Do you think Trump and his kids should go to jail?

Jump to Last Post 1-30 of 30 discussions (764 posts)
  1. My Esoteric profile image91
    My Esotericposted 7 weeks ago

    It is clear the kids and Trump have committed several federal crimes - otherwise Trump wouldn't feel a need to pardon them "preemptively", yet they are not under any federal investigation at the moment.  So why pardon them if they have done nothing wrong.

    I just found out today that Trump is an illegal resident of Florida and therefore voted (as did Melania) illegally as well.  You see, the terms of the sale of Mar-a-Largo, prevent him from taking up residence there.  Consequently, Trump is probably not a legal resident of Florida and the state (which it won't) or Palm Beach could press charges.

    Then there is New York which has a slew of investigations against the Trump, his family, and his organization.

    Then there is this civil action in D.C. surrounding Ivanka (Trump can't pardon her from that, as it turns out) for the shenanigans that were played with the Trump inauguration committee.

    1. PrettyPanther profile image83
      PrettyPantherposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

      I think the Trump crime family should go to jail (or suffer the appropriate consequence), if they are determined by a court of law to have committed crimes, just like anyone who commits a crime should serve whatever jail time or other consequence is required. He and his grifter clan should not be above the law.

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

        Why not?  Why shouldn't they get the same consideration Hillary did?

        1. PrettyPanther profile image83
          PrettyPantherposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

          Really? That's your response?

          I prefer they get the same consideration as Martha Stewart or Al Capone.

          Oh, and was Hillary convicted of a crime? If the Trumps are not found guilty of a crime in a court of law, then they will get the same consideration as Hillary.

          I'm not sure why it is necessary to state the obvious  but there ya go.

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

            The "obvious" was that sufficient evidence was found of Hillary's crime to convict her, just as others committing the same crime were convicted, but she was never charged.  So why shouldn't the Trump family be given the same consideration?  Evidence or not, just shuttle it into the dark and forget about it.

            (Before you twist my words, let me say that I do NOT advocate ignoring crimes, but if it is the "liberal way", then it should apply to everyone.  Not just Hillary, not just rioters, not just illegal aliens...if we aren't going to enforce laws then don't enforce them for anybody.

            1. PrettyPanther profile image83
              PrettyPantherposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

              I'm pretty sure those who investigated Hillary were not all "liberal." In fact, Comey helped her lose the election.

              I can't help it if they decided not to charge her, just as I will have no say in whether or not any of the Trumps get charged with a crime.  All I said was, if they are convicted of  a crime, they should receive the same punishment as anyone else. This doesn't seem like a controversial stance to me and has nothing to do with Hillary at all.

            2. peoplepower73 profile image94
              peoplepower73posted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

              Wilderness:  The fact that Trump, his family, and Giuliani  want to be  pardoned is an admission of guilt. That's plain ass logic.  Trump has 10 obstructions of justice charges levied against him, plus the Southern District of New York court.


              Ivanka was deposed yesterday for violating the non-profit misuse of over a million dollars in funds and Kushner must have done something that requires being pardoned that we have yet to see and hear.

              Giuliani is Trump's personal lawyer.  He holds no government office, but yet he has acted in an official capacity in foreign government dealings.

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                Interesting that you think they "want" to be pardoned.  What evidence can you supply of that?  A court affidavit, a begging letter to the next president?  Videos over national media of him pleading for a pardon?

                Then, too, it's interesting that you simply assume that charges will result in a guilty verdict - do you always make that assumption or is it just thrown out there as another way to divert attention from what the post you replied to was about?  I especially like that Kushner "must have done something that requires being pardoned" without ever seeing anything at all indicating that. 

                Your propensity to make assumptions designed to degrade the President, and now his family, is amazing.  Will Barron be next?  Will you claim he is running a prostitution ring or something?

                1. peoplepower73 profile image94
                  peoplepower73posted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                  Wilderness:

                  Do you deny that Trump has 10 obstruction of justice charges against him and it was ruled by AG Barr that as soon as he is no longer the sitting president that he can be tried for those charges? 

                  Do you deny he is directly implicated in campaign finance crimes and is under investigation by both Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance and New York State Attorney General Letitia James for alleged fraud in his business dealings? On top of that, he faces civil defamation lawsuits from women accusing him of sexual assault.

                  Trump is the one who is making the assumptions that he and his family and others are going to be found guilty.  Why would he want all those people and himself to be preemptively pardoned? Isn't that an admission of guilt? If you haven't done anything wrong, why would you need to be preemptively pardoned?


                  To answer the question of this forum, I don't know if they should go to jail.  I agree with Biden...Leave it up to the next AG.

                  https://www.politico.com/news/2020/12/0 … ons-442727

                  1. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                    Do you deny that you made a bald faced claim that "Trump, his family, and Giuliani  want to be  pardoned is an admission of guilt"?  Do you deny that you have exactly zero evidence this is true; that it is purely your imagination producing such a statement?  Do you deny that you declared them guilty based on nothing but that imagination?  That you do so while at the same time saying you don't know if they should go to jail?

                    People, it is posts like this that make your comments so useless; you just make things up and then claim them to be true, building on them again and again.

            3. My Esoteric profile image91
              My Esotericposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

              "Sufficient evidence", LOL.  Had there been, don't you think Trump wouldn't have told Barr to prosecute her?  Oh, wait - he did! And Barr, in one of his rare moments of good sense, didn't do it because there was no case.

      2. My Esoteric profile image91
        My Esotericposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

        Agreed.  Although I have to say from all that has been reported about them, it is unreasonable to think they have not committed both state and federal crimes - it is in their DNA.

        1. GA Anderson profile image92
          GA Andersonposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

          oh gawddd . . . Now it is a matter of DNA. Who could ever argue with such irrefutable logic as "it's in their DNA."

          I hope you never get jury duty My Esoteric. At least, never in any case involving my liberty or freedom.

          GA

          1. PrettyPanther profile image83
            PrettyPantherposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

            I think "it's in their DNA" is a saying for "it runs in the family" Crime does run in families. Children of parents who commit crimes are almost twice as likely to also commit crimes.

            1. GA Anderson profile image92
              GA Andersonposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

              LOL, I know. I just needed a target to poke at. ;-)

              GA

              1. My Esoteric profile image91
                My Esotericposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                In this case it does :-).  So far, the only one that is clean is Melania, and any grandchildren under 18.  More than likely Melania will have to take those kids under her wing while their parents are serving time.

                I wonder how Ivanka will look in prison stripes.

                1. GA Anderson profile image92
                  GA Andersonposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                  I like that you let Melania off the hook. I agree with that. I have this unfounded perception that she would like to kick her husband's butt for more than one reason.

                  GA

    2. Sharlee01 profile image84
      Sharlee01posted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

      "It is clear the kids and Trump have committed several federal crimes -"

      I must have missed something. What crimes, and why have they not been charged? 

      I can relive your worry about Trump being homeless, he owns 8 homes... So you can again sleep nights without fear.

      If New York has any charges I am sure they are more than willing to arrest Trump. Guess that is a wait and see...

      And please don't fret about Ivanka, she is a very accomplished woman, and I am very sure she can handle whatever comes her way.

      Seems you dwell on the Trump family, maybe time to move on to the new president, and his family... If you have the fortitude.

      Trump's will do just fine.

      1. My Esoteric profile image91
        My Esotericposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

        I hate seeing the obviously guilty, even to the casual observer, get away with their crimes.  We all know that O.J. committed a double murder but yet he walked free.

        To hear Cohen tell it, and he knows Ivanka well, she is as bad as her father. (BTW, he only lied for his Boss.  There is no other instance where he has been found to lie for any other reason).

        I hope she can handle jail, because that is where she is likely to end up.

        By the way, do you give the Giovanni crime family a pass to?  Minus the hits they ordered, there isn't much difference in my mind.

        Do you have any problem with Trump running around destroying democracy with his waterfall of lies about the election?

        As to potential federal laws the kids may have broken are the Hatch Act, any crime that has to do with nepotism, several dealing with national security and inappropriate use of cell phones, whatever crimes are associated with the misuse of the inaugural funds, using telecommunications to commit fraud (mainly Erik and Don Jr.), campaign finance fraud that Mueller didn't charge, etc.

        1. Sharlee01 profile image84
          Sharlee01posted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

          "I hate seeing the obviously guilty, even to the casual observer, get away with their crimes.  We all know that O.J. committed a double murder but yet he walked free."

          Oh my, I must say this had me laughing. OK, we had two dead bodies with a preponderance of the evidence, a murder... So let me asks once more what crime have  Trump and his kids committed? 
          This is tiresome.

          And what crime has Cohen claimed Ivanka committed?  Do you know what I find a problem? A person that said anything they please without any knowledge of a crime just because he can. And I must add it would appear very hateful to want to condemn someone to "jail" again without any form of crime. 

          I have found a new problem keeping up with Biden's lies. I am pleased to say Politifact has done it for me... LOL

          https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/l … =joe-biden

          https://gop.com/joe-bidens-list-of-coro … o-grow-rsr

          https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 … ical-liar/

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NM3svGMR-pg

          So, I guess we have another president that we can bash about telling the truth.  It's getting a bit boring hearing the same old record --- Maybe time to start having a look at the new president instead of dwelling on the old. Plenty of material is there not? And more where that came from.

          I am trying to make a very obvious point. So maybe time to drop it?

        2. GA Anderson profile image92
          GA Andersonposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

          "We all know that O.J. committed a double murder but yet he walked free."

          Yep, we ll know that. The court failed because we believe otherwise.

          That you place your opinion above that of a court of law is telling. I can only wish for your level of confidence. Do you comprehend the level of arrogance your comment portrays?

          Forget the law, forget the rules of evidence, and forget the verdict of a jury, you  alone,know the real truth.

          Geesh My Esoteric, how is the air up there?

          GA

          1. My Esoteric profile image91
            My Esotericposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

            There is no arrogance at all.  You forget that he was found guilty in a civil trial.  A lower level of certainty for sure, but guilty nevertheless.  The jury in the criminal trial dealt with what they were given and the prosecution blew it.  In this case, money bought his freedom.

            Now I assume you will argue the prosecution did a perfect job and never missed a beat.  That the police did a perfect job and did everything by the book.

            Sometimes juries make a mistake (or do you think that is impossible?), they did in this case.  So did the people when they voted for a con man as president (with the help of Comey and the Russians, of course).  I am firmly convinced had neither happened, we would have had a real president to lead this country.

            Finally, we do again.

    3. Sharlee01 profile image84
      Sharlee01posted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

      You started this thread ---  I have several times asked for clarification ---what Federal or any form of crime has President Trump and his children committed?

      And when did president Trump state he was considering pardoning his children or himself? Has he done this? Can you provide a source where you found your information on the crimes you have stated are "clear"?

      And do you find it fair to spread such information without
      some evidence?

      1. peoplepower73 profile image94
        peoplepower73posted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

        Sharlee:  You are very concerned about me posting that Trump and family may be pardoned without any proof to support that possibility other than people have heard him mentioned it.

        However, you and others like you have not been concerned about Trump and his conspiracy theories that are really fantasy that he  plays to his supporters. 

        He is the master of conspiracy theories.  He started with one about Obama and he is ending with one about Biden and every fantasy in between. 

        In his last rally, he told his audience that radical liberals are socialists and communist and they hate America. What is a radical liberal?  So I'm alright waiting to see if he actually uses pre-emptive pardoning power to get  him and his cohorts and family a get-out-of-jail free card.

        So you find it O.K. for him to spread a multitude of conspiracy theories without evidence, but it's not O.K. for me to post my credible sources. As you say, time will tell.

        1. Sharlee01 profile image84
          Sharlee01posted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

          To keep to the subject. This comment was not about the President pushing conspiracy theories.  I would ascertain many of us are very aware of his history of pushing different conspiracy theories long before he became president.  , I don't appreciate being stuck in a group."Others like me?"    However, I forgive you due to your very evident propensity to lean toward groupthink.

          My point, which I thought clear was My E. appeared to be spreading conspiracy theories, and not actually adding any form of facts to back up his statement. And yes, I did address your source and the fact the source did not have a face or a name. You are aware so many media reports are false, and some walked back when they are called out.

          These conspiracy theories in my opinion do nothing but fuel arguments. We have plenty of fodder, maybe it's just time to move on to Biden, or do liberals just hope to keep Trump watching? Seem we have a new target at this point. There certainly is plenty of dirty launder on Joe.

          But would it be fair to attack him just because I could? I think it would be fair play, due to all the conspiracy theories being bandied about Trump and his family.

          And do you consider Tapper a CNN talk jock a good source. A good source would do their homework, have a name, not
          "a source tells me". Unless I missed another source you posted?

      2. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

        Suggestion - don't ask for a list of Trump's (or his children's) crimes.  You will get a list of 50.  Or 500, depending on how much time is available.  All unsupported, all without convictions, but hey - they're crimes and it is understood that you must take the word of the poster that they happened.

        1. Sharlee01 profile image84
          Sharlee01posted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

          LOL --- So far Zip from MY E. I did get a response from PEOPLEPOWER73. He claimed Trump had been charged with 10 counts of obstruction.    Nothing on his kids as of yet. I had thought I would get the old standby crime -- Trump Jr.'s meeting with a Russian spy at his office in Trump Tower.  Last I heard he was free, and enjoying the Holidays.

          I had really hoped we could switch gears, and give as good as we got...  Bashing the president-elect for his every word. I mean it is very obvious the some here appreciate if comes, unproven slander, going after one's wife, and family.  The field is so fertile. Hopefully, soon we can move on. You know like we have been asked to.

          And yes, one must take the word of the poster.

          1. My Esoteric profile image91
            My Esotericposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

            Now did I say they HAD been CHARGED with a crime?  No.  I just listed a set of likely crimes they committed once somebody starts investigating them ... sort of like what the Republicans are doing to Hunter Biden.

            All I am asking is somebody investigates the federal crimes the kids probably committed.  If they didn't find, but it sure seems like they did.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

              Gotta love that "The kids "probably" committed crimes!  Because, it seems, you hate anything or anyone connected to President Trump (what are you figuring on charging Barron with, bty?).

              Good thing the justice system doesn't work that way or there wouldn't be a Democrat left on the Hill!

              1. peoplepower73 profile image94
                peoplepower73posted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                Sharlee and  Wilderness:

                This is from wikipedia:

                Mueller's testimony on July 24
                Mueller testified before Congress on July 24, 2019, answering questions asked by Representatives. Democrat Ted Lieu asked Mueller whether the reason he did not indict Trump was that Department of Justice policy prohibits the indictment of sitting presidents. Mueller originally confirmed that this was the reason. However, later that day, Mueller corrected his comments, stating that his team did not determine whether Trump committed a crime.[378][379] Additionally, Mueller answered Republican Ken Buck that a president could be charged with obstruction of justice (or other crimes) after the president left office.[47]

                https://www.cbsnews.com/news/obstructio … er-report/

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                  Setting aside your (extremely) subjective feelings and desires, you provide information that:
                  1) Mueller did not determine whether Trump committed a crime.
                  2)  Mueller said that a president could be charged with crimes after leaving office.  Any president, not limiting his statement to Trump.

                  And from these two statements you masterfully deduce that Trump committed a crime, and that his wife and children have also done so.

                  The obvious conclusion is that your statements come from your imagination and your hatred of anything connected to Trump; certainly not from what Mueller said.

                  1. My Esoteric profile image91
                    My Esotericposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                    It was pretty clear from section 2, had he been allowed to, he would have.

                    2) does "2" have any meaning other than "hint, hint, hint"?

                    Here Wilderness reverts to making things up again.  Where did anyone suggest that Malania committed a crime?  I certainly didn't, in fact I specifically exonerated her, and I don't believe Mike did either.  Why do you insist on making things up that aren't true?

                    Here is a quote from A Very Stable Genius I want to leave you with that describes what Trump, his supporters, and many Republicans have done to America:

                    "What we are discovering is that the Constitution is not a mechanism that runs itself.  Ultimately, we are a government of men and not law. The law has no force without people who are willing to enforce it." - William A. Galston, a senior fellow in governance at the Brookings Institute.

                    Once upon a time four years ago we said that America was governed by the rule of law.  It took Trump and his Republican enablers only 31/2 years to prove that is no longer true.  Even to today as Trump tries to lie, cheat, steal, and bully his way to overturn the will of the people.

                    As he likes to say about almost everybody - a total disgrace.

                2. Sharlee01 profile image84
                  Sharlee01posted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                  It would seem we are at odds with the words you used...

                  "He has been charged with 10 counts of obstructions of justice as a result of the Mueller investigation".

                  Trump has not been charged with any forms of obstructions. It is well documented in the Mueller report that he was unsure if any of the "allegations " could be soundly proved in a court of law.   So, why presume anything?

                  1. peoplepower73 profile image94
                    peoplepower73posted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                    Wilderness and Sharlee: I agree with you about being charged, my mistake.  He has not been charged for those 10 allegations of obstruction of justice.  But why do think he is trying so hard to overturn Biden's election, when he knows full well he has lost?  Please give me real answers. 

                    I believe he knows what the Mueller report says and he knows and/or thinks that the democrats are coming after him as soon as he is out of office. Additionally he knows that New York district courts are coming after him for tax evasion and fraud.  There is his motivation for pardoning and getting re-elected, in my humble opinion.  It's not rocket science. It's just not Fox News.

              2. My Esoteric profile image91
                My Esotericposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                Not true.  Unlike you, apparently, I read and listen to real news.  And in what has been reported over the years, and with what is known, the kids "probably" have commited federal crimes.  They are currently being investigated for state crimes.  So where there is smoke, there is probably fire.

                As I said, you don't read - I excepted Barron and any grandkids under 18,

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                  Got it.  An allegation equals a conviction in you eyes.  At least if it has anything to do with anyone remotely connected to Trump. 

                  Barron is not a grandchild, and you did NOT except him.  I read your statement, whether you did or not.

            2. Sharlee01 profile image84
              Sharlee01posted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

              First --- I was not quoting you... I was quoting Peoplepower'

              Second, you did not provide a list of likely crimes you claim Trump and his family committed.  You were very clear in your opening comment. I have asked you multiple times to provide me with the crimes you claimed they committed.

              Here is your opening comment ---

              "It is clear the kids and Trump have committed several federal crimes - otherwise Trump wouldn't feel a need to pardon them "preemptively", yet they are not under any federal investigation at the moment.  So why pardon them if they have done nothing wrong.

              I just found out today that Trump is an illegal resident of Florida and therefore voted (as did Melania) illegally as well.  You see, the terms of the sale of Mar-a-Largo, prevent him from taking up residence there.  Consequently, Trump is probably not a legal resident of Florida and the state (which it won't) or Palm Beach could press charges.

              Then there is New York which has a slew of investigations against the Trump, his family, and his organization.

              Then there is this civil action in D.C. surrounding Ivanka (Trump can't pardon her from that, as it turns out) for the shenanigans that were played with the Trump inauguration committee."

              Yes, it is very acceptable if Trump or his children broke any laws they should be investigated.  Which I am pretty sure they have been, my very point none of his children have been charged with anything. Yet we have people bashing and slandering them continually.

              My point, why condemn anyone without cause, just because you can?

              1. My Esoteric profile image91
                My Esotericposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                I didn't claim they committed any crime.  I claimed they "probably", based upon what I know and have read (which means I have "cause"), committed federal crimes.  On the other hand, they are being investigated for state crimes.  And then I provided you a list of potential federal crimes they may have committed.  The only one that is certain, since I have seen it with my own eyes, is repeated violations of the Hatch Act by both Ivanka and Jerad.

                BTW, who would have investigated the kids, Bill Barr, lol?

    4. Stevennix2001 profile image89
      Stevennix2001posted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

      I think Trump knows that once he's out of office that they're going to come after him hard, so he's probably just taking whatever precautions he can to protect both he and his family right now.   Honestly, I can see both sides of this situation honestly.  On the one hand, if he's an innocent man, then none of this would be necessary.  But on the other hand, the courts are corrupt.  Look at what happened with Johnny Depp in the UK, when he tried to sue the Sun for libel.   He lost that case in spite of all the witnesses and evidence all leaning towards his favor, so the system is a bit corrupt sometimes.   It's hard to say. However, I do think he's just doing this in the off chance he can't get the vote overturned in the courts, which unlikely he will.

      1. My Esoteric profile image91
        My Esotericposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

        What makes you think the courts are corrupt?  They are the ONLY thing keeping us from being another Venezuela or Russia right now. 

        Many Republicans apparently want an autocratic, non-democratic gov't given their insistence on trying to overturn a fair election, one where the Republicans basically trounced the Democrats - except for Trump.  I guess they think there was two elections and two sets of ballots that were cast - one set for Biden against Trump and another set for Republicans against the Democrats.

        That is the only way their theory makes since.

        All that said, I agree with your other premises.

        1. Stevennix2001 profile image89
          Stevennix2001posted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

          We've seen wrongful convictions before in the courts, and just because someone is found innocent in a court of law doesn't mean they're necessarily innocent.  Same thing if a person is found guilty.   

          As I pointed out with the Johnny Depp situation, Amber Heard literally said on tape not only admitting she abused Johnny Depp, but also claiming she'll get away with it because she's a woman and nobody will believe him.   And in spite of this evidence being leaked, and all the witnesses from her family coming out against her along with her ex girlfriend, you'd think with that much overwhelming evidence that there's not a chance in hell Johnny Depp would lose a libel case against a magazine making him sound like an abusive husband when there's been no evidence of that other than her word.   

          Yes, I know this forum isn't about the Johnny Depp situation, but I'm using that as an example that sometimes the courts aren't always fair, and they can be corrupt sometimes.   

          I'm not a huge fan of Donald Trump either, but I will admit that it does seem rather odd that from day one of his presidency he was already being labeled by the media as the worst president in US history, yet he hadn't been fully in office for a full freaking day.   

          Again, I'm not a Trump supporter, but I will agree with him that the media has never been on his side from day one of his presidential campaign in 2016.

          1. My Esoteric profile image91
            My Esotericposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

            I understand your Depp analogy but I disagree with your assertion the media started pronouncing Trump the "worst president in US History" - as best as I can tell, they didn't; that didn't start until about two years in.

            In fact, I think the media was too restrained.  It has only been in the last six months where they have had the guts to call Trump what he is - a liar (by using variations of the lie).  Prior to that, they mostly used words like false, mistaken, incorrect, etc.  Before that, they were even more respective.

            Of course Trump laid the groundwork for being labeled the worst president while he was campaigning.  But everyone hoped he would change after he was inaugurated.  But what did he do on Day 1?  Lie about his crowd size.  It wasn't until later that his total lack of competence in being president became evident.

            It was also about two years in where I noticed that those who rate presidents had Trump in the bottom two.

            Now, of course, he is shredding democracy by trying to bully and lying his way into overturning the will of the people in a free and fair election.  This should cement his place, probably forever, as the worst president who served a full term in US history.  It will be a toss-up as to who harmed America more - him or Andrew Johnson, (who was also impeached but not convicted)

    5. Sharlee01 profile image84
      Sharlee01posted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

      Hate to bring this up but ----   With all the breaking news on Hunter Biden being investigated that has been all over the news today I must ask ---

      Do you think Biden and his kid should go to jail? 

      Fair play, is it not?

      https://abc3340.com/news/nation-world/t … can-people

      https://nypost.com/2020/12/09/hunter-bi … tax-fraud/

      1. My Esoteric profile image91
        My Esotericposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

        And exactly why do you think Joe Biden should go to jail?  How is that Fair Play.  Unlike Trump, Biden is not a criminal.

        Hunter, on the other hand, may have to if the investigation (which, in this case, I think may be warranted) leads to a guilty verdict.  I don't know the details but I trust the FBI (not the Justice Department) and the IRS.  If it were JUST the federal prosecutors in Delaware, I would be suspect given their boss is Bill Barr, someone who has no credibility (in spite of his late in the game opposition to Trump's coup attempt)

        1. Sharlee01 profile image84
          Sharlee01posted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

          My E --- "And exactly why do you think Joe Biden should go to jail?  How is that Fair Play.  Unlike Trump, Biden is not a criminal."

          Bingo! I have found why it is so hard to communicate with you.
          You just don't find context in a sentence...

          Read my comment. Have I in any respect claimed I think Joe Biden should go to jail? 

          I simply took your header on this thread and changed up the names.

          "Do you think Biden and his kid should go to jail? "

          Nowhere did I say or even give a hint of my opinion on if Biden committed a crime or should be jailed.

          Please consider you are not in any respect understanding context, you are for some reason reading in your own attitudes. And let me add Joe now has many accusations to deal with that just may, and please note the words, just may. --  find him on the other side of the law.

          I like facts, so far we do not have any facts on Joe committing a crime. We also have no given proof of Trump breaking the law. Hope I made my point.

          1. My Esoteric profile image91
            My Esotericposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

            Here is your comment Sharlee.  I will bold the relevant part.

            "Hate to bring this up but ----   With all the breaking news on Hunter Biden being investigated that has been all over the news today I must ask ---

            Do you think Biden and his kid should go to jail? "

            Is there any other way to take that statement that because of Hunter Biden's investigation, Biden should go to jail?

            As to Trump, there is a hoard of Republican former prosecutors who joined with Democratic ones saying that the evidence Mueller presented in Section 2 of the Mueller report was sufficient to get a conviction on Obstruction of Justice.

            Enough evidence was presented in Trump's impeachment trial to get a conviction of abuse of power by a "fair minded" set of jurors although not enough to get a set of Trumplicans to convict him.  Fortunately, Trump can be brought to trial on election interference after he gets out of office.  While I haven't heard any talk that may happen yet, it is certainly a possibility.

            1. Sharlee01 profile image84
              Sharlee01posted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

              My question was about the Biden's as of this morning looks like Joe's brother is also deeply involved. Looks like they are t=running a crime family.

              Sorry, we have discussed your question about Trump and his children's prospects of being brought up on criminal charges. Time to look at Biden and his son's  Grand jury investigation. If one were to speculate it well appears Hunter is in big trouble.

              Like I said you must move on it well appears we have a new president. One that in my opinion may face some real criminal allegations. This should keep us busy for a while... OMG James Biden now seems very much involved in Hunter's activities.
               
              .Hopefully, perhaps we can impeach Joe quickly if he is proven to be involved in this China grift. Very scary stuff.

              1. My Esoteric profile image91
                My Esotericposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                "Time to look at Biden and his son's  Grand jury investigation. " - And I said I agree, remember?  Unlike Trump, this doesn't include Joe Biden.  Shall we start criticizing you just because you parents, brothers, or sisters get in trouble?  Why are you bringing Joe Biden into this where again, unlike Trump, there is not even a whiff of impropriety.

                Oh, btw, what is Hunter being investigated for?  I heard the FBI read a report that Hunter put out about receiving a diamond as a gift, which he says he immediately gave away, and they think he evaded some gift taxes.  Have you ever received an expensive gift that you didn't report to the IRS?

                Are you suggesting Joe Biden tried to tamper with the election by getting a foreign government to intervene like Trump did (and is doing with is baseless attempts to overthrow a duly elected president)?

                1. Sharlee01 profile image84
                  Sharlee01posted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                  "Are you suggesting Joe Biden tried to tamper with the election by getting a foreign government to intervene as Trump did (and is doing with his baseless attempts to overthrow a duly elected president)?"

                  I in no way inferred anything like that. I am referring to the allegations that have been reported in the last few days. My comment on Biden being impeached was a shot at being sarcastic.

                  https://www.politico.com/news/2020/12/0 … xes-444139

                  https://www.foxnews.com/politics/hunter … estigation

                  https://www.foxnews.com/politics/house- … sel-letter

                  1. My Esoteric profile image91
                    My Esotericposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                    Understood.

                    After reading the Politico article, Hunter may be in as much hot water as Trump and the Trump kids.  I don't get any whiff that Trump or Barr are putting pressure on the prosecutors, FBI, or IRS. 

                    I don't know about James as the article was very short on details.  Now all Biden has to do is NOT what Trump did a lot and tell DOJ what to do.

                    I was going to say Hunter didn't learn his lesson, but then it occured to me that this took place several years ago.

                    BTW, there is this regarding the noose tightening around Trump and the kids.

                    https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/11/politics … index.html

    6. My Esoteric profile image91
      My Esotericposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

      Here is a new one that should put Jared Kushner (and Lara Trump and Mike Pence's nephew) in jail.  Much worse than the allegations against Hunter Biden.

      https://www.thedailybeast.com/jared-kus … ays-report

      "Jared Kushner approved the creation of a shell company that operated like a “campaign within a campaign” and secretly funneled millions of dollars in campaign cash to Trump family members, Business Insider reports. The company, American Made Media Consultants Corporation and American Made Media Consultants LLC, took more than half of the Trump campaign’s massive $1.26 billion war chest and was largely shielded from having to publicly report financial details. However, a source told Business Insider that Trump’s daughter-in-law Lara Trump was the company’s president, Vice President Mike Pence’s nephew was its VP, and Trump campaign CFO Sean Dollman was treasurer and secretary."

      1. Sharlee01 profile image84
        Sharlee01posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

        All I needed to see was The Daily Beast... LOL

        Once again anyone charged with a crime? Anyone under investigation by the DOJ or the FBI? No that would be the Biden's.

        1. peoplepower73 profile image94
          peoplepower73posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

          Sharlee: I hate to spoon feed you, since you won't read Scott's post.   This is from the article:

          Jared Kushner approved the creation of a shell company that operated like a “campaign within a campaign” and secretly funneled millions of dollars in campaign cash to Trump family members, Business Insider reports. The company, American Made Media Consultants Corporation and American Made Media Consultants LLC, took more than half of the Trump campaign’s massive $1.26 billion war chest and was largely shielded from having to publicly report financial details. However, a source told Business Insider that Trump’s daughter-in-law Lara Trump was the company’s president, Vice President Mike Pence’s nephew was its VP, and Trump campaign CFO Sean Dollman was treasurer and secretary.

          The mysterious company caused consternation among other campaign staffers, who had no idea how it was spending money, and the Campaign Legal Center filed a civil complaint with the FEC in June accusing the Trump campaign of laundering $170 million largely through it. A campaign spokesperson denied that AMMC paid Lara Trump or Pence’s nephew for being on its board.

          This is  from the Business Insider:

          Legally, it’s unclear what the blowback on Kushner—reportedly in line for a presidential pardon—and other concerned parties could be, and it’s possible no laws were broken. As Business Insider notes, the FEC can issue fines to political committees if it’s determined they broke the law, while the Justice Department can open criminal investigations if it suspects a “knowing and willful” violation of election law. Such investigations are apparently uncommon, though former DOJ and FEC officials have told Business Insider they believe Justice officials could “already be discreetly investigating Trump’s reelection activity.” (While the situation differs, Kushner knows a little something about the violation of election laws, as his father, Charles Kushner, was sentenced to prison for up to 24 months after being convicted of illegal campaign contributions, in addition to tax evasion, and witness tampering, the latter involving Kushner the Elder’s brother-in-law, a prostitute, and a camcorder.)

          A spokesman for Kushner did not respond to Business Insider’s request for comment. The Trump campaign said Friday that “Lara Trump and John Pence resigned from the AMMC board in October 2019 to focus solely on their campaign activities, however, there was never any ethical or legal reason why they could not serve on the board in the first place. John and Lara were not compensated by AMMC for their service as board members.”

          1. Sharlee01 profile image84
            Sharlee01posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

            In regard to Jared Kushner approved the creation of a shell company. I have done some reading on the subject. Not sure any laws were broken? It well may be something that once again seems shady. However, due to our shady laws all is good.

            I would guess if The Campaign Legal Center civil complaint with the FEC finds any wrongdoing they will pursue it. So, as of now, I have found nothing to indicate any laws were broken. I will also assume the Justice Department will open a criminal investigation if it suspects a “knowing and willful” violation of election law.

        2. My Esoteric profile image91
          My Esotericposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

          1.  And this is why you live in a fantasy world Sharlee, you insulate yourself from the truth and listen only to known fake news like Hannity, Brietbart, Limbaugh, et al.

          2.  Now that the secret is out regarding Kushner's latest corruption, yes, I am sure he will be investigated for this as well along with other state investigations (pural) going on about him.

          1. Sharlee01 profile image84
            Sharlee01posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

            I don't watch any network news.  I on occasion will watch a network if they have been broadcasting a hearing or speech.  It is clear to me due to your ideology you are watching talk jocks. What gives you away? Your comments are geared to what they push, and you add only bits and pieces of what they offered you.

            In regards to Mr. Kushner, get back to me if he is charged. I just don't enjoy being fed up with "if comes". I do realize to each their own. I just don't ascribe to if comes.

            You're lack in baiting skills. Come on Hannity, Limbaugh, that one's getting pretty old.

            1. My Esoteric profile image91
              My Esotericposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

              My sources, for what it is worth, are CNN Headline News, the CNN web page, Politico, and sometimes The Hill.  If I need detail, I read particular news articles from the Post and NYT.

              I watch about 10 minutes some nights of Don Lemon and Chris Cuomo where, unlike the Fox equivalents, I have never caught them in a lie.

              As a rule, I don't read opinion pieces unless I know the author is relatively unbiased and backs up their claims with facts.

              I don't watch ABC, NBC, or CBS because I can get the same content from CNN.  I don't watch MSNBC because they have the same faults as Fox and the other right-wing media.

              I do listen to certain talking heads such as Dana Bash, Jim Acosta, Christiane Amanpour, Fareed Zakaria, John Avalon, Mike Rogers, Mia Love, Michael Smerconish, David Gergen, and similar knowledgeable news analyst.

              1. Sharlee01 profile image84
                Sharlee01posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                Again --- In regards to Mr. Kushner, get back to me if he is charged. I just don't enjoy being fed up with "if comes". I do realize to each their own. I just don't ascribe to if comes.

                1. My Esoteric profile image91
                  My Esotericposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                  Yet you make aspirations on uncharged Hunter Biden, uncharged Joe Biden, uncharged Kamala Harris, etc.  Do I sense a double standard there?

                  1. Sharlee01 profile image84
                    Sharlee01posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                    No, actually I have not made any allegations other than what has been reported.  That he is and has been being investigated by the FBI, DOJ, since 2018 for tax evasion and POSSIBLE money laundering.  It would seem we will have to see if he is charged with any crimes. 

                    \NO DOUBLE STANDARD hear is my comment in regard to Kushner. I know of no law enforcement agency investigating Kushner.

                    In regard to Jared Kushner approved the creation of a shell company. I have done some reading on the subject. Not sure any laws were broken? It well may be something that once again seems shady. However, due to our shady laws all is good.

                    I would guess if The Campaign Legal Center civil complaint with the FEC finds any wrongdoing they will pursue it. So, as of now, I have found nothing to indicate any laws were broken. I will also assume the Justice Department will open a criminal investigation if it suspects a “knowing and willful” violation of election law.

                    Seems you have a problem with comprehension.

              2. GA Anderson profile image92
                GA Andersonposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                Your comment about Lemon and Cuomo surprised me. I thought their nightly performance during the Portland protests and riots so were so outrageous that I haven't watched any of CNN since.

                If you are familiar with their segments, Cuomo would spend the last couple of minutes of his show introducing and talking to Lemon. On several nights in a row during the protests/riots, they were superimposed over a split-screen of rioters looting stores—while both spoke of how the poor protesters were misunderstood. Were they unaware of what their network was broadcasting?

                The final straw was when Lemon didn't have a problem when a spokesperson, (a woman that I think claimed to be a BLM spokesman), said that the looters of the high-end retail stores were essentially just getting reparations.

                That was enough for me. I was never a Lemon fan but did occasionally watch Cuomo and several of CNN's news segments. but since those mentioned nights I haven't watched any CNN at all.

                As a side note, I saw a commercial today saying Ex-Fox anchor Shepard Smith has moved to CNBC. I liked him and may check-out his new position.

                GA

                1. My Esoteric profile image91
                  My Esotericposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                  I watched them to, but as I said, not that much.  What I catch most often is the transition between Cuomo and Lemon and then maybe the first segment of Lemon after his monologue to catch what his commentators he brings on has to say.  That said, I have never caught them in an outright lie or absurd exaggeration which seem to be the staple for their counterparts on Fox?

                  Have I disagreed with Lemon's monologues? Yes, occasionally because I think he is putting the wrong spin on things.  But is he mostly honest about the issues he brings up?  Yes, I think so.

                  I also like to listen to Anderson Cooper and Erin Burnett occasionally.  Again, not to hear what they have to say but to hear what the talking heads I mentioned earlier have to say.

                  I think I recall having some good thoughts about Smith from reports I heard.  But since I don't watch Fox (or MSNBC), I didn't see much of him.

                  Ironic anecdote.  Just after the first US - Iraq war I attended Air War College.  In the last couple months of the program they had media week where we discussed how to deal with the media.  They brought in various reporters and assigned each to one seminar group or another to spend two or three days with  My group got Wolf Blitzer; he had an interesting story to tell about how he became a fixture on CNN.  I sure liked him much better then than I do now - I cannot stand his style of interviewing people.  There are ways to do it without being rude, but he has lost his ability to not come across as a jerk.

                  1. GA Anderson profile image92
                    GA Andersonposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                    The storylines I recall hearing was that Shepard Smith was booted from Fox because he wouldn't follow the company line on reporting, as in refusing to mimick Hannity.

                    GA

    7. My Esoteric profile image91
      My Esotericposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

      More interesting headlines on why Trump needs to go to jail.

      Trump is thinking (which is terrible in its own right) about martial law to steal the election.

      https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/20/politics … index.html

      Part of the radicalization process of the right-wing media got called out. (How is the radicalization of Republicans by the right-wing media any different than the radicalization of Muslims by ISIS?)

      https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/19/business … index.html

      John Bolton, that darling of the Right, reacts to disgraced gen Flynn and crazy lawyer Sidney Powell pressure campaign on Trump to declare martial law (and Trump is so deranged that he is listening)

      https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/202 … ot-vpx.cnn

      There are reasons why Trump is beholden to Russia and Putin.  Even a few conservative Republicans understand that.

      https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/20/politics … /index.htm

      This is what the hero of the Right did while occupying the presidency.  It certainly wasn't providing leadership or good governance.  Instead it was this -

      https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/18/politics … index.html

      This guy, along with Hannity and Limbaugh, should have their free speech rights taken away for gross abuse of a precious gift.

      https://www.cnn.com/videos/business/202 … n-orig.cnn

      The radicalization of Republicans by the right-wing media -

      https://www.npr.org/2020/12/15/94638152 … perts-warn

      https://www.ssrc.org/programs/child-com … revention/

      https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-020-00546-3

      https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10 … 1418817755

      1. Sharlee01 profile image84
        Sharlee01posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

        "There are reasons why Trump is beholden to Russia and Putin.  Even a few conservative Republicans understand that."

        You do realize there has never been a president that levied more sanctions on Russia than Trump? It would seem odd if Putin was not celebrating a Biden win. I have posted this link frequently, but once again it's a good reference to just how heavy-handed President Trump has been on Russia.

        https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/IF10779.pdf

        https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-fr … on-russia/

        https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/10/05/tr … nt-obamas/

        Can't really waste time addressing your other queries. They just have not happened ---  all If Comes and CNN Gruel (porridge) ---Yummy to some I realize, just unpalatable to me.

        1. My Esoteric profile image91
          My Esotericposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

          It is sad you cut yourself off from legitimate reporting, all that does is let yourself be hoodwinked by the right-wing fake news.  This is why you get so many things wrong, you have only the radicalized right-wing view of the world.

          Those "other" things have not happened only in your fantasy world.  They have ALL happened in the real world.  While Fox, Britebart, and Newsmax may not report on them, every other legitimate news organization has.  And since you blind yourself to them, how can you know about them?

          Your first cite sort of supports my point about Trump on Russia, many of the sanctions he imposed were done unwillingly because he was forced to by Congressional action.

          Your second source is useless for a point of comparison since it only talks about Trump and leaves out any context. 

          Your third source basically talks about everybody else but Russia.  But it clearly shows he does not have a consistent, thoughtful, measured policy other than "if I do not like you, unless you are Putin, I will sanction you."

          1. My Esoteric profile image91
            My Esotericposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

            OK, so you irrationally hate CNN, here are others:

            MARTIAL LAW:

            https://www.newsweek.com/mypillow-ceo-t … es-1556218

            https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi … nd/617446/

            https://www.kulr8.com/news/national/hea … 7cd6e.html

            https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-t … ts-2020-12

            https://www.huffpost.com/topic/martial-law

            CRAZY SIDNEY POWELL as Special Counsel

            https://www.politico.com/news/2020/12/1 … sel-448694

            https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/19/us/p … fraud.html

            https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-cons … -theories/

            https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald … e-n1251859

            https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol … 978054001/

            ILLEGALLY CONFISCATING VOTING MACHINES:

            https://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/ … achines-2/

            https://arktimes.com/arkansas-blog/2020 … -to-get-it

            https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/5 … n-disputed

            https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video … tates.html

            TRUMP BY THE NUMBERS

            https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng- … in-numbers

            FOX DEBUNKS ITS OWN FAKE NEWS VOTER FRAUD STORY

            https://www.newsweek.com/fox-host-lou-d … ow-1556143

            https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/ … smartmatic

            https://deadline.com/2020/12/lou-dobbs- … 234659655/

            https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl … 76863.html

            You know who didn't report any of those stories?  Fake Right-Wing Media.

            So yes, it did happen.  No wonder you get such a warped view of the world.

            So now you know why I summarize the reporting using a real news source like CNN - to avoid redundancy since they all report the same REAL news.

            1. Sharlee01 profile image84
              Sharlee01posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

              Oh my gosh, One after another left-leaning media...  I can see why your comments are very rarely factual, only sensational if comes. You are all about conspiracy theories. I like the fact, a news report on something that actually happened in reality, not --- Well it could happen. It might happen... I guess I am funny that way.

              1. PrettyPanther profile image83
                PrettyPantherposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                Do you really think every one of those news outlets is reporting false information? Really?

                1. Sharlee01 profile image84
                  Sharlee01posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                  Actually all but Fox is well known to be left-leaning bias outlets. Even the Arkansas Times.. And as a rule post-rumor-based articles.  Now, this is the norm,  all the articles he posted where rumor based. Note the words rarely factual. You seem to have taken my comment as stating all these outlets post false news all of the time. As I stated, "rarely are factual".

                    I am sure many of the outlets he posted have and do post-factual information at times.  My comment context was clear, almost all the outlets he offered are well known to be left-leaning and RARELY post factual information. All are well known for rumor based articles. Just my view.

                  1. PrettyPanther profile image83
                    PrettyPantherposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                    I was referring to the multiple links provided in the post you responded to.

          2. Sharlee01 profile image84
            Sharlee01posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

            All three are reputable organizations, all three give vivid comprehensive counts of the sanctions Trump Ad. placed on Russia. Just straight forward facts. It is apparent you did not read any of the links, all sources I used are reputable, non-bias, and factual.

            Again I don't ascribe to any far-left networks. CNN, MSNBC, are garbage

            1. My Esoteric profile image91
              My Esotericposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

              Actually, I read all three (in fact I read all three before you presented them to me) and my comments about them are factual, just as your sources are and just like CNN is (which is only far-left to you because you are so far-right). To me, CNN is left-biased, as are most news organizations who believe in reporting the truth.

              It is only most (but not all, Fox News is and exception) of the right-wing media (I can't bring myself to call it news, since it is not) who do not tell the whole truth all of the time.  Instead, they tell half-truths, provide Trump-style misinformation and distortion, and sometimes outright lies.

              1. Sharlee01 profile image84
                Sharlee01posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                Your article list "source" for the given information. My articles list actual actions the Trump administration has taken in regard to Russia. All factual, all actions that have been taken and are still in place.  It would seem you are saying our Government did not that these actions against Russia, arguing the facts.

                Your thought process appears to be skewed. To believe faceless, nameless reports over documented facts, I find that odd at best.

            2. Readmikenow profile image98
              Readmikenowposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

              "many of the sanctions he imposed were done unwillingly because he was forced to by Congressional action."

              Huh? Where do they come up with this stuff? I'd like to see proof an any Congressional action of this type.  Geeze.

              1. Sharlee01 profile image84
                Sharlee01posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                They come up with due to being somewhat brainwashed. No really, many that dislike Trump, have lost the ability to even except clearly documented facts. At one point in the past, I was sad for anyone that had such a thought process. However, now I have become discussed it with them. It has become hard to placate their inability to see reality.

                1. My Esoteric profile image91
                  My Esotericposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                  "No really, many that dislike Trump, have lost the ability to even except clearly documented facts." - We would certainly except "clearly documented facts" but your side rarely presents any.

                  Now, let's assume your Brookings reference is "clearly documented facts".  I would agree.  The problem you seem to purposefully ignore is we were talking about a comparison and all Brookings did was list actions that happened during Trump's tenure and didn't even limit them to things Trump did himself.  Therefore, it was useless vis-a-vis the discussion at hand.

                  Apparently I need to read your own sources for you.  FAS:

                  A series of executive orders issued in 2014 (EOs 13660,
                  13661, 13662, and 13685), based on national emergency
                  authorities and codified by the Countering Russian
                  Influence in Europe and Eurasia Act of 2017 (CRIEEA;
                  P.L. 115-44, Title II; 22 U.S.C. 9501 et seq.), establish a
                  framework for Ukraine-related sanctions on those the
                  President determines have undermined Ukraine’s security,
                  stability, sovereignty, or territorial integrity, or
                  misappropriated state assets - OBAMA

                  EO 13694, as amended by EO 13757 (and codified by
                  CRIEEA), targets those who engage in cyberattacks (1)
                  against critical infrastructure, (2) for financial or
                  commercial gain, (3) to significantly disrupt the availability
                  of a computer or network, or (4) to interfere with U.S.
                  election processes and institutions. - OBAMA and Congress

                  Second, CRIEEA, §224, requires the President to impose
                  sanctions in response to a range of activities conducted on
                  behalf of the Russian government that undermine
                  “cybersecurity against any person, including a democratic
                  institution, or government.”  - Trump fought this on his watch

                  Third, EO 13848 authorizes sanctions against foreign
                  persons that have “directly or indirectly engaged in,
                  sponsored, concealed or otherwise been complicit in foreign
                  interference in a United States election.”  - OBAMA

                  The Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of
                  2012 (P.L. 112-208, Title IV; 22 U.S.C. 5811 note) requires
                  the President to impose sanctions on those he identifies as
                  having been involved in a “criminal conspiracy” uncovered
                  by Russian lawyer Sergei Magnitsky and his subsequent
                  imprisonment and death.  - OBAMA

                  I think I found two, maybe three references to Trump actions in "your" source.

                  And as I said about your FP citation.  It talked about sanctions "in general" and not specifically to Russia.  The articles main point was that Trump used sanctions as a bludgeon and indiscriminately against the world, while Obama was much more surgical and nuanced in his use of sanctions.

              2. My Esoteric profile image91
                My Esotericposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                This is really easy stuff to find, RMN, but then I do understand you have your own limitations.

                https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- … SKBN1FI2V7

    8. My Esoteric profile image91
      My Esotericposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

      This is why staffers talk to the press - when the President goes off the rails (again).

      https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/20/media/st … index.html

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

        What is Trump's Florida address?  Do you know, or just assume it is at Mar-a-Largo (and that he is violating a private contract by doing so)?

        1. My Esoteric profile image91
          My Esotericposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

          Do your research Wilderness, as you well know, I try not to assume anything.  Palm Beach is suing Trump to have him move elsewhere.  He is contractually not allowed (although we all know he doesn't give a damn about contracts) to use Mar-a-lago as his residence.

      2. Sharlee01 profile image84
        Sharlee01posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

        Again CNN... This should tell you something.  You should follow facts, not media hype if comes.  Have you not realized none of these crazy stories ever come to any kind of fruition. 

        MANY of your comments are rumors, never any proof of the accusations you are attempting to spread.

        I saw one actual fact in the article you posted. An actual statement from a person involved with said meeting, and the only one that has a name ---


        "Donald J. Trump
        @realDonaldTrump
        ·
        Dec 20
        Martial law = Fake News. Just more knowingly bad reporting!"

        1. My Esoteric profile image91
          My Esotericposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

          And have you not realized that almost all of these stories do come to fruition?

          There you go believing the biggest liar the world has ever known - Donald Trump.

          1. Sharlee01 profile image84
            Sharlee01posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

            Actually, no very few ever are proven to be accurate. And your left believing a rumor, an unsubstantiated accusation.

            Like all of the things, you posted in your last comment they are based in no real sense on truth.

            1. My Esoteric profile image91
              My Esotericposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

              Give me a few you think were proved inaccurate.  I can't think of any.  You keep saying it, but yet you keep saying Trump tells the truth all of the time when everybody knows he does not very often.  So how am I to believe you when you have Trump so wrong?

    9. My Esoteric profile image91
      My Esotericposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

      Trump is losing his support.  Now the very conservative [i]NY Post[/b] published a large headline telling Trump to "Stop the Insanity ... You Lost the Election".   

      But that presumes Trump really isn't insane.  Insane people who don't recognize their illness Can't Stop It.

      1. PrettyPanther profile image83
        PrettyPantherposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

        Just an almost meaningless clarifucation. Trump is not insane but is mentally ill.

        Even if Trump admits he lost (which he won't due to his mental ullness), his cult will continue to believe Sidney Powell's 200-page documentation of election fraud (posted in the internet for all to see the truth!)

        If only we could boot the rest of the crazies out like we did Trump. big_smile

    10. My Esoteric profile image91
      My Esotericposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

      America did not miss the point that the violent Trump insurrectionists were treated with kid gloves, especially by the Capital Police, while BLM peaceful protesters (I am NOT talking about the rioters) were often mauled by the police.

      Why the different treatment?????

      1. Sharlee01 profile image84
        Sharlee01posted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

        If you watch the reports you will note the majority were older people out to have a peaceful protest. No masks, just all their Trump wear...  There certainly were those that showed up to take the Capitol. But the majority came to have a peaceful protest.

        Let me share, here in Michigan in some communities every week after the election many peaceful protests take place every Saturday morning. These protests are made up of citizens that feel the election was stolen.

        They come out in hundreds, they are older citizens, they cause no problems, but they are out every week. These people need to be respected, they need their concerns addressed, not by media but by our Government.

        And in regards to being treated with kid gloves. Your memory is short. All summer the police were made to stand down, let the protesters run unfettered to loot, and burn, and beat up people, and kill.

        1. Readmikenow profile image98
          Readmikenowposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

          I don't think that killing an unarmed Air Force veteran is being treated with kid gloves.

          1. Sharlee01 profile image84
            Sharlee01posted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

            Very little mention of the woman that was killed. Maybe if she had been black? Have you noted the media makes little mention of how many were killed in the summer left riots or the people that lost their businesses. And these fools in Washington wonder why the Capitol was breached I find it sickening how this is being covered by the media. The protesters were there for a reason, too bad all of them don't give that consideration.

            This media is so dangerous, I truly blame them for much of what transpired yesterday. I have watched this for years and made every attempt on any occasion to point out their agenda. To little to late.

            I am with the people that are demanding an investigation of the election.

        2. peoplepower73 profile image94
          peoplepower73posted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

          Sharlee:  You keep talking about your whistleblowers wanting answers. I would venture to say those domestic terrorists don't know or care about your agenda. They have been embolden by Trump's lies and constant drumbeat that if he lost the election it was rigged

          They were there to stop the constitutional process of certifying the EC votes.  That's why they entered the chambers. And for Trump, it confirmed to him that he is still in control with the monster he created.

          It sounds like you are condoning what they have done, just because you think they want answers from the government.  How is vandalizing our seat of democracy and the republic going to give them the answers you say they are seeking?

          1. Sharlee01 profile image84
            Sharlee01posted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

            I find your statement illogical... I keep addressing what Trump supporters have asked for weeks. My God how the hell can you be so hypocritical. One could see the majority of that crowd were older folks all dressed in their political gear to attend a rally and then a protest. Tell yourself whatever you feel makes you comfortable. There were some that caused trouble, and who knows their agenda. Many were arrested, hopefully, we can find out some info on who they were, and their agenda.

            These people are not represented in Washington, their own representatives failed them.  And you bet they came to try to stop the EC  from being certified. They believe fraud was committed. And at this point looks like they are go8ng to fight for what they believe. How inconvenient.

            You are reading into my view. I have stated I don't condone any form of violence. I would think your memory is short, what have I been saying over and over the past few weeks. People want an investigation, I felt if they were not heard they would hit the streets. They have,
            and they are not going away. You have the opinion all Trump supporters are in some way deplorable, not worthy of being heard.  Well, I want an investigation because we need to have all American's concerns put to rest. I never will understand how some on the left have become so emboldened to disregard other American's concerns. It's laughable you don't see this is part of the problem. In my view, many on the right have no respect for those on the left's very thought process or their flighty nonsensical ideologies. Take a look around there has been plenty of us out here tolerating, placating just due to our common sense.

            I have been saying for some time, the right will push back hard. They are overall crazy, and they want answers. This is not your old Republican, in fact, most won't call themselves Republicans any longer.

            I am not condoning violence, but I can see why it occurred, use common sense and you will understand too.

            1. PrettyPanther profile image83
              PrettyPantherposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

              My Gawd, Sharlee, it is not common sense to believe that election fraud occurred after the results of all the investigatiins, recounts, and court cases. Anyone who thinks there should be more investigations is out of touch with reality, just like Trump, who is seriously mentally ill. Those "protestors" were protesting a delusional idea planted by a lying charismatic demagogue.

              If you Trumpers don't acknowledge this now, you are truly lost.  Get a grip! Even Trump toadies loo like Mitch and Lindsay have had enough. Geez.

            2. PrettyPanther profile image83
              PrettyPantherposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

              Also,I have had it with Trumpers saying they don't condone violence while supporting a man so sick and so self-serving that he actively encourages violence from his supporters, culminating in yesterday's insurrection.. People who watched him yesterday said he was enjoying it. This is a man you enabled for four years and still want to be president, so don't give me that "I don't condone violence" BS. If you support Trump, you condone violence.

              1. Sharlee01 profile image84
                Sharlee01posted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

                You certainly have a right to an opinion, I can see we are very far apart on many subjects. Would do little good to have a back and forth.

                1. PrettyPanther profile image83
                  PrettyPantherposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

                  I agree. If you still believe more investigation is warranted, you are as delusional as our mentally ill president and, after yesterday's insurrection attempt, you are furthering the fantasies of a lying demagogue who is encouraging insurrection.

                  1. Sharlee01 profile image84
                    Sharlee01posted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

                    Deleted

            3. My Esoteric profile image91
              My Esotericposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

              " And at this point looks like they are go8ng to fight for what they believe. How inconvenient." - YET what is "inconvenient" is that these idiots' whole so-called belief system is based on lies and misinformation.

              I "believe" someone should die because "I think" they cheated me.  Apparently the logic you just laid out gives me the right to kill that somebody, simply because I "believe" it to be true. 

              For a "belief" to be real, it must be based on reality.  Their "beliefs" are based on pure fantasy.

              It would seem that is what yours is as well Sharlee.  You appear to buy into all of Trump's lies and discerption.  That is sad.

              1. Sharlee01 profile image84
                Sharlee01posted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

                Not sure where you would get that idea I believe all any and all Trump has said.  I have been discussing what may have incited many of his supporters to protest yesterday.  My feeling is that they feel they are not represented in Washington. This has nothing to do with my thoughts on what Trump has verbally said in the past or present.

                And once again your analogy is hyperbolic. I find you are overstepping your bounds to accuse me of having beliefs that are based on fantasy.  This is a personal insult, and I don't appreciate it.   Let's not presume that we know each other well enough to know each other's beliefs. If I were to take the same privilege I don't think you would appreciate it.

  2. Live to Learn profile image79
    Live to Learnposted 7 weeks ago

    This type of question is so bias. Considering the unreasonable vitriol that family has endured for years, at the hands of unrealistic comments such as the OP, the debunked conspiracy theories pushed by the left, the intolerable hatred spewed across all left platforms.....i don't wonder that they would like some peace and not be subjected to more hypocritical and unhinged attacks.

    In our country people can accuse anyone of anything. Whether true, or not. If I had the power to preemptively ensure I didn't have to waste money to defend myself against people with a proven track record of spreading lies about me...no doubt I would.

    1. My Esoteric profile image91
      My Esotericposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

      And tell me exactly why it is "biased"?  It is not a true rendering of the facts?  Are facts "biased"?

      What "conspiracy theories" pushed by the Left?  The only one whipping out CTs is the Right - e.g., Trump won the election.

      "waste money" - that is Trump's MO.  He sues people until they give up.  Case in point, all of the frivolous lawsuits he has and is filing trying to overturn the will of the people.

  3. emge profile image77
    emgeposted 7 weeks ago

    I Don't understand why they should go to jail and Bidens son should roam free.

    1. gmwilliams profile image85
      gmwilliamsposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

      THANK YOU.

  4. Kathleen Cochran profile image80
    Kathleen Cochranposted 7 weeks ago

    Maybe. Maybe not. But they will spend the rest of their lives in courtrooms.

    1. Sharlee01 profile image84
      Sharlee01posted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

      It well seems you are very sure that they will spend their lives in courtrooms.  Perhaps you have the knowledge to answer the reason why?

      You seem so sure, so sure of your opinion. Perhaps you could answer the questions I posed?

      I have several times asked for clarification ---what Federal or any form of crime has President Trump and his children committed?

      And when did president Trump state he was considering pardoning his children or himself? Has he done this? Can you provide a source where you found your information on the crimes you have stated are "clear"?

      1. peoplepower73 profile image94
        peoplepower73posted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

        Sharlee:  How about for openers that he has been charged with 10 counts of obstruction of justice as a result of the Mueller investigation.  The only reason he hasn't been tried is because he was and still is a sitting president.  That's according to AG Barr's ruling. Trump knows that as soon he is no longer president that he is fair game for the courts. That's one of the reasons he wants to overturn Biden's election results.

        1. Sharlee01 profile image84
          Sharlee01posted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

          "He has been charged with 10 counts of obstructions of justice as a result of the Mueller investigation".   WOW,  I must have missed something?  Charged?

          Highlights from former U.S. Special Counsel Mueller's testimony--

          "Democratic Representative Hakeem Jeffries said that in ordering Don McGahn, then the White House counsel, to fire Mueller and then lie about it, Trump had “committed an obstructive act,” connected it to an official proceeding and “did so with corrupt intent,” which constituted obstruction of justice."

          "Mueller responded: “Let me just say ... I don’t subscribe necessarily to the way you analyze that. I’m not saying it’s out of the ballpark. But I’m not supportive of that analytical charge.”

          And you say --- "Trump knows that as soon he is no longer president that he is fair game for the courts. "

          I must ask how you know this? Is it once again information you obtained from a media report, an opinion of a pundit? I am aware of the Mueller report and that he gave a very good statement that explains obstruction and his thoughts on if the president obstructs justice and would it be something that could be proved beyond a doubt. 

          I will leave it to time to see if Trump is charged with any crimes. But you ---you have stated he has been charged... Curious.

  5. Readmikenow profile image98
    Readmikenowposted 7 weeks ago

    This is absolute nonsense.

    "Donald Trump’s press secretary has denied there has been any discussion of pardons for the president’s family.

    Kayleigh McEnany insisted she had not heard any White House conversations about pardons except for former national security advisor Michael Flynn."

    https://news.yahoo.com/trump-press-secr … 00438.html

    I SERIOUSLY doubt any member of the White House has blatantly broken more laws than Hillary Clinton.  She's not been formally charged with anything.

    It is a joke to think the children of President Donald Trump have done ANYTHING even close to the criminal activity of Hillary Clinton.

    PUH-LEEEEZE!

    1. gmwilliams profile image85
      gmwilliamsposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

      yes, puh-leeeeeeze. Trump is an angel in comparison to the Clintons.  We all know that the Clintons have a HISTORY......HMMM......

      1. Readmikenow profile image98
        Readmikenowposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

        The hypocrisy of Democrats and the Democrat party is beyond belief.

  6. MG Singh profile image61
    MG Singhposted 6 weeks ago

    Trump was probably mislead by his advisors. It must be a bitter pill for him as he had stacked the SC with conservative judges and must be hoping they support him

    1. My Esoteric profile image91
      My Esotericposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

      You forget, Trump listens only to Trump.  Advisors are for show.  He has said as much many, many times.  One of the few true things that comes out of his mouth.

      That would be true, he probably falsely thought they would be die-hard loyalist and throw the Constitution out the window like he does.

  7. Readmikenow profile image98
    Readmikenowposted 6 weeks ago

    Facts show how Biden benefited from voting machines.

    "Fraud Investigator Who Sought to Disprove Sidney Powell Says His Analysis Shows Biden Did 1.5% Better Where Dominion Machines Were Deployed. Expert Recommends Audit.

    “Statistical analysis of past presidential races supports the view that in 2020, in counties where Dominion Machines were deployed, the voting outcomes were on average (nationwide) 1.5% higher for Joe Biden and 1.5% lower for Donald Trump after adjusting for other demographic and past voting preference.

    For Dominion to have switched the election from Trump to Biden, it would have had to have increased Biden outcomes (with a corresponding reduction in Trump outcomes) by 0.3% in Georgia, 0.6% in Arizona, 2.1% in Wisconsin, and 2.5% in Nevada. The apparent average of 1.5% “Dominion Effect” is greater than the margin in Arizona and Georgia, and close to the margin for Wisconsin and Nevada. It is not hard to picture a scenario where the actual effect in Wisconsin and Nevada was greater than the national average and would have changed the current reported outcome in those two states.

    Assuming the “Dominion Effect” is real, it is possible that an audit of these machines would overturn the election.

    These results are scientifically valid and have a p-value of less than 1%, meaning the chances of this math occurring randomly are less than 1 in 100.”

    https://electionwiz.com/2020/12/12/frau … nds-audit/

    1. Sharlee01 profile image84
      Sharlee01posted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

      With the conversation turning to the Dominion voting machines I thought you might be interested in the testimony from Col. Waltron in regards to what he felt was done, and even the time it was done. He gave a very good presentation on the system, and how easily one can adjust vote count. This link has his full testamony.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNX_ygC9p2s

      1. My Esoteric profile image91
        My Esotericposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

        Was his testimony in one of the 40+ court hearings?

        1. Sharlee01 profile image84
          Sharlee01posted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

          No Col Waltron's was hired to give expert evidence on the Dominion voter system. He gave testimony in several states before state legistrators.  He was well-received, asked very appropriate questions. he gave very comprehensive testimony.

          There were no in-person witnesses to offer evidentiary evidence in person at any of the court hearings that I know of.   The decisions that have been offered by the multiple judges have derived without live witnesses. Some judge's rulings did not state a lack of evidence. In fact, most offered rulings that did not include anything about the evidence. Such as latches, filed in the wrong court, filed too late, etc ... 

          At any rate, if you want to become acquainted with the Dominion machine that is used in many of our states, and what can be done to promote massive fraud with ease, become acquainted with what Col. Waltron offered.

          1. My Esoteric profile image91
            My Esotericposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

            Then why didn't the Trump lawyers use him for sworn testimony?  I have no trust in the Republican legislature sideshows as they were just political theater.  I say that because nothing developed in these so-called "hearings" were sworn testimony in a court of law where there are consequences if you are making it up.

            Most of the decisions by those judges, both Trump appointed and others, made a big deal that the plaintiffs had no witnesses to present, or, any other factual evidence.

            For example from Trump appointed judges:

            From the rebuke regarding the frivolous lawsuit (by a Party who once (but not now) hated such suits) filed by the corrupt TX AG, 128 dubious Republican representatives, and 17 Red State AGs who don't believe in the Constitution anymore we have this observation:

            "The big one was Friday’s Supreme Court decision, in which the court declined to even accept a dubious filing from 18 Republican state attorneys general and the Trump campaign seeking to overturn the results in four states. Two justices offered a slightly more nuanced view — that the case should be accepted — but none were Trump appointees Barrett, Neil M. Gorsuch or Brett M. Kavanaugh. What’s more, the two justices (Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Clarence Thomas) also said they wouldn’t grant the requested relief, which was a significant rebuke in and of itself." - WHY did they say that?

            Judge Brett H. Ludwig, WI, “This court allowed the plaintiff the chance to make his case, and he has lost on the merits. In his reply brief, plaintiff ‘asks that the Rule of Law be followed.’ It has been.”

            Judge Stephanos Bibas, PA, said “Charges of unfairness are serious,” Bibas wrote on behalf of a three-judge panel. “But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here.”

            Judge Steven Grimberg, “It harms the public interest in countless ways, particularly in the environment in which this election occurred. To halt the certification at literally the 11th hour would breed confusion and potentially disenfranchisement that I find has no basis in fact or in law.

            Trump called these personally hand-picked judges "activists", lol.

            Then, of course, there were a ton of other state and federal judges appointed by both Republicans and Democrats who said similar things regarding the lack of evidence.

            As to the Dominion voting machine, not a shred of verifiable evidence has been presented in a court of law that even comes close to suggest there was a problem that wasn't corrected on the spot.

            1. Sharlee01 profile image84
              Sharlee01posted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

              Once again, not one court proceeding ever reached the phase where witnesses are called to give testimony.  The cases were tossed out. And no As to the Dominion voting machine, not a shred of verifiable evidence has been presented in a court of law ...  I would look at this very differently than you. I feel he should have been heard as should all the 250 whisleblowers been heard. I feel anyone, that committed voter fraud down to just voting twice should be charged and punished accordingly or we should do away with the laws they broke.

              1. peoplepower73 profile image94
                peoplepower73posted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                Sharlee: The reason the whistleblowers were not called to give testimony is because they would risk perjury under oath.

                You last sentence makes a huge assumption that there was voter fraud.  What  is it going to take to convince you and others that there was no voter fraud/ 

                Trump and his lawyers presented claims of fraud 51 times and the courts threw out their claims each time. Even AG Barr said there was no wide spread fraud and he has always been on Trump's side.  When the AG says there is  no fraud, either you believe him or you don't. And if you don't that means you think he is lying. Do you think AG Barr  was lying?

                1. My Esoteric profile image91
                  My Esotericposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                  Mike, doesn't this epitomize how crazy Trump supporters really are?

                  https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/16/us/forme … index.html

                  Another step on the way to put Trump and the Kids in jail.

                  https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/15/politics … index.html

                2. My Esoteric profile image91
                  My Esotericposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                  Mike, have you read this from a top Trump aide?

                  “We need to establish herd [immunity], and it only comes about allowing the non-high risk groups expose themselves to the virus. PERIOD. Infants, kids, teens, young people, young adults, middle aged with no conditions etc. have zero to little risk [a lie]…so we use them to develop herd…we want them infected.

                  A few weeks later, he emailed Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Stephen Hahn and nine other officials to say: “[i]t may be that it will be best if we open up and flood the zone and let the kids and young folk get infected” in order to reach “natural immunity…natural exposure.”

                  That fraud of a doctor Scott Atlas said much the same thing, just not quite as directly.  Then of course, Trump repeated that idea from both of them.

                  Sharlee, Wilderness, RMN - do you understand this means that Trump wanted each of you to get sick with covid (assuming you are not in the high risk group)  He also wanted your kids, cousins, spouses, parents, etc to catch Covid as well.

                  Now we know why Trump lied to America and downplayed Covid and why we have over 300,000 Americans dead today.  And why we will have more than 500,000 dead soon after Biden takes office.  Yet, with all that purposeful death, America will be far away from his fake "herd immunity".

                  Don't you Trump supporters feel totally used now?

                  1. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                    I recall as a child that parents intentionally exposed their children to chicken pox (I believe that was the disease) because everyone was going to get it one day and small children suffered very little from it.  Older children and adults, on the other hand, had a very tough time when they caught it.

                    Were they wrong, evil incarnate as you find Trump is, in doing that?  Do you know, somehow, that a vaccine will give unlimited protection (no one else does - do you)?  Or do you believe that we can effectively cower in our homes forever and maintain a good life?  What information are you using to declare that there WILL be a cure before economies collapse from shutdowns?

                  2. peoplepower73 profile image94
                    peoplepower73posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                    Scott:  That could be why Trump didn't want anybody following the CDC guidelines during his rallies.  He wanted his supporters to become infected by the virus in order to propagate heard immunity.

                  3. Sharlee01 profile image84
                    Sharlee01posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                    Please read this article it gives a good description of the entire scenario in regards to the information you posted in regards to Paul Alexsander. It gives actually a good description of the fact Alexsander's theories were not respected or even considered. The facts show he gleaned no respect for his suggestion of using herd immunity on the population and was let go.

                    https://www.politico.com/news/2020/12/1 … egy-446408

                    Throughout the pandemic, Dr. Fauci has stated the Trump
                    the administration has been very open to all of what he recommended in regards to mitigations for the virus.

              2. My Esoteric profile image91
                My Esotericposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                Once again, not one court proceeding ever saw enough prima facie evidence to get to that stage.  Time and Time again, Trump appointed judges and others lambasted Trump, Giuliani, et al, that they had no facts and they had no evidence to present - only conspiracy theories.

                To Repeat just one of those judges, in case you missed it, "Judge Brett H. Ludwig, WI, “This court allowed the plaintiff the chance to make his case, and he has lost on the merits."

                Why is that so hard for you to comprehend, Sharlee?  Why do you buy into all of the fraud that Trump and his "legal" surrogates inundate you with?  Can you explain that for it really confounds me.

                On another note along the same line - MoscowMitch finally broke with you and Trump and belatedly congratulated Joe Biden on winning the election after 38 days of cowardly silence. 

                CNN's Anderson put it this way about the unAmerican Majority Leader:

                "And for what? [waiting such an embarrassingly long time] As Anderson Cooper put it Tuesday, for acknowledging Biden's win "after six weeks, dozens of court cases, two Supreme Court rejections, one fascist rally, four stabbings, countless threats against officials who are just doing their jobs, and more than $200 million in deceptive Trump fundraising."

                And I see no one could answer my question as to BTW, can someone tell me why various state officials and electors had to have police protection from Trump supporters. 

                1. Sharlee01 profile image84
                  Sharlee01posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                  Anderson Cooper, come on... I would think you would know my reaction to anything he might say --- a mere talk jock...

                  Your question is a fair one, I must have missed it. In regards to why some officials and electors may need or have required police protection. I can only offer an opinion. many American's are angry for many reasons. Some protesting the election due to many reasons, such as possible fraud, a court system they may feel is failing the people, a man that became president with little campaigning and appearing confused winning the election. And add into that a general dislike for those on the left ideologies.  Some citizens on the right are willing at this point to make threats, and yes get out and protest angrily. Perhaps to forwarn of what's to come if their concerns are not dealt with. Just as so many on the left have protested for many reasons in the last months and also threatened officials. It would seem some on the right are fighting fire with fire. Giving the left back what they have dished out.

                  1. My Esoteric profile image91
                    My Esotericposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                    But Cooper, unlike your heroes, talks the truth.  Yours lie incessantly - almost as much as Trump.

                    But here is the difference.  Those on the Left who protested (not rioters, those aren't leftist, just criminals) had very good reason to. 

                    Those on the Right have no reason.  The election was fair and square, nobody disagrees with this.  Was there a little bit of fraud?  Of course there was - as there is in every election.  Widespread fraud, on the other hand, is simply a conspiracy theory - no more, no less. 

                    What they are angry at and the reason they are willing to do harm to others just doing their jobs is they hate the idea their man lost. 

                    Also keep in mind, it is the extreme Right that has been declared terrorists by the Trump administration, none on the Left have.  Why is that?

                    Why is it that it those Americans on the Right that have hurt and killed more Americans than those Americans on the Left?

            2. Sharlee01 profile image84
              Sharlee01posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

              Why Col. Waldron was not called as a witness. again not one court case was taken up, and hence none ever made it to the evidentiary phase. You need to consider the cases were tossed out. Please note that the rulings you offered did not mention anything about evidence.

        2. My Esoteric profile image91
          My Esotericposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

          I looked up this guys "testimony" and now understand where some of the conspiracy theories come from.

          The Detroit News gets into 8 debunked claims by Waltron - https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/ … 824210001/

          Waldron can't back up his claims in Georgia - https://www.newsweek.com/trump-campaign … gs-1552257

          BTW, can someone tell why various state officials and electors had to have police protection from Trump supporters.  They even had to keep the AZ elector meeting location secret to protect them from attack by those who wanted Trump to win.  You remember AZ don't you?  They are the ones who were asking if these Trump stalwarts were willing to "lay down their lives" to keep Trump president.  WOW!!

        3. Sharlee01 profile image84
          Sharlee01posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

          As I have mentioned most cases were not heard due to procedural problems.  I believe there were two that the judges mentioned lack of evidence.

    2. peoplepower73 profile image94
      peoplepower73posted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

      RMN: 

      “Statistical analysis of past presidential races supports the view that in 2020, in counties where Dominion Machines were deployed, the voting outcomes were on average (nationwide) 1.5% higher for Joe Biden and 1.5% lower for Donald Trump after adjusting for other demographic and past voting preference."

      What does this mean: "after adjusting for other demographic and past voting preferences." It sounds like weasel wording to me.

      The Election Wiz is a blog.  It's not even a credible source. Do you understand how the electoral college works?  Trump won the last election by exactly the same number of electoral votes that  Biden has and  he also won the popular vote.  Trump on the other  hand lost  the popular vote, but won because  of the electoral college votes.

      Do you think the statically insignificant numbers that the Wiz quoted would  make a difference in the electoral  college votes?

      And besides,  today the electoral  colleges of all states will certify Biden's votes. At  this  point do you think they are going to stop that certification process  to validate the Dominion  machines?

      1. Readmikenow profile image98
        Readmikenowposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

        I agree Biden will have enough electoral votes to be president.

        I think it is important to post all of the fraud allegations so that the congress holds a full investigation into the allegations.  With all of the fraud that occurred, it must be investigated, a hearing before the Senate must occur and a full report must be generated for everyone to read.

        This may then lead to corrections being made to avoid another person getting to the White House using fraudulent methods to win.

        I don't think the numbers are insignificant.  1.5 percent can translate into hundred of thousands of votes.

    3. My Esoteric profile image91
      My Esotericposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

      Facts DO NOT show how Biden benefited from voting machines.  If there had been any such "facts", Trump's lawyers would have presented them, they didn't. Why didn't they?

      "These results are scientifically valid and have a p-value of less than 1%, meaning the chances of this math occurring randomly are less than 1 in 100.” -  And this means nothing when you don't have the whole data set - and at the time they did their number crunching, they did not have the whole data set.

  8. emge profile image77
    emgeposted 5 weeks ago

    I think many people just keep repeating that Trump and his kids should go to jail. Sitting far away I can see the entire picture. Trump did a great job and he identified the source of the virus- China. He handled everything including the virus very well. But then some just want to keep flogging for nothing. The real culprit is Biden and I will die laughing on a bed of nails the day Kamla Harris holds the reins of power in the USA. The American goose will be cooked.

    1. Sharlee01 profile image84
      Sharlee01posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

      I will be laughing with you. Because this entire election has been a joke and showed that America has many citizens that have little some no common sense. Just my view. But it is commical in many respects.

    2. My Esoteric profile image91
      My Esotericposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

      Tell me, emge, beyond Operation Warp Speed, what were the great things Trump did?  From where I sit, they are very few and far between (assuming you define "great" as moving the cause and values of America forward).

      I fail to see how stating the obvious, that Covid-19 originated in China, is "great".  Can you explain that conclusion?  I am also curious to know that had this virus originated in America, you would be just as happy to call it the American virus?

      Exactly how did Trump handle the virus well.  Does America being in the worst shape vis-a-vis the virus in the world qualify has having done a "great" job?  It would seem to me being last in the world of developed nations qualifies as just the opposite of "great".

      Do you define yanking babies out of the arms of their mothers "great"?

      Do you define feeding our allies, the Kurds, to the Turkish, Syrian, Russian meat grinder as "great"?  Being a retired Army officer and Vietnam Vet, I define that as cowardice.

      Yes, please tell me what you consider "great" about this traitor to America and our values.  (Traitor takes on even more relevance as he seems to be very happy that his buddy Putin is rummaging around in our nation's servers.  The coward hasn't said even one word about it.)  And now Trump is once again putting America's national security in danger by stopping the military transition with the Biden team.

      Boy, speaking of laughing. Un and Xi and Putin and Assad and all of the other dictator friends of Trump who are enemies of America must be laughing their murderous asses off as I write watching Trump destroy everything America stands for.

    3. gmwilliams profile image85
      gmwilliamsposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

      +100000000000000000000000

      1. My Esoteric profile image91
        My Esotericposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

        I forgot to mention to emge that Trump already "cooked America's goose" - worse than any president in the history of our country.

        You see, the differences between Harris and Trump are:

        1. She is demonstrably competent, Trump is demonstrably not.
        2. She actually cares about America.  Trump ONLY cares about Trump.
        3. She has lots of experience in governing.  Trump, even after four years sitting in the seat, still has none.
        4. She is mentally stable.  Trump proves every day he is not.
        5. She is not a criminal. Trump is.

        1. Sharlee01 profile image84
          Sharlee01posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

          You are batting Zero from 1 to 5... Laughable.
          Kamal has never demonstrated any form of competence. Bailing out Antifa.
          There is nothing to prove she loves America.
          She has a couple of years in Washington, and a poor record at that.
          Not sure she is mentally stable. She certainly cackles a lot when she can't answer a question.  Seems to have an odd demenor.
          Trump has never been charged with a crime. And her background is stained with cheap scandals.

          Please note my opinion is different than yours. And your opinion is no more important than mine.

          1. My Esoteric profile image91
            My Esotericposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

            1. Then you clearly haven't looked into her background (independent of the far-right fake news sites you seem to follow)
            2. There is nothing to prove YOU love America but there is much to prove that Trump does not.
            3. That is how much you know.  She has as much time in Washington as your hero which she put to great use while your guy did not (save for Operation Warp Speed).  Trump was stiffing contractors and employees, going into multiple bankruptcies (I know, you think that is good business), lying to people (e.g. Trump U), cheating people (e.g. Trump U and multiple real estate deals), and a whole host of disreputable actions prior to that.  Harris, on the other hand, spent time as:
            * District Attorney for Alameda CA
            * Asst District Attorney for San Francisco
            * District Attorney for San Francisco (where she created the Environmental Crimes unit)
            * Attorney General of California
            * US Senator.

            Trump and the Law:
            * Been involved in over 3,500 federal and state lawsuits
            ** Defendant in 1,450 of them
            ** Plaintiff in 1,900 of them
            ** Party to 150 bankruptcies (yeah, a real good businessman, lol)
            * The legal cases include contract disputes, defamation claims, tax fraud, sexual assault, and sexual harassment
            * Trump has been involved on at least three dozen occasions where the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance has obtained tax liens against Trump properties for nonpayment of taxes
            * On January 17, 2017, Summer Zervos filed a defamation suit against President-elect Donald Trump for claiming that she had lied in her public sexual assault allegations against him. It is still on-going
            * As of 2019, investors are suing Donald Trump and his family for fraud, false advertising, and unfair competition. They allege that Trump recommended the multi-level marketing company ACN as a good investment and that Trump did not disclose that he was being paid by ACN.
            * Trump's niece, Mary L. Trump, opened a lawsuit against the president and his siblings Robert and Maryanne Trump, alleging that they conducted fraud to keep her and her brother out of the will of Fred Trump (Donald's father), including by conspiring with a trustee assigned to her, and acted to devalue her interests in the family business—effectively defrauding her of tens of millions of dollars.
            * In 2016, a lawsuit accuses Donald Trump of inciting violence against protesters in Louisville, Kentucky. The suit is against Trump, his campaign, and three Trump supporters. One supporter, who was wearing a Veteran's uniform in a video, apologized to the Korean War Veterans Association immediately after the event, writing that he "physically pushed a young woman down the aisle toward the exit" after "Trump kept saying 'get them out, get them out.".  On Friday, April 1, 2017, Judge David J. Hale in Louisville ruled against Trump's request for dismissal of the lawsuit, stating there was ample evidence to support that the injuries of the protesters were a "direct and proximate result" of Trump's words and actions. This is still on-going as far as I know.
            * In waiting for Trump to leave office is the election fraud case that his lawyer pled guilty to for paying off Stormy Daniels regarding Trump's affair with her.
            * During the 2016 U.S. presidential election, media began reporting in detail on how the Donald J. Trump Foundation was funded and how Donald Trump used its funds. The Washington Post in particular reported several cases of possible misuse, self-dealing and possible tax evasion. The State of New York forced the corrupt Trump foundation to close its doors.
            * There are too many more to list, so I will stop there and let you contemplate why you love this crook so much. (none of those are opinions, btw)

            You call "cackling" an odd demeanor, lol.  I call Trump flailing his arms all about while demeaning a handicapped reporter "odd demeanor".  I suspect though you will rationalize his bullying of that reporter away.

  9. Readmikenow profile image98
    Readmikenowposted 4 weeks ago

    The only thing I have to say to the people on this post is....

    I hope everybody has a great holiday season.

    No matter what is said on these forums I hope at the end of the day we all realize it doesn't matter.  We control nothing.  This is just for fun. The decision makers don't pay attention to any of us and this is why we have to pay attention to one another.

    Peace and happiness to all.

    (Please...no political responses)

    1. PrettyPanther profile image83
      PrettyPantherposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

      Hope you have a wonderful holiday, Mike!

      1. Sharlee01 profile image84
        Sharlee01posted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

        Have a wonderful holiday.

        1. PrettyPanther profile image83
          PrettyPantherposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

          Merry Christmas, Sharlee!

    2. Sharlee01 profile image84
      Sharlee01posted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

      Merry Christmas!

      1. My Esoteric profile image91
        My Esotericposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

        Yes, everybody have a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year

        1. PrettyPanther profile image83
          PrettyPantherposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

          Merry Christmas!

        2. Sharlee01 profile image84
          Sharlee01posted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

          Have a wonderful Christmas.

  10. PurvisBobbi44 profile image79
    PurvisBobbi44posted 4 weeks ago

    President Trump does look good and so does Bernie Sanders who fought for the Direct payment of $2,000.00 per adult. It is not the party--it is the good people on both sides that cares about the American people and our country.

    I have read a lot of the statements from you which are mostly negative. I wish you would take a sugar pill and be nice for a few days while we are trying to enjoy Christmas. I know you are a very smart man--so maybe you will get this message. Merry Christmas.

  11. wilderness profile image96
    wildernessposted 4 weeks ago

    A merry Christmas to all.  It isn't long now - the grandchildren and I will be cooking desserts tomorrow.  The fun begins!

  12. IslandBites profile image87
    IslandBitesposted 4 weeks ago

    Happy Holidays!

    1. peoplepower73 profile image94
      peoplepower73posted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

      Everybody:

      Wishing everybody  a Christmas that's merry and bright!, Have a safe and relaxing holiday season.  Don't think about this forum.  We will pick it  up when we come   back..

      1. GA Anderson profile image92
        GA Andersonposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

        Bah, humbug! What if I want to have a grouchy Christmas? I suppose all you goody-goody well-wishers will criticize that too.

        Presents for the kiddies, bah, lumps of coal to all. Forgiveness for past grievances, not on your life, you said it—you own it. Plum pudding and Figs? Have you seen the cholesterol and salt content of those goodies? What, you wish me a Merry Christmas and a heart attack in the same breath?

        Don't even get me started on who is naughty or nice. . . And Santa . . . all dressed in red, as if he were a Conservative! Bah, this fat man gives freebies to everybody! Let's take a look at his taxes. Or his employment practices. I bet the Elves would have a thing or two to say about that. And speaking of Elves, can there be any discriminatory practice worse than that? Want a job at the North Pole, show me your Elf credentials. Where is the Derpt. of Labor on this issue? Where are the Court cases about legal discrimination? I am a great toymaker, but can I get a job with Santa? Noooo .... They are all reserved for the Elves . . . bless their tiny tribal hearts. How can that be legal?

        How about Santa's transportation? Have you given any thought to those poor reindeer? Stuck in their stables for 11 months of the year, bored to death watching It's a Wonderful Life' over and over and over, and then required to defy the laws of physics for a brief 12-hour outing. Fair? Sure, if you aren't a reindeer. And the myth of Rudolf . .  come on folks. Santa doesn't have to worry about fog or visibility. That whole Rudolf thing was just a nod to the ADA and a path to free grant money. Santa ain't no dummy, he knows who butters his bread.

        And, what about this 'have a safe holiday' baloney? What if I want to go skydiving or ski jumping? Noooo, you say. I have to have a safe holiday. Take no chances, no risk of having fun. Guess what, I'm gonna go do some snow-slide donuts in a Walmart parking lot just to piss you off. And then I'm going to do some naked snow angels just to prove I am invincible to 'normal' folk's concerns. Metamucil, vitamins, and take care of your health? The hell with that. I will be twenty forever, so stick that in your pipe.

        *oh gawwddd . . . I just freaked myself out with a mental image of an old man doing naked snow angels. Ugh!

        So, have a Merry Christmas yourself. I will have whatever kind of Christmas I want and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it!

        GA

        1. PrettyPanther profile image83
          PrettyPantherposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

          I want vdeo! I want pics! I see a viral moment in your future!

        2. Readmikenow profile image98
          Readmikenowposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

          Okay...I laughed until I cried.  Your bit about the holidays was some of the funniest things I've read in a long time.  Ah, you should writer humor...you have a real gift.  I'm impressed.
          Thanks and how about I hope you have a happy holiday season?

          1. GA Anderson profile image92
            GA Andersonposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

            And Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to you too MIke. I am glad you enjoyed my little diatribe.

            I have written humor before, (and I enjoy such writing), but alas, there is just no Google love in that type of writing. I ended up moving it all to my own site just for archiving. Maybe if I ever learned how to entice a following I could get more exposure, but so far I only exist on the net' as a Curmudgeon.

            GA

        3. My Esoteric profile image91
          My Esotericposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

          :-) Hey, don't knock skydiving until you tried it.  I think in many ways it is better than sex (unless neither of your chutes don't open, of course).

          1. GA Anderson profile image92
            GA Andersonposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

            Ha! I have tried skydiving. And here is a thought for you. In just the past 48 hrs., (after watching a WWII vet tandem skydiving), I was pondering which forum to post a thought about my skydiving experience.

            Since you provide the opportunity, here is the story I wanted to tell.

            My first skydiving experience was back in the late 70s. A couple of friends and myself went to a private airstrip, (this was in Maryland), where for $90, (I distinctly remember the $90 part, that was a lot of money in the 70s), you got 30 minutes of training jumping out of a 20-foot tower to teach you how to anticipate your landing and bend your knees and roll to absorb the impact of landing. (remember folks, this was the 70s, well before the 'parasail' parachutes we all see nowadays where the skydivers land in a walk—my parachute was the typical WWII-style round one.

            30 minutes of how to land and off we went. No tandem jumps. Our first jumps were all single static line jumps. Meaning you attached your chute ripcord to a static line in the plane that automatically deployed your chute when you jumped out of the plane.

            So, we are in the plane and taking off. The adrenalin is pumping and I am ready to go. Our plane wasn't one of those big 20-guy skydiver outfits, it was really a rather small Cessna-type that held five divers—including myself.

            So we are all crammed in behind the pilot's seat, and there is no door on the right side of the plane—just an open doorway.

            The sequence goes like this; the divemaster, (the copilot), gives three commands; in the door, out the door, release!

            In the door means you sit on the open doorway sill, put your feet on the pedestal step outside the door, and snap your static line to the door's static line hooks.

            Out the door means you pick up your butt and move outside the plane, standing on the doorstep pedestal—while holding on to the wing strut that is just in front of the door opening. In other words, you step out of the plane.

            On the Release! command you are supposed to let go of the strut and fly off, away from the plane. After 10 feet, or so, the static line connection automatically pulls your ripcord and your chute opens.

            Easy-peasy right? Nooooo . . .  let me give you the 411.

            First. For a first-time skydiver, the thought of jumping out of a plane is scary. And, when your butt is setting in that open doorway feeling a hundred knots of wind in your face and the view of the earth 8000 or 9000 feet below is all the reason anyone needs to say "Hell no!" And crawl back into the plane and hide in a corner until it lands.

            But . . . I had a problem. At this time I was in my twenties. A rural Eastern Shore of Maryland boy, (just short of being a Redneck), full of piss and vinegar and more male testosterone than should be legal. And the jumper in front of me . . . was a girl!

            So here I am. Just after take-off, I have already decided skydiving isn't for me. You know the old joke; "What kind of idiot jumps out of a perfectly good airplane."

            So, we reach altitude. The first jumper is a guy. Boom, he follows the three commands and jumps. The second jumper is a guy. Three commands and he is gone.

            By now I have decided I don't really want to skydive and will just ride the plane back down to a safe landing. $90 isn't worth dying for.

            But, I have a problem. The next jumper, in front of me, is a GIRL! Who the hell ever thought it was okay to let a girl skydive! And the last jumper, behind me, was a guy! Oh, buggers.

            There was no way I could let a GIRL show me up. So it came to my turn. "In the door! And I moved my butt to sit on the open door frame, attached my static line, and put my feet on the doorstep outside of the plane. Then came the next command; "Out the door! Okay, as if in a trance I lifted my butt, grabbed the wing strut, and moved my butt outside of the airplane.

            Now, at this point, I had a thought that has been the most profound and truthful thought I have ever had in my life—up to this point of course. "You dumbass! You are going to die just because you don't want to be shown up by a girl!"

            Oh well. I am standing outside the plane and the "Release" command comes. And I let go. Whoosh! The wind grabs me, sending me tumbling backwards, and before I could count to the "Five" they 'trained' me it would take for the static line to open my chute, I was suddenly floating—gloriously—under an open canopy.

            I have heard it said that there is no way to describe that feeling to anyone that hasn't experienced it. and I agree. The serenity, the tranquillity, and the "I'm still alive!" feelings that you get as you slowly float back to earth is indescribable. But trust me. It is better than sex.

            So I enjoyed this for about 8000 feet, and then it was time to prepare for landing. Once again, they 'trained' me to watch the ground approaching, and just when I thought I was about to touch down I was supposed to yank down on both chute cord control handles and bend my knees for the impact of landing.

            Oops. I yanked those cords a second or two too early. I bent my knees a second or two too early. When my feet hit the ground it felt like my ankles were driven right up to my chin. Roll with the landing? Ha! I hit the ground like a tent peg driven in by a ten-pound mallet.

            But .. . I was alive! I survived! Girls be damned, I did it. And I did it again and again for the next couple of years.

            Believe it folks. Skydiving is better than sex. When that chute opens and you float down to earth there is just nothing in the world like it.

            So thanks for the opportunity to relate this story Scott. It is a very true and very honest story. I continued to skydive about another dozen times until I moved away and the cost became too expensive. But alas, I never did get to do a parasail jump. I think I would have been hooked for life if I had.


            GA

            1. PrettyPanther profile image83
              PrettyPantherposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

              Wonderful story, GA. :-)  And what would you guys do without us girls? ;-)

              1. GA Anderson profile image92
                GA Andersonposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

                "And what would you guys do without us girls?

                Ain't that the truth. Now, consider how many years of life it takes for a guy to admit this. LOL I know that for me it took a very long time. But, I never sky-dived with a "girl" after that one time.

                I still regret never getting a parasail jump. I would have loved the machismo of walking into a landing—instead of landing like a sack of potatoes. Even if I did learn to make that sack-of-potatoes landing look semi-good.

                GA

                1. My Esoteric profile image91
                  My Esotericposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

                  This is try #2 after losing a 500 word response again.  So I will leave out the first 500 and continue with what I was typing when my computer retaliated for the abuse I give it.

                  To synopsize the first 500.  Take GA's story and:

                  1. Move it to Lake Elsinore, CA
                  2. No girls, only another high school friend
                  3. 2 hours of training, mostly safety
                  4. A step-ladder instead of a tower to practice PLFs (parachute landing falls)
                  5. I think we jumped somewhere between 4,000 and 5,000 feet
                  6. We didn't get scared until around the 10th jump.
                  7. The parachute was called a T-7 and had two panels missing from the back to help with steering. (Did yours look like that, GA?)

                  Now to the rest of the story.

                  Our 10th jump was still on a static line.  Rick, my friend, went first.  I don't know how he felt but I was already nervous for some reason.  I watched him jump, and then watched some more, and more, and more.  From my perspective it looked like he was going to hit the ground.  When it looked like he was two inches from crashing and burning his chute opened (he was probably between 1,500 and 2,000 feet in reality, which is still pretty close).

                  What really had happened was this.  After you jump, you are supposed to spread your arms and legs while arching your back, that keeps you stable while falling.  Rick did it too well!  When a chute opens, a little drag chute pops out to pull the main chute out.  Well Rick was so well arched that he created a vacuum behind his back and the drag chute just sort of flopped around back there.  Rick finally realized he had a problem and bent to open his reserve chute.  When he did this, he broke the vacuum and the drag chute finally worked and all was well.

                  Well, watching this didn't nothing good for my own nerves and I gave very serious thought to letting the plane do what it was built for, take me back to the ground.  In the end, I gritted something, probably my teeth and jumped after Rick.

                  I think I had one more static line jump after that and then came my first solo jump.  Of course, nothing is simple for me.  After leaving the plane, counting to ten, pulling my ripcord, and letting the parachute deploy I looked up to inspect the chute.  To my amazement, I had a couple of shroud lines caught over the top of the parachute itself.  This is called a Mae West.  (If any of you are old enough to remember this very bossomy actress, you will get the picture.)  In its most severe form the shroud lines are centered over the top and ends up making the parachute look like a big bra - which spins because the air is flowing out unevenly.

                  The effect of a Mae West is to increase you decent rate and leave you rather unstable.  In my case, the lines were way over to the side and I wasn't even spinning.  I suppose I could of ridden it down like that and prepare for a hard landing, but I didn't. I just made things worse.

                  I deployed the reserve parachute.  This meant pulling its ripcord, grabbing the material and throwing it, I think, in the direction of the spin.  My first dilemma, I wasn't spinning, so where to throw the chute.  This also left me with the second dilemma, what to do with the rip cord itself.  As I recall, you were supposed to throw it away - but that goes against my hoarding nature so I kept it.

                  As to the material in my hands, I split the difference and threw it out in front of me. Great, it opened up and left me staring at a knot of twisted shroud lines.  While I was doing that, the main chute now decided to start wrapping itself around the reserve chute - this was not going well.

                  To solve that problem, I began untangling the two parachutes.  Fortunately, as I was unwrapping the main from the reserve, it was also untwisting the reserve.  So when the main chute broke free, the reserve chute was now untwisted.  Now came the easy part, keeping the to canopies apart.  I did this by pushing the main chute away from my back and pushing the reserve away from my front.

                  Now I could enjoy the ride down and find out where my drop zone was - way behind me as it turned out so that is not where I was going.  I did get to see all the people down there jump into their cars and start heading to where they thought I was going to come down.

                  As I got closer to the ground, I began to prepare myself for something that has never happened to me before - a broken bone. Uhg.  Believe it or not, when you have two parachutes deployed, you come down faster than with just one, even the smaller reserve.  Anyway, refer back to GA's description of his landing and that about describes mine - it was not nice, but nothing broken --- and I became famous for the hour.

                  I had another 10 or 15 jumps after that until time (college) and money (college) ran out.

                  1. Readmikenow profile image98
                    Readmikenowposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

                    Just think, if you would have joined the Army and became part of the 82nd Airborne Division at Fort Bragg, NC you could have been regularly jumping out of airplanes at no cost.  You could've been paid.  You could have spent quality time out in the wilderness and more.