placeholder

As I've already pointed out, as President he couldn't be indicted. Even before he was out of office, his team of lawyers engaged in delaying tactics. The motions they put forward mostly failed but they did delay the process. That phase is beginning to draw to a close.

A correction: CEO should have been CFO. Weisselberg was the Chief Financial Officer for the Trump Organization.

Trump was not indictable during his 4 years as President. After he left the White House (very grudgingly) his lawyers opposed every action by various investigators. While their track record of successes was very poor, they did manage to delay a reckoning. Now the time is approaching where these cases will appear in court. It certainly doesn't look good for the Trump Organization in civil court. Trump took the 5th over 400 times in deposition and Trump Org's former CEO has now agreed to testify in the case.

Thanks for that. Looks like I got it wrong.

Here's a link to what I think is a fascinating deep dive article about Russian intelligence screw-ups before the war. It also touches on other intelligence services' failures. It was originally published by the Washington Post but it also appears in Stars and Stripes which has no paywall. https://www.stripes.com/theaters/europe/2022-08-19/russia-spies-misread-ukraine-7036228.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/interactive/2022/russia-fsb-intelligence-ukraine-war/?itid=hp-top-table-main

I wasn't trolling or baiting. However, I was responding to the fact that you cited the level of employment pre-covid. So that was the Trump administration. Still, I was mistaken in attributing you explicitly citing the Trump.

This is laughable. You're the one who compared the Biden administration's performance to the Trump administration's. I just replied to that. So whose mind has Trump taken up residence in?

A rhetorical question is a question that you use when you believe an answer is obvious. They are used to reinforce an argument. So on the one hand, you were casting doubt on the grounds and motives of the investigation. But on the the other you were making the point that there hasn't been enough time for an indictment?. It's obvious that thanks to your blatantly evident biases, you made a false assumption and are now trying to wriggle out of facing the consequences..

Here's what the Trump organization had to say about the massive tax cheater: “Allen Weisselberg, a long-time, trusted employee of The Trump Organization, is a fine and honorable man who, for the past four years, has been harassed, persecuted, and threatened by law enforcement, particularly the Manhattan district attorney, in their never-ending, politically motivated quest to get President Trump,” the company said in a statement. https://sports.yahoo.com/trump-organization-cfo-allen-weisselberg-232300500.html

So it was great when the economy reached such levels during the Trump administration but not when they're reached during the Biden administration? And this despite the fact that the economic situation faces a lot more adverse forces than it did during the Trump Presidency.

Another report from an alternative universe. Here's what a judge ruled in this one: President Trump’s former lawyer Michael Cohen was released from federal prison in New York on Friday. His release came a day after a judge ruled he was improperly returned there in retaliation for failing to agree to a ban on him publishing a book about Trump. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/24/former-trump-lawyer-michael-cohen-released-from-prison-again.html I look forward to your response but I suspect you'll evaporate.

In other words, you've got nothing.

You offered as evidence of the political motivation behind the case that no indictments of Trump had been yet forthcoming after the raid. Such a rapid issuance of indictments is virtually impossible under the US legal system. So yes, you have offered evidence that is contrary to fact. And it takes a certain degree of cluelessness or worse to believe that one's self-evaluation of one's stance as being neutral somehow qualifies as proof of it.

It's not like you're a debutante here. To mix metaphors, you have a track record.

Actually, the DA's office has agreed that he doesn't have to testify against Trump. So, they won't go back on their word. A judge really wouldn't like that. That said, he has plenty of evidence to offer against the Trump organization. And given what we know about how it was run, it's virtually impossible that Trump didn't know about these illegal arrangements and most likely there will be others who can testify to that effect.

Crystal balling much?

What evidence do you have that I don't like people giving their opinions. Actually, I love people giving their opinions. Especially 3 kinds: 1)the ones that offer avenues of thought that hadn't occurred to me 2)or offer information that was new to me 3)and the ones that are so riddled with unclear thinking and statements contrary to fact that they deserve pointed critiques. It's clear to me that the comments you offer in this forum generally fall under category #3. So, self-declared neutral observer, thanks for that.

Mind reading and counterfactuals are the basis of your beliefs. And you're so neutral that you question why indictments haven't been issued 10 days after the raid. Even though that would be virtually impossible under the US legal system. The evidence of your neutrality keeps on becoming more and more impressive.

Deflecting much? Here's what you claimed: "You "one law and nobody above it" is a troll. You know full well the democrats and republicans are held to different standards. Allegations against Republicans without evidence get major air time and discussion. Allegations against Democrats with mountains of evidence are censored across social media."

You followed up your claim that this is a political prosecution with these words: "And everyone knows it "

And who appointed you the spokesperson for everybody?

Sure. The case against Hillary Clinton was something the press failed to report. James Comey's denunciation of her behavior, which violated Justice Dept. rules, was left entirely unreported. Can you please share with us the location of the alternative universe you apparently live in?

Comments re "politically motivated" from a self-described "neutral" observer who apparently has access to information not yet revealed to the general public. Ordinarily I'd say that anyone expecting an "indictment" 10 days after such a huge amount of evidence was gathered, would be seriously clueless about how the legal system system and the care that has to be taken when analyzing such evidence. But since you're "neutral"... Robert Mueller in his report cited 10 instances of obstruction of justice that Trump could be indicted for were he not the President. An affidavit would reveal witnesses and the direction the investigation was going. So the justice dept is well justified in keeping information from him.

No, you miss the point. Donald Trump is a private citizen. He is not entitled to any privilieges in regards to the justice system. And stop lying about what the FBI did. The agents did not "storm" Trump's residence. They served a warrant and were admitted. No battering rams were employed. In addition, Trump was given a huge amount of consideration. Negotiations went on for months for Trump to return documents he wasn't entitled to hold. And what demonstrates better his unfitness for office than his promise for "Payback". This is the clown who publicly denigrated his first Attorney General for following the rules. He denigrated another for refusing to pursue groundless allegations. And the Justice Dept. clearly had evidence to pursue their investigation. Are you suggesting that Trump will instigate investigations regardless of lack of evidence. He already made groundless accusations against Obama that he did the same thing as Trump. This was false. But thanks for revealing the mindset of a typical Trump supporter.

I think I've found the explanation of why Biden's poll numbers have been rising. And yes, it has to do with the falling price of a fuel that powers most Americans: The first regular-season game of the NFL season kicks off Sept. 8, and just in time: Chicken wings are at their lowest prices in years. The Department of Agriculture's price index for chicken wings is now at levels not seen since 2018, with the average wholesale price of a pound of wings falling to about $1.68 in July, and trending even lower for August. It's a startling reversal of a trend that saw a dramatic run-up in prices for chicken wings early in the pandemic, one that coincided with broader inflation in the economy, labor shortages and surging demand for poultry as fast-food chains began rolling out competing chicken sandwiches. https://www.nbcnews.com/business/consumer/chicken-wing-prices-cheaper-now-than-before-pandemic-rcna43601