1 minute ago, HappyExpat57 said:

When a person continues to fill their thick heads with Fox Not News lies, there is nothing more anyone can do.

 

This will not be overturned on appeal, and the SC has nothing to do with this matter. That's how the justice system works. And when this convicted felon loses in November, the rest of the cases will be brought forth in SPITE of his sycophants' efforts.

 

But keep walking in the mist of lies if it makes you feel better, sunshine.

 It can and will go to the SC; that's the process. I don't watch Fox, and I'm not a Trump voter - sunshine.

6 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

 AD HOMINEM is always used by the ignorant and uneducated  

Perhaps that is why MagaWorld often use this illogically fallacy when they are unable to support their discussions with logic and/or facts.

3 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

 
Misdemeanours outside the statute of limitations and bumped UP for political reasons. Your argument is truly infantile. He will win on appeal - maybe not in NY but certainly at the SC.

Pathetic come-back. '' at the Supreme Court'', (which he owns).. ? of course he will be found innocent, just like one of Trumps famous wins at his one-man golf tournaments (which he owns).

33 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Really? There was no evidence presented that these acts were committed to rig an election. The prosecution was very careful to NOT say what the underlying offence was that elevated 34 minor misdemeanours to the level of felonies. The judge in his instructions said the same.  

 

If you think that the 'revelation' that Trump slept with a porn star would have scuppered his election chances, you don't know the American people very well. It may well have had the opposite effect...

'Trump slept with a porn star'?

There's no evidence of that.

In an interview with Vogue, Stormy Daniels stated that the 'sex' lasted maybe 2 minutes. She didn't reveal if there was any sleeping together after those 2 minutes.

There is some evidence though, that Trump was sleeping in the courtroom. And farting.

1 minute ago, LosLobo said:

Perhaps that is why MagaWorld often use this illogically fallacy when they are unable to support their discussions with logic and/or facts.

 
It is used by both sides, unfortunately, but we don't need to use it here on a farang debating site IMHO. 

Just now, Presto said:

'Trump slept with a porn star'?

There's no evidence of that.

In an interview with Vogue, Stormy Daniels stated that the 'sex' lasted maybe 2 minutes. She didn't reveal if there was any sleeping together after those 2 minutes.

There is some evidence though, that Trump was sleeping in the courtroom. And farting.

Melania: did you have sex with that woman.? Trump: I did NOT sleep with her.

1 hour ago, HappyExpat57 said:

I hate to admit it but you have a valid point. Hillary SHOULD have been nailed for that email server thingy, but she is deeply embedded in the system. That system protected her.

 

The twice impeached and now convicted felon behaved like a bull in a China (CHInah!) shop and the real powers that be have had it with him. He'll find how quickly his support in D.C dissipates and he'll be nothing but a husk of bad makeup and a man with no family.

 

 

 

This guy has posted in this topic 70 times. 

 

70 times. Dear me. It must be a record for this forum. Shocking. 

 

 

1 minute ago, theblether said:

 

This guy has posted in this topic 70 times. 

 

70 times. Dear me. It must be a record for this forum. Shocking. 

 

 

I just happened to have a day off with the laundry already done and a clean, empty kitchen sink. Not sure what anyone else's excuse might be.

7 hours ago, jerrymahoney said:

f the Access Hollywood tape did not cost Trump the election, there is no evidence that the Daniels brouhaha would've made the difference.

 

 

Again the stale worn "no there is no evidence that  blal bla bla would've made the difference" nonsense when one has nothing that make sense to offer, or to voice one's discontent by.

Stormy Daniels mader Trump campaign run around like chickens with head cut off.

5 hours ago, bob smith said:

Not a single news reporter or political commentator from across all sides of the political spectrum thinks that he will see see the inside of a jail cell.

 

Where on earth are you getting YOUR evidence? 

 

bob.

more to the point what have you been smoking and what reporters & political commentators do you get your news from. The ONLY ones I've seen saying he won't go to prison are all the cult members, viz. FOX and the MAGA morons that believe every lie that comes out of mouth.

30 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

It's a psychological/emotional condition outside of CDCs remit. Those who suffer will never know but react at the mention of Trump's name. 

Outside of medical science and the reality based universe.

 

The hogwash MAGA thrives in.

𝗛𝗼𝘄 𝘁𝗼 𝗵𝗲𝗹𝗽 𝗽𝗮𝘆 𝗼𝗳𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗱𝗲𝗯𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗳𝘂𝗻: Put Trump in a real prison, preferably with a Mexican cell mate, and install some cameras. Make it a PPV. All of the proceeds go directly to paying off the US debt.

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

Outside of medical science and the reality based universe.

 

The hogwash MAGA thrives in.

 
Don't think too much - it was a little humour amongst all this flaming and trolling 

1 minute ago, HappyExpat57 said:

I just happened to have a day off with the laundry already done and a clean, empty kitchen sink. Not sure what anyone else's excuse might be.

 

Get a grip on yourself. You remind me of a guy who had mental health intervention after posting about Trump 14,000 times on a single forum. 

 

Walk away from the Internet. Enjoy your day. 

25 minutes ago, Presto said:

Of course the electoral college can be abolished, it just needs political will. But there isn't, on both sides.

So you're stuck with a load of archaic, ambiguous rules, and maybe you think that that is beneficial to your idea of democracy. 

Where presidents are elected by c. 100.000 votes in swing states, while having millions less in the popular vote.

17,000 votes in 2016    Why would the R's want to abolish the EC ?  They would never win a Presidential election and they despise democracy.   Biden and the Dems can't abolish it  the R's hold the House and most State legislatures      My idea of Democracy would be one person one vote ,traitors and seditionists are executed.

2 minutes ago, theblether said:

 

Get a grip on yourself. You remind me of a guy who had mental health intervention after posting about Trump 14,000 times on a single forum. 

 

Walk away from the Internet. Enjoy your day. 

I enjoy this. Don't tell people how to spend their time. You seem to be busy here as well.

5 minutes ago, TigerandDog said:

more to the point what have you been smoking and what reporters & political commentators do you get your news from. The ONLY ones I've seen saying he won't go to prison are all the cult members, viz. FOX and the MAGA morons that believe every lie that comes out of mouth.

He will NOT go to prison on these charges    .If the judge has any guts it will be house arrest at Mar a Lago    if he violates   maybe Civil War.

1 minute ago, charleskerins said:

17,000 votes in 2016    Why would the R's want to abolish the EC ?  They would never win a Presidential election and they despise democracy.   Biden and the Dems can't abolish it  the R's hold the House and most State legislatures      My idea of Democracy would be one person one vote ,traitors and seditionists are executed.

I totally agree. For eight years I've been following American politics, and I've slowly come to the conclusion they've painted themselves in a corner. So many laws, acts, Constitution articles, basically seem to be inoperable. 

8 minutes ago, HappyExpat57 said:

I just happened to have a day off with the laundry already done and a clean, empty kitchen sink. Not sure what anyone else's excuse might be.

What exactly should Hillary have been prosecuted for?   Do you think the other government official that did the same thing should be prosecuted?    What  do you think about the classified materials at Mar -A Lago ?   

47 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

The jury deliberated for less than 12 hours. Almost like they had already made their minds up. 

 

 

Of course the rich and powerful can be convicted. It depends if they are on the wrong side of the political divide. 

 

Look at Thailand for example, Thaksin (like Trump) was removed. In fact Thailand now has many similarities to the USA in terms of removing popular politicians via kangaroo courts.

Now it's a kangaroo court ?  You are desperate ,do you know what a Kangaroo Court is?   Do you know that Donnies lawyers got to pick the jurors?

15 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

 
It is used by both sides, unfortunately, but we don't need to use it here on a farang debating site IMHO. 

it is not used by both sides 

51 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Obviously never read any of my posts. I've never said that Trump is my hero.

 

Pretty typical post of yours attacking other posters instead of discussing the topic.

 

Next.

I've read your posts " billionaire with many beautiful women "  "can't wait till he's elected revenge will be awesome"  PP     I discussed the topic   your hero is a criminal.

6 minutes ago, Presto said:

I totally agree. For eight years I've been following American politics, and I've slowly come to the conclusion they've painted themselves in a corner. So many laws, acts, Constitution articles, basically seem to be inoperable. 

Partisan SC is a huge problem for lovers of Democracy   Alito and Thomas  are despicable.

9 minutes ago, charleskerins said:

What exactly should Hillary have been prosecuted for?   Do you think the other government official that did the same thing should be prosecuted?    What  do you think about the classified materials at Mar -A Lago ?   

 

Knowingly and intentional mishandling sensitive data. ANY government official who does this should be prosecuted, including the Mar-A-Lago theft. The latter is compounded with the attempt to cover up his theft. Eventually that will become another conviction, it's a slam-dunk.

8 minutes ago, HappyExpat57 said:

 

Knowingly and intentional mishandling sensitive data. ANY government official who does this should be prosecuted, including the Mar-A-Lago theft. The latter is compounded with the attempt to cover up his theft. Eventually that will become another conviction, it's a slam-dunk.

The Garland DOJ handles these cases very differently. In 2021 Ms Lavarello was sentenced to three months in jail pretty quickly and efficiently, Trump was approached with hat in hand, please Mr President, give us those classified documents, essential to national security, back? Please?

That took a year and a half. And still DOJ doesn't know that is has everything back, and certainly doesn't know what has been done with those documents in all those years. Apparently national security is less important than they would make us believe.

I would have scanned them, put them on a microSD as big as a fingernail, and sold them to whoever is willing to pay a big price.

But I'm not American.

29 minutes ago, watthong said:

 

Again the stale worn "no there is no evidence that  blal bla bla would've made the difference" nonsense when one has nothing that make sense to offer, or to voice one's discontent by.

Stormy Daniels mader Trump campaign run around like chickens with head cut off.

Even the Prosecution's opening statement said that they make no claim as to whether the Daniels dustup would have materially affected the 2016 election results.

12 minutes ago, HappyExpat57 said:

 

Knowingly and intentional mishandling sensitive data. ANY government official who does this should be prosecuted, including the Mar-A-Lago theft. The latter is compounded with the attempt to cover up his theft. Eventually that will become another conviction, it's a slam-dunk.

ok

5 minutes ago, Presto said:

The Garland DOJ handles these cases very differently. In 2021 Ms Lavarello was sentenced to three months in jail pretty quickly and efficiently, Trump was approached with hat in hand, please Mr President, give us those classified documents, essential to national security, back? Please?

That took a year and a half. And still DOJ doesn't know that is has everything back, and certainly doesn't know what has been done with those documents in all those years. Apparently national security is less important than they would make us believe.

I would have scanned them, put them on a microSD as big as a fingernail, and sold them to whoever is willing to pay a big price.

But I'm not American.

Apparently someone on the convicted felon's team DID scan some of the documents and put them on her laptop.

 

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2024/5/22/2242052/-Trump-s-PAC-copied-classified-documents-found-at-Mar-a-Lago-onto-an-unsecure-laptop

1 hour ago, Presto said:

I shouldn't do it, but here's my prediction for the November elections.

74 million American adults voted for Trump in 2020. Not many will have changed their minds.

Voter turnout was 66% in 2020, but will be much lower this year. And that will hurt Biden more, especially because of his abhorrent Israel Palestine policies, and voters staying home or voting blank in battleground states. The archaic electoral college, that Biden has never even attempted to change of course, will do the rest.

Predictions are difficult, especially with regard to the future.

I think that the turnout will be much larger than 2020 as Democracy is on the ballot. 

2 hours ago, Berkshire said:

My understanding is that a POTUS is automatically granted the highest levels of security clearance.  It comes with the job.  But if he were incarcerated....not sure how that would work. 

Wrong.

 

President's do not have any security clearance. They are allowed access to classified information at the discretion of agency chiefs because of the vote of the public. In his case, there was much denied him, especially after he exposed a Mossad penetration of ISIS when he blabbed to Lavrov and Kislyak and their FSB "cameraman" in the Oval Office.

 

Presidents are rarely, if ever, provided with the identities of foreign clandestine assets, as they have no need to know. In the PDB, the intel is usually given a rating and an asset described as, for example, "a long term asset whose previous reporting has been found to be highly reliable".

 

The US maintains liaison relationships with many nations' intelligence services, and after that exposure, intel was only passed to US intel officials under a guarantee it would not be shared with him.  Many of the documents he stole upon defeat were only in his possession because his two hand-picked lackeys at DNI---Grenell and Ratcliffe---gave then to him. Dan Coats and Gina Haspel were too smart to do that.

 

An actual security clearance requires a lengthy background investigation, depending on the level of clearance required. Since no investigation of a Presidential candidate is undertaken, no winning President is ever given an actual clearance. The day a President leaves office, he no longer has any right to view or be told anything classified. He is a private citizen. Traditionally, some intel is shared with former Presidents, but not with him, as he was not trusted, besides being under indictment for his massive document theft.

 

It will be interesting, should he win in November, what will happen. Yes, he can appoint his own lackeys as DCI or DNI or DirNSA, but unless the workforce provides intel, the agency chief would have nothing to share. Liaison relationships would likely cease, and a good many skilled and talented field officers in the different agencies would likely resign or retire. Finding skills among his cult would be like finding a basketball center for the Yemen Olympic team who could compete with Wembanyama or Jokic.

 

In any event, when he was POTUS he did not like the intel community, because they told him the truth, not what he wanted to hear. Many Presidents have had trouble with that, but they come to understand that the intel community's job is to collect and then assess intel, not manufacture it or cherry pick according to what the President wants to believe.