too entertaining.
--------------
About those FBI Investigations. They did finish them before the election, the 'prosecutors' then followed up with a new one to keep the kettle boiling. Do you want complete, which takes time? Or timely, which cannot be so complete? Shouldn't the prosecutors have considered and provided for that in their game-plan? Seeing there's an election and all, and at least some Presidents have invoked stuff like Executive privilege that confuses gumshoeing mightily. Ya don't s'pose they're working without one, do ya? But given your frequent listing of her high crimes and misdemeanors, isn't your real beef with the Federal Elections Commission and how such an egregious sinner ever qualified as a candidate? How did you guys miss that boat?
Gonna check that video out thanks. Ha! Remember when Obama promised to have the most transparent administration in history? WikiLeaks made that promise come true lol. Let me know what you thought about the doc if you watch :couple_inlove:
The interesting thing is that Swartz's death has been a rallying cry for ending the war on terror type NSA spying that drove Swartz to his death.
His death has been an argument against republican suspension of rights and anti-spying types for a while.
Trump appears to support more of this type of action.
That was fun to watch and as usual the viewers liked it.
Was that an image of Hillary on the front of the desk while the reporter was denying they are bias? lol
No bias at all lol she says. Check out Hillary's weird podium and if you look really closely, you can see what looks like her moving a mouse around Seems little bit weird
