Did Trump Really Try To Implement a Coup?
Statements from some insurrectionists who had time to reflect on what they did that day:
Reimler: “And I’m sorry to the people of this country for threatening the democracy that makes this country so great…My participation in the events that day were part of an attack on the rule of law.”
Pert: “I know that the peaceful transition of power is to ensure the common good for our nation and that it is critical in protecting our country’s security needs. I am truly sorry for my part and accept full responsibility for my actions.”
Markofski: “My actions put me on the other side of the line from my brothers in the Army. The wrong side. Had I lived in the area, I would have been called up to defend the Capitol and restore order…My actions brought dishonor to my beloved U.S. Army National Guard.”
Witcher: “Every member—every male member of my family has served in the military, in the Marine Corps, and most have saw combat. And I cast a shadow and cast embarrassment upon my family name and that legacy.”
Edwards: “I am ashamed to be for the first time in my 68 years, standing before a judge, having pleaded guilty to committing a crime, ashamed to be associated with an attack on the United States Capitol, a symbol of American democracy and greatness that means a great deal to me.”
https://january6th.house.gov/report-executive-summary
Hopefully, some on this site will have the same epiphany.Are you assuming that some of the posters here were at the riot, entering the Capitol during the event? That would be quite an accusation...
I see it's the same old same old ... Happy New Year.
Well, it's not quite here yet, but Happy New Year back at you. May it be better than the past one!
"Hopefully, some on this site will have the same epiphany."
The epiphany that the rioters Jan 6 did wrong, as I read the post it came from. If I'm wrong, what did you mean that posters here would have the same epiphany as the rioters caught in that event?You need to go back to the original post - the meaning is in bold print.
Isn't destroying evidence a crime? That is what Meadows apparently did.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/27/politics … index.htmlThe spectacle America is witnessing as the Republicans flounder in trying to select a House Leader can be laid at the feet of Donald Trump and his continuing attempt to overthrow American democracy.
I wonder how many Republicans who voted for Republicans House members wish they hadn't. It has to be SO DISAPPOINTING to watch their elected representatives bring American governance to its knees.
How long will it take before Republicans can get to their main (only ?) agenda - start their witch-hunt of the Bidens.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/03/politics … index.htmlI wonder what the Special Council will find in this new tranche of evidence for his investigation into Trump's Coup attempt.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/04/politics … index.htmlSame thing they found about his culpability in attacking the United States. Nothing at all.
Why do you keep looking so hard? 7 years and nothing has been found - not even a jaywalking ticket!Obviously, because I don't have to look hard at all and because I don't have blinders on.
Also, Trump Organization (which is Trump) WAS convicted of criminal fraud by the Manhattan DA. The NY AG shut down Trump's personal charity to himself for the same thing - fraud. Former students successfully sued Trump for fraud related to his fake university.
As I said, without blinders, it is obvious.Then punish him for those things he has done wrong (not what his corporations did, of course - that is illegal). And quit proclaiming that he has done 100 MORE things you cannot prove.
"Then punish him for those things he has done wrong"
You seem reluctant to acknowledge that he had done anything wrong let alone seeing him punished for it.
How daft must one be to think that Trump was not aware of illegal and unethical practices within a corporation when he is ultimately in charge?This was a civil suit. It was settled, and Trump lost. He did receive punishment.
"A federal judge has approved a $25 million settlement deal between President Trump and students who paid for Trump University real estate seminars, bringing lengthy litigation to a close.
The deal, which calls for Trump to reimburse the students who say they were defrauded, was struck in November but needed approval from U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel. He signed off on the settlement Friday in San Diego.
New York Attorney General Says Trump Agrees To Trump University Settlement
THE TWO-WAY
New York Attorney General Says Trump Agrees To Trump University Settlement
Trump doesn't admit any wrongdoing under the terms of the settlement.
The settlement applies to three separate lawsuits — two class actions and a fraud case. The $25 million deal includes payouts to more than 6,000 Trump U students who paid thousands of dollars for courses they describe as worthless."
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way … ty-lawsuit
I am very sure one could find many lawsuits due to Trump's many business ventures.Yes, I knew about that one, although I did not know he never admitted wrongdoing. "Settling" does not indicate that, as we all know.
Nevertheless, it is my considered opinion (opinion!) that Trump DID defraud those students. In the past decade or so that seems quite common with "institutions of higher learning" across the country. While it may be common, it is not legal to run them the way Trump and many others have done. So, force Trump and those others to repay the tuition.
(Yes, I agree that one could find many lawsuits of Trump's businesses. No large business gets by without some, and without losing some of them. Heck, the company I worked for was sued when they had a truck break down on the highway. The driver pulled off the road and clear off the shoulder, calling a tow truck, but still had a drunken motorcyclist run into the rig. The company lost the suit and had to pay damages.)I can't imagine him not being sued frequently for injuries that occurred on his many owned businesses. Owning businesses breeds lawsuits. I would think being in real estate he gets many lawsuits related to his many properties. Lawsuits come with owning businesses, in my view.
Trump isn't being sued for "injuries", he has been and is being sued for fraud and defamation.
And what was the civil suit all about? FRAUD, to which he settled. I am not so naïve to think that this wasn't purposeful fraud on those students by Trump - that he did it by accident.
Are you denying he didn't cheat these students?
You didn't know that Trump does not own a Corporation? Trump Org is an LLC. One that, with the possible exception of when he was president, is he is the sole or principal owner AND which we all know he micromanages.
So please don't try to make me believe he is so ignorant that he didn't know what his LLC was doing.
Also, the Manhattan DA IS investigating him criminally.Proof, please, of personal wrongdoings by Trump.
Not an investigation, court proven criminal wrongdoings by Donald Trump, not someone in his company. Don't forget that one of the purposes of an LLC is to limit liability by the owner.
You can start with a list of actions he has taken that you consider "micromanaging" that were found illegal in a court of law.But not for fraud. That pieces the veil.
I can't help but wonder about the on-the-fence voters who chose the GOP candidate out of habit, family, hatred of Democrats, election denial, or whatever reason. Is this what they voted for? Well, this is what we all got. And it is only the beginning. The last Congress got a lot of good things done. Now this.
Aren't they thrilled watching the House Republicans prove what everyone else knows - they can't govern.
Given that this is what we will see for the next two years, one has to believe that there will be a blue wave in 2024 because so many Republicans finally figure out they can't stomach the Republicans.
What I am hoping comes out of this debacle is a moderate Republican, willing to work with the Democrats to get some things they both agree on done, that the Democrats can vote for comes along. (Assuming the Left of the party doesn't tank such an idea.)ESO, there is no such thing as a "moderate" Republican. We Democrats must be careful to not attempt any compromise with the devil as we are well aware of their treachery. I say let them stew in their own juices.
Sorry Credence, to me that is throwing the baby out with the bath water. Can America, let alone the world, make it for two years of nothing coming out of Congress except investigations into mostly trivial things like Hunter Biden.
Things like funding gov't and increasing the debt ceiling are essential items which, if we don't work across the aisle to peel off the few remaining patriotic Republicans, America will be brought to its knees. (at least we will be chock full of judges who have America's well being as part of their ideology.)Well, ESO, that is all we can expect on either side of the coin. Who can actually be considered as the "speaker" that would not have to dredge all of this up to appeal the sadistic desires of the bulk of the GOP as filtered through the troublesome twenty?
I understand your point, I just don't believe that there are any Republican that are any good these days and that what few moderates there are remain powerless within the larger scheme of things. So, we can expect obstruction any way you cut it. I surely am not going to make it easier for them.
Like I mentioned to GA sometime ago, the tail is wagging the dogs. The extremists are holding the entire party hostage and to date, I see no light at the end of that tunnel.Understood.
I see that McCarthy neutered himself and the Republicans to become speaker. Now that the members are sworn in, a little known Congresswoman from Ohio (now the longest service woman in history) has a message for Jefferies and the DNC - Don't keep forgetting the moderates in the "Rust Belt"!. Having done so for decades now is a major reason why the anti-democratic, twice impeached, single-term, dangerously mentally ill Donald Trump became president in the first place and why he is STILL attempting to bring down America.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/07/politics … index.html
McCarthy falsely says "He Never Gives Up". He "gave up" everything to become Speaker - his integrity, his power, the effectiveness of the speakership, his image as an effective politician, his claim that he is for America, etc.
Now all we have to look forward to is stupid (for the most part) investigations and chaos with a dash of bringing America to its knees for the next two years. Fortunately, that record should make a Democratic House a shoo-in in 2024.
https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/ … index.htmlCould you consider that the 'Leadership' needed to be neutered?
I think the most recent Omnibus bill shows that the Speaker does have too much power. I don't see a logical argument to support the power of such legislative shortcuts as "Omnibus bills."
GAIf you had a House full of reasonable people who had the good of America foremost in their mind, then yes. But when it is full of cats with many of them having their own personal agenda which is contrary to an effective governance, then no.
We have the latter in spades, and I am not talking just about the Taliban 5 or the anarchist 20 either. I am throwing in the Squad and similar folks.
My position will be amplified when we get to increasing the debt ceiling to pay past bills. Given the lack of character of some on the Right, I would not be surprised if they actually try to make America default.
While I would be opposed, I would not be surprised to see a Democrat or two try to Vacate the speakership. That said, I suspect the far-right Republicans will beat them to the punch.Oh yes, perfect example. Over 1000, earmarks, and weeee --- only 24 hours to play find them. Makes my head spin how Americans are satisfied with this crap.
With no "leadership", the chances of very bad things happening goes up dramatically. The House Republicans are sort of like a football team without a quarterback or coach and will be about as successful. If it weren't so terrifying, it would be funny to watch.
I am betwixed and between about appropriation bills and an omnibus. The negative about earmarks is a distraction since the beginning of time, the normal appropriations process was full of them - they are not unique to omnibus bills.
The normal appropriations process fits well with my need for order and thoughtful gov't. But, that is not the way we like to do things apparently. The current appropriations process was created in 1974.
Since 1977, according to Pew, 100% of the appropriations bills were enacted before Oct 1. That was in in 1977 (Carter), 1989 (Bush I), 1995 (Clinton), 1997 (Clinton). The House and Senate were Democratic in all but 1997.
They got close only one other time, 1978, when they got 74% of the budget passed.
Fourteen times they didn't get even one appropriations bill past: 1986 - 1988, 1991, 1996, 2002, 2003, 2008, 2011 - 2016, and 2018 - 2022!! (In 2017, they passed only 10% of the bills.)
I think Congress should recognize human nature and create a system that accepts that omnibus' are the way of life and create rules that 1) prevent a gov't shutdown and 2) give congresspeople time to digest the content.
As to point 1, I would favor a rule that automatically extends the time to work by 30 days with a continuing resolution that includes a 1% across the board increase in funding. That way, if Congress can't do its job, the government continues to operate with a little protection for inflation."With no "leadership", the chances of very bad things happening goes up dramatically."
Not nearly so much as with the wrong "leadership"...such as Pelosi.Actually, Pelosi did a great job. Did a lot of good for America and Americans.
"Fortunately, that record should make a Democratic House a shoo-in in 2024."
I would like to believe that from what I have seen over the 6 years, I would have thought that there would have been sufficient outrage to date to turn any reasonable person away from the GOP. But they have a core group of supporters who just keep doubling down.
The electorate is surprisingly fickle, just as the Republicans expected a red wave that turned into a red herring in 2022, there will always this big question mark as what to expect in 2024.The headwind good government faces are eighty million so-called Americans that think and behave like Trump. Given that history did not repeat itself shows that more and more Americans are waking up to the evils of Trumpism.
"I would like to believe that from what I have seen over the 6 years, I would have thought that there would have been sufficient outrage to date to turn any reasonable person away from the GOP."
It might well have worked, had not the Dem's totally shot themselves in the foot with massive inflation, a looming recession, hordes of invading illegal aliens turned loose in the US, COVID intervention far beyond anything reasonable or necessary, weaponization of the DOJ and a futile and "fraudulent" (for lack of a better word) expenditure of millions and millions of $$ persecuting (spelling is correct) a president in order to remove him from the political arena.
Had Democrats put their efforts into running the country rather than running it into the ground, in other words, they might really have a majority in the House now. And Senate for that matter. But they didn't - they spent the two years doing whatever damage they could to the country and it shows even with the massive reaction to the SCOTUS decision on abortion. That alone should have put Dem's in complete control, but it didn't. Not after the pathetic and ruinous actions Biden and Congress took.Again! Neither Democrats nor Biden had anything to do with inflation other than being in power when it happened. I even know better to blame Trump or the Republicans.
The Democrats did a great job of running the country IN SPITE OF most Republican resistance to that happening.
Keep in mind, the Democrats pulled off a miracle in 2022, damn near keeping the House when Republicans should have won 40 seats and increasing their majority in the Senate when they were supposed to lose it. The Democrats should be proud of their accomplishments while the Republicans should be cowering in a corner somewhere licking their wounds.You know, and I know, what happens when demand suddenly outstrips supply. When, in other words, Biden shut down the supply lines while giving out a trillion dollars of unearned money.
So you can quit whining that "Democrats didn't cause inflation"; we both know Biden's COVID overreaction was the #1 reason we're suffering from it today. We both know better, and so does 95% of the country.There you go again, making things up. "Biden shut down the supply lines" - is not even close to being true. That was Trump, if it was anybody. You are conflating administrations and grasping at straws, it would seem.[/i]
As to Biden's "overreaction", that is just your uniformed opinion. I have supplied you with much proof in the past that you are absolutely wrong.OK - if it makes you feel better (it doesn't me) Biden kept the supply lines closed far longer than he should have, resulting in the massive inflation we now have.
Yes, I know - you think Biden's COVID responses were right on the dot. As we enter a depression, he did what was right. I disagree, that's all - we're going to see more pain and grief (it's already started) than doing nothing would have generated. And we know that because of the experience of some other countries."OK - if it makes you feel better (it doesn't me) Biden kept the supply lines closed far longer than he should have, resulting in the massive inflation we now have." - And how did he do that, exactly? Seems to me he did just the opposite.
"As we enter a depression, " - Say what???
Inflation has been an issue throughout several Western Economies recently, blaming Biden for everything is truly Trumpian to the extreme. You Rightwinger types would blame Biden for a rainy day, what could we have blamed Trump for? That is fine as your opinion, but I don't buy it, sorry.
If Democrats were to govern like and basically be Republicans, then they would have met your satisfaction?
What are we twisting around here, Wilderness? This has been the most lackluster performance for any mid term session by the party out of power, over MANY years. According to McCarthy, the GOP was expected to gain overwhelming advantage in the midterms, 60 seats in the House and easily flip the Senate. So, you can stop spinning like a top, Wilderness, the Democrats with their so called inflation issues, Covid issues and poor ratings for Biden beat the Republicans hands down. Instead of telling us all where the Democrats fell short when they exceeded all expectations, maybe you need to have a look at the GOPThat inflation is hitting most 1st-world nations, the 'supply and demand' argument, as described—a breakdown of the supply chain and a massive infusion of free money, prompts a thought: Did all the nations suffering our level of inflation deal with covid as we did; large grants of money to its citizens and businesses?
The first to come to mind is the G-7 nations. I think most of them did just as we did, more or less. I bet someone out there has that data.
The point of that point is that if it is true, then the administration's, and yours, rebuttal that 'it ain't just us so it isn't because of something did' might not mean much. Not if the ones suffering all did the same thing.
GAI have another old adage, GA, "hindsight is always 20/20.
If some of the most highly developed economies on the globe went through the same thing, it is only the Biden bashers who believe that our republican economists are just that much better versed on the subject.
"The U.S. unemployment rate rose as high as 14.7% in April 2020—the highest since the Great Depression. The unemployment rate was 3.7% as of August 2022."
So what could be done? This virus was out of control at the time with no end in sight while the economy was running aground.
But the question you pose is interesting, what did the G-7 do to spur their respective economies during the downturn, if anything?
Here is a link that might prove helpful...
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/20/worl … virus.htmlI wasn't criticizing from hindsight. I wasn't even condemning the mistakes as being unique or purposefully irresponsible. (but I think they were) My view is simply that mistakes were made and saying others made the same mistake isn't much of a defense.
As for your link, The NYT only allows me a few visits per month because I won't pay to join. Even so, the argument I suspect your link would make has most likely been hashed over too many times right here. The old Sweden vs. USA, UK vs. France, etc. covid responses. I don't know nearly enough to offer an opinion. I don't think most people do, although that doesn't stop many of them.
GAI am just saying if it were a mistake, who could have done better at the moment the crisis was upon us? Who is smarter than the world's prominent first world economists? I don't believe anyone knew of a better course, otherwise why not take it?
The NYT link spoke not of the US, but how member nations of the European Union provided funding among their members as stimulus.I would argue that there is enough data available to rank various countries responses to the Covid crises. I have no doubt the US response will be near the bottom. Others, New Zealand comes to mind, did quite well, all things considered.
Here is a comprehensive look at how nations fared.
https://freopp.org/measuring-covid-19-p … 8664fca308
"If some of the most highly developed economies on the globe went through the same thing, it is only the Biden bashers who believe that our republican economists are just that much better versed on the subject."
Unfortunately for that thought, the economic results of Biden's COVID programs was classic Economics 101. It didn't take an economic genius to predict the results of a huge increase in demand coupled with a huge decrease in supply. That liberals could not see that coming is on them, no one else.Where would you have received your crystal ball, Alan Greenspan?
What could have done by Trump and his henchmen to circumvent the outrageous unemployment rate during his term that you are obviously going to absolve him for?Econ 101. Quit requiring that businesses close, quit handing out billions and trillions in cash.
What you and your cohorts seem to completely ignore is that there was a price to be paid for saving those actions taken. We assumed that the actions would save lives while at the same time knowing that it would cost inflation and possibly recession.
After watching what actually happened (those thousands of dollars simply given to people still working, people that had no need of it, that it actually saved a significant number of lives is questionable (speaking of the trillions in handouts as well as the double and triple unemployment, especially after it went on and on after the jobs returned). But yeah, the inflation was a foregone conclusion to anyone that has even dabbled in economic theory.There is always a price to pay, Wilderness, when this disaster was ongoing during the Trump administration, people were dropping like flies in an unprecedented manner never seen since the Influenza of 1918. There was panic, so NOW you say what should have been done. Would this have been something you could have predicted with your crystal ball at the time?
I would not have bailed out all of those "can't afford to faii" corporations in 2008 and 2009 just so they could give us the shaft later. Did all the banks and such need the bailouts ?What was the price we had to pay for that?I said it then, too. I was a champion of the concept that there was more to the pandemic than saving lives; that the country had to remain intact and that too much would cause more misery than not doing enough.
Did the banks need bailouts to keep the country going? While I absolutely hate the idea of bailouts, I'm not knowledgeable to answer that question. Are you, or do you just say you wouldn't have done it because you don't like it either?"I said it then, too. I was a champion of the concept that there was more to the pandemic than saving lives; that the country had to remain intact and that too much would cause more misery than not doing enough."
I understand, but that easy for you to say, while the bodies pile up and the cemeteries pack to capacity. If you were the one on the other end of a respirator, you may have seen it differently.
What makes you believe that you any more knowledgeable to answer the first question and the point of our discourse?Credence, there was not a working mind in the country that did not recognize that those enormous unemployment checks were keeping people out of work, jobs that had re-opened, yet they continued on for months, shutting down production everywhere.
There was not a working brain in the country that, watching thousand dollar checks go out to millions of white collar workers working from home (and more millions of retirees that had not lost a dime at that point), didn't understand that inflation was going to be the result. These things are not black magic, are not difficult to understand, but were set aside as irrelevant in order to placate the people and gain kudos from people getting a windfall income for nothing.
And we are paying the price now; a price that was as obvious back then as it is now. Somewhere GA made a comment that Democrats work towards intent (and appearance, I will add) while Republicans work towards results. And that is exactly what was done; Democrats worked towards looking great and keeping people happy while setting aside the inevitable results and refusing to even consider the future of their great plans.Republicans and results? That is a red herring on its face. The Republicans are fundamentally the rich old white men's party, I am certainly not going to have any affinity with this. The only thing consistent about Republicans is their dismissal of the little guy in favor of their well heeled constituency. That approach can never have my support. I recognize that as results.
The stimulus checks were insufficient to keep so many people out of the job market for so long. I have heard other explanations as to why people were not in a hurry to return to work. Where would you have drawn the line ? One unemployment check or two? We were looking at an almost 15 percent unemployment right in the heart of Trumps watch. No one was just going sit and wait it out...
We are always going to disagree on this point, so I agree to disagree.When people were sitting home drawing huge unemployment checks (more than they earned working) while jobs were begging for help, well, that's a problem. A major problem, and one that badly exacerbated the supply problem.
Yes, we will just have to agree to disagree. I look at the results (lack of workers), you look at "rich old white men" and declare that the entire problem is because of their age and race. We will not agree on this."When people were sitting home drawing huge unemployment checks (more than they earned working) while jobs were begging for help, well, that's a problem." - [i]Your timing is all wrong. When people were getting lots of unemployment, there were no jobs to take. That stopped in July, I think. Then people got a lot less money - and there still weren't any jobs.
By the time jobs started becoming readily available, not that many people were getting unemployment, especially "lots" of it like you complain about. That would be July 2021. This is, what, only 5 months after Biden took office and 3 or 4 months after he was able to put anything place.
And no, unemployment benefits DID NOT prevent people from finding work.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/ … wage-work/"And no, unemployment benefits DID NOT prevent people from finding work."
Prevent it? Of course it didn't prevent people from looking for (and finding) work. Was it an incentive to look for work? Of course not - who in their right mind would take a pay cut to go to work?
Yes, I know you say it wasn't like that, but it was. And shortly thereafter we began to see wages rise beyond anything reasonable...an obvious result of no workers.
From your link:
"As the country slowly begins to reopen, workers shouldn’t be shamed or punished for not returning to industries that haven’t materially improved work conditions from their pre-pandemic standards. A glut of low-wage job openings isn’t a sign of American laziness; it’s a sign of self-preservation. And it’s a clear signal that businesses need to make jobs more attractive, especially after a year in which 90 percent of the biggest American companies turned a profit while over half of the same companies laid off tens of thousands workers."
In other words, what I said. They would be stupid to go back to work and it wouldn't help them to do so.
Now, you can applaud the rise of wages, encouraging people to go back to work. As long as you recognize that that same rise was instrumental in the inflation, and that by now it hasn't help workers at all. Which is, again, how inflation works!No, that is not what you said. You said that overly-generous unemployment benefits (which they weren't at that time and many uncaring governors wouldn't pay them anyway) incentivized people to stay home.
That is simply not true, it had very little impact in their decisions. Other factors did, like retirement,
And no, I won't recognize those wage increases were responsible for the rise of inflation, at least not at that time. Bad decisions decades ago and supply chain issues caused by the pandemic (especially in China) is what was responsible for the initial large jump.
Inflation because of wage growth (to the degree it outstrips productivity growth) only starts months after wages being to increase.Then you need to take it up with whoever wrote your link, for they said the same thing. That people did not go back to work because it wasn't worth their time.
Of course wage increases do not cause inflation. A virus was the cause, getting into our money printing factories and causing the machinery to go berserk. Been over that one with you before. A virus cannot cause inflation; only our reaction to that virus can. And did.
Here are some "results" for you. The first piece of legislation the Republicans passed in the House was a bill to withhold the money the Inflation Reduction Act gave the IRS. Along with benefiting only wealthy tax cheats, it will increase the deficit hundreds of million dollars, LOL!!!
Being the most concerned about government spending is just another one of the Red Herrings the Republicans have been peddling.
Cred
I have given this issue some thought. It is apparent some feel that hiring more IRS agents would result in squeezing the very rich for money perhaps owed, or finding tax fraud.
Is it not more likely the very rich have tax accountants and tax attorneys doing their taxes, that know every loophole that is protected by law?
Would it not be more believable that small businesses and American citizens that do their own taxes be more apt to make mistakes when preparing their taxes?
So would there not be more of a chance at the rich will not be affected by all the tax audits?
My common sense tells me that these new 87,000 agents would be squeezing the poor and middle class, as well as small business owners.
However, the bottom line, the measure doesn’t have the support to pass in the Democratic-controlled Senate. It appears we will be able to witness the results of more audits.Actually, I think those that you speak of have been excluded from increased auditing.
Below are the highlights from this factual article - https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/11/politics … index.html
* The 87,000 figure refers to ALL employees over 10 years, not just auditors.
* Many "new" hires will actually be replacements
* 4,000 customer service reps were hired last year
* New funding actually improves customer service
* The law is meant to target taxpayers making more than $400,000 per year
My common sense tells me they will be going after wealthy tax cheats.The wealthy as a rule are very careful to follow tax laws. Yes, there are exceptions. But the majority take care to follow tax laws.
Biden is already taxing those that have small businesses with his $600.00 tax grab.
"The IRS reminds Americans earning over $600 on PayPal, Venmo, or Cash App transactions to report their earnings"
https://www.cnbc.com/select/irs-america … report-it/"The wealthy as a rule are very careful to follow tax laws. " - You and I have very different views of the, and I will add the word, very wealthy. But what is the implication of what you say? Because, in your few, only a few very wealthy people are tax cheats, don't try to catch them? That is what I get out of your defense of the very wealthy.
What was your point for observing the IRS (by which I am guessing your mean Biden) wants people to declare their income? What, exactly is wrong with that? Do you not want people declaring all of their income? I am confused.
It seems the public doesn't agree with your perception of rich people, according to Pew Research.
* 55% say the rich are More Greedy. 9% say they aren't
* 12% say the rich are more honest while 34% say they are less honest.
* 58% say the rich do not pay enough in taxes, while 8% say they pay too much.
* 65% thinks the nation’s income gap between has grown in the past decade—and most say that’s a bad thing for the country.
* ONLY 18% of Republicans say the rich are more honest than an average American. For Democrats, that figure is 8%.
https://www.pewresearch.org/social-tren … different/I should have truely been more clear about Biden's new tax on the, in my view, poor to middle-class citizens.
IR-2022-189, October 24, 2022
WASHINGTON — The Internal Revenue Service reminds taxpayers earning income from selling goods and/or providing services that they may receive Form 1099-K, Payment Card and Third-Party Network Transactions, for payment card transactions and third-party payment network transactions of more than $600 for the year.
"There is no change to the taxability of income; the only change is to the reporting rules for Form 1099-K. As before, income, including from part-time work, side jobs or the sale of goods, is still taxable. Taxpayers must report all income on their tax return unless it is excluded by law, whether they receive a Form 1099-NEC, Nonemployee Compensation; Form 1099-K; or any other information return."
"PRIOR to 2022, Form 1099-K was issued for third party payment network transactions only if the total number of transactions exceeded 200 for the year and the aggregate amount of these transactions exceeded $20,000. Now a single transaction exceeding $600 can trigger a 1099-K."
https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/reminder-s … early-2023
Not interested in your other stats, they don't pertinent to my comment in regard to Biden taxing the less wealthy. I offered my thoughts on the wealthy -- The wealthy as a rule are very careful to follow tax laws. Yes, there are exceptions. But the majority take care to follow tax laws.
Don't care for it? That's your problem.What new tax? Your cut and paste doesn't reflect any. All it says is that earned income is taxable. Do you disagree with that? It says nothing about "new".
QUOTE ; "Taxpayers must report all income on their tax return unless it is excluded by law, whether they receive a Form 1099-NEC, Nonemployee Compensation; Form 1099-K; or any other information return.""'
It seems pretty simple to me.Nothing new? I call this a gigantic tax grab.
Reminder: Service providers, others may receive 1099-Ks for sales over $600 in early 2023
https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/reminder-s … early-2023
The problem is the amount changes from --- "PRIOR to 2022, Form 1099-K was issued for third-party payment network transactions only if the total number of transactions exceeded 200 for the year and the aggregate amount of these transactions exceeded $20,000. Now a single transaction exceeding $600 can trigger a 1099-K."
$20,000 transaction to $600.00 --- DAH
Give it a break our point makes no sense whatsoever. Done with this conversation. I really could care less about arguing this new Tax rule.'"Nothing new? I call this a gigantic tax grab." - [i]You are saying asking people to report all of the earned income as a so-called "tax grab" when IN FACT all that is being asked is for people not to be tax cheats.
What you are saying is it is OK to cheat on your taxes by not reporting all of your income IF you don't get a form 1099. The law says that you have to report it whether you get a form or not![ Or do you disagree?/i]
If you could "care less" why did you bring it up?Your comment "* The law is meant to target taxpayers making more than $400,000 per year
My common sense tells me they will be going after wealthy tax cheats."
This is the part of your comment I responded to --- My concern over the new tax on the poor and middle-class... I have added the fact of Biden's tax on third-party payments has changed, and will truely affect the poor and middle class.
I set out to prove JOE LIED in regard to changing taxes on third-party payments of working Americans. He ultimately raised taxes on those making under $400,000 Period. My comment was clear, and my facts were presented now several times.
You are diverting to my first comment, where I shared my view that yes some wealthy might cheat on taxes but in my view, most do not ... END of that story. That was my view. We moved on to Biden lying... He is now taxing the poor and middle class on earnings of $600.00 now.
"PRIOR to 2022, Form 1099-K was issued for third-party payment network transactions only if the total number of transactions exceeded 200 for the year and the aggregate amount of these transactions exceeded $20,000. Now a single transaction exceeding $600 can trigger a 1099-K."
Hopefully, I need not continue to prove this very clear fact. Again source IRS
https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/irs-announ … nsactions.
I think it is very clear to me that in this situation you care little for facts and care more about what you have come to believe without the benefit of facts.
I have proved my point or the point I set out to prove.SIGH - THERE IS NO "My concern over the new tax on the poor and middle-class..." Why you keep repeating that lie is beyond me.
"I set out to prove JOE LIED in regard to changing taxes on third-party payments of working Americans. He ultimately raised taxes on those making under $400,000 Period. My comment was clear, and my facts were presented now several times." - You have proved NOTHING except that the threshold for generating a tax for was changed. Reporting that income on your 1040 DID NOT CHANGE, PERIOD. You are being lied to by your news sources.
You can say ""PRIOR to 2022, Form 1099-K was issued for third-party payment network transactions only if the total number of transactions exceeded 200 for the year and the aggregate amount of these transactions exceeded $20,000. Now a single transaction exceeding $600 can trigger a 1099-K."" UNTIL you are blue in the face. It doesn't change the fact that that is NOT A NEW TAX no matter which way you slice it.
To think otherwise tells me you believe all of those poor and middle-class tax payers you reference are TAX CHEATS. Is that what you want everybody to believe?[/i]
I am done with this one.My source is the IRS as the link indicates. Not sure why you feel I obtained the new tax change from a News source. I have posted the link to the IRS twice. Do you even check out links? Not sure how you could have missed this new change in taxes on anyone working in the "Gig industries". Curious. Perhaps CNN just did not thing this new tax change they now have to abid by matters LOL
Your entire comment makes no sense whatsoever, in regard to a response to my comment. You are all over the place.
I think "everybody has become pretty bored with your view on this one. If anyone is following this conversation. I am confident I made and proved my point. The facts are very much evident."My source is the IRS as the link indicates. Not sure why you feel I obtained the new tax change from a News source. " - Because of the misleading way you characterize it as a NEW tax. There is Nothing in your IRS link that indicated this is New Tax. New Forms, yes. But the actual tax did not change.
Let's try this. Let's assume in 2020, you were paid $200 for babysitting. Are you telling me you would not report that to the IRS as income?Then in 2022 you earned the same income and was given a 1099. What you are telling me, for this to be a "new" tax to you, you would now report the $200 while in 2020 you would not. Is that what you are saying?
I am sorry, but it appears you can't tell the difference between a new tax and a new form.You are beginning to appear very much confused or you are just not reading my posts --- I never referred to this new tax change on gig workers as a tax law. I referred to it as a Biden TAX GRAB"; "a tax rule" and Tax change"... YOu need to add links to prove your accusations.
" But the actual tax did not change."
Actually, this is misleading and incorrect, as my source proves.
Again -- My source is the IRS as the link indicates. Not sure why you feel I obtained the new tax change from a News source. I have posted the link to the IRS twice. Do you even check out links? Not sure how you could have missed this new change in taxes on anyone working in the "Gig industries". Curious. Perhaps CNN just did not think this new tax change they now have to abide by matters LOL" No new tax. change that will affect Gig workers in paying more tax on transactions.. Got it????
Note the words --- TAX CHANGE, I actually repeated the team twice... And offered the source from the IRS.
You appear to be trolling. I don't appreciate this kind of foolishness."I never referred to this new tax change on gig workers as a tax law. I referred to it as a Biden TAX GRAB";" - First you said NEW Tax Grab and please explain the difference.
"Note the words --- TAX CHANGE" -Please be precise. Show me what TAX changed. Please don't say the reporting requirement changed or there is a new form - those are not changes in a tax. So what is the tax that changed?
I understand Sharlee, but the wealthy are also as clever in not revealing sources of income. I looked into it as well, the IRs is short staffed, attrition being the cause. No one like the tax collectors, but they have a job to do. They have been behind in audits and much that has been scheduled remain undone.
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/08/31/irs-is- … ening.htmlYes, it is obvious there are people that will skirt the law, break the law for that matter. I have no objections to hiring more staff --- but 87,000 auditors?
Hey, at any rate, we will see the results of the 87,000 new agents at one point. The bill passed in the House to cut the cash passed, but we know it will lie on the floor.Why do you insist on repeating the misleading Right-Wing narrative that the IRS is hiring 87,000 AUDITORS. As I pointed out before to you, most of that number is 1) rehiring staff of all sorts that had to be let go because the Republicans wouldn't fund the IRS to do its job and 2) new support staff to improve customer service. Please pass on truth rather than Right-Wing lies.
AUDITORS "improve customer service"? How so? While I agree with you (and hell has frozen solid, with angels dancing on it) that there is no new tax is correct, the purpose of more AUDITORS is to collect more taxes, not improve customer service.
"Credence, there was not a working mind in the country that did not recognize that those enormous unemployment checks were keeping people out of work, j" -- You apparently neglected to read the many expert analysis I offered you that disagree with you.
What results did Republicans work toward other than a lot of dead people due to Covid.
" I was a champion of the concept that there was more to the pandemic than saving lives; " - And there stands the difference between most Conservatives and most everybody else. I guess Trump must have read your mind because he obviously wasn't interested in saving lives.
Just so that nobody forgets some of the costs of Trump's insurrection:
"According to the Justice Department, more than 950 defendants have been arrested for their alleged participation in the January 6, 2021, riot, with more than 500 being found guilty. Four people died in the attack, including rioter Ashli Babbitt who was shot by a Capitol police officer, two members of the crowd who suffered heart attacks, and one who died of an overdose. DOJ says 140 officers were injured that day and five officers died in the months after the riot – one of strokes and four by suicide.""President Joe Biden on Friday is set to mark the second anniversary of the U.S. Capitol attack with an award ceremony for "heroes" from law enforcement, politics and civil service for their contributions to democracy that day and beyond.
Biden, a Democrat, will award the "Presidential Citizens Medal" to 12 people and give remarks during a ceremony at the White House while Republicans, many of them loyal to former President Donald Trump, struggle for a fourth straight day to elect a speaker of the House of Representatives."
Isn't telling that only ONE House Republican showed up to honor those who protected them and democracy. SHAMEFUL!!!How many showed up to honor the cops in Portland, in Seattle, in Minneapolis?
Oh, yeah, Democrats don't care about that.Great point. They care about votes and not much else.
Apples and oranges - red herring especially since the answer is Republicans.
That's what I said - it's apples and oranges because one is Democrats promoting their crap and one would be bi-partisan, with Republicans in it.
You do understand you are insulting those brave cops who saved America from a permanently successful insurrection, don't you.
Ignoring the gross exaggeration ("insurrection") for what was a simple riot, you do understand you are insulting those brave cops that put their lives on the line (and some lost them) during the summer of riots? Not just the handful at the capital, where the riot ended in a few hours, but night after night after night?
In addition, it is not a game Eso. A game where we can use words to exaggerate, to pretend it was a war at the capital, with the danger of permanently losing our country to a handful of unarmed idiots having a great time in a forbidden place. Playing political games with one tiny, short lived riot does a great disservice to the thousands of cops and other first responders, as well as those thousands of people that lost their livelihood or more in the endless riots of the summer of love. Shame on you and the rest of those that made a political game out of it."Ignoring the gross exaggeration ("insurrection")" - Isn't that what many of the insurrectionist were convicted of (or is that fake news to you)? Isn't that what the House referred Donald Trump for? Isn't that part of what DOJ's investigation is all about? Sorry, it is you who seems to be grossly misleading your readers about the seriousness of what Trump caused and therefore undermining our democracy by taking that stance. Do you disagree?
Again with this misleading comparison with riots resulting from the murders on innocent black people by police and the deliberate attempt to overthrow our Constitution. In my opinion, that is a ridiculous and losing comparison to make.
Almost 1,000 arrested is NOT a "handful" Why the disinformation?
Your characterization of "unarmed" is also disinformation since it is demonstrably wrong. People need to know you are wrong.
Please don't give me crocodile tears about cops when you keep insulting the 140 who were badly injured at the Capitol as well as the five who died later as a consequence of the horror they experienced.
It is clearly not I who should be ashamed. You don't see me minimizing how bad the summer riots were do you? Yet you minimize an armed assault on the seat of democracy>Yes, I disagree. From the legal dictionary online: "A rising or rebellion of citizens against their government, usually manifested by acts of violence."
There was no "rebellion". There was no "rising". (I leave it to you to find the legal description and apply it to the riot.) And there was no "insurrection".
Yes, I do see you minimizing the summer riots when your entire thrust is the single, hours long one in DC and ignoring the others entirely simply because they cannot be used to demonize Trump with your exaggerations.
Yes, yes, I know they were armed in Jan. With a fire extinguisher and a flagpole. You can exaggerate that to an "armed assault" but no one believes it - it is just too obviously fake and no one was "armed" in the sense that taking over the government would require.
(No cop died days later as a consequence of the riot. If you believe differently, provide proof of their injuries. Your ridiculous claims just get worse and worse every day.)You aren't debating with me about what insurrection is - you are debating with DOJ and the Joint Chiefs of Staff who said shortly after the insurrection: "In response to the January 6 siege on the U.S. Capitol, the Joint Chiefs of Staff penned a letter denouncing the rioters’ behavior and emphasizing that the “rights of freedom of speech and assembly do not give anyone the right to resort to violence, sedition and insurrection.” This analysis defines acts of sedition and insurrection and evaluates the seriousness of both charges."
https://www.csis.org/analysis/understan … d-sedition
Why do you keep defending something where your are so obviously wrong?
"Yes, yes, I know they were armed in Jan. With a fire extinguisher and a flagpole. " - Again, you simply don't know what you are talking about. I must assume you don't belief those heroic cops didn't get injured since all the insurrectionist had was a fire extinguisher and a flag pole? Just absurd.
No cop died? More insults. Tell that to Ms. Sicknic, I am sure she will be happy to correct you:
Officer Brian D. Sicknick of the Capitol Police, who was attacked by the mob (on Jan 6), died on Jan. 7.[b] But for the attack, Sicknick would have been alive on Jan 7. ("The medical examiner added, however, that “all that transpired played a role in his condition.”)
[b]Officer Jeffrey Smith of the Metropolitan Police Department killed himself after the attack.
Officer Howard S. Liebengood of the Capitol Police also died by suicide four days afterward.
Police officers — Gunther Hashida and Kyle DeFreytag — died by suicide in July.
“Officer Jeffrey Smith was a mentally healthy person who received a blow to the head, began to exhibit symptoms he had never exhibited before, and nine days later died by suicide,” the lawmakers’ letter said. “The explanation for this tragedy seems clear.”
You can be as obtuse as you want. The rest of us know the truth of the matter.
I see the Trump of Brazil (Bolsonaro) supporter took a page from Trump's playbook and stormed their Congress. Not on such a grand scale as Trump, but violent nevertheless. So far, only 170 have been arrested instead of the almost 1,000 from Trump's mob.
Another difference is Bolsonaro's organization quickly came out in opposition to the storming of the Congress by his supporters. Trump, on the other hand, applauded it, called the insurrectionists "good people" and said he would pardon them if given the chance.
https://www.cnn.com/world/live-news/bol … index.htmlAt least Bolsonaro expressed firm opposition to the siege against theCongress, that was on a higher plane than how Trump behaved.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/four-ways-ne … 45985.html
On another front is Trump in a yarmulke, Netanyahu, who is now bringing the stench of rightwing tyranny recognized the world over to the "only democracy in the Middle East".
Now the rubber its the road, sort of. The Georgia Special Grand Jury is finished. But, it won't be until Jan 24th until we find out if the results will be made public and a month or more later to see if the Atlanta DA empanels a regular grand jury or not to seek an indictment.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/09/politics … index.html
I would still put money of DOJ bringing the first indictment for Trump's classified documents fiasco.Just so nobody Forgets, Trump is under investigation for;
* Mishandling classified documents
* Obstruction of justice
* Seditious conspiracy
* Various election related crimes
* Tax fraud
and so on.And he was under "investigation" for collusion with Putin, collusion with any Russian, collusion with any foreign power, etc. He was under "investigation for causing a riot, for causing a non-existent "insurrection", for attempting to overthrown the government.
Just so you don't forget; he has yet to be convicted of anything at all, after 7 years of effort.I truely think if Trump littered they would charge him, go to great lengths to drag the case out, and even change the described punishment for littering so they could jail him. LOL
I do not think Trump broke any laws. He may be charged for taking the Documents out of the White House. But who knows, he claimed he declassified the documents.
And yet he was accused of many other things, and sued ---
Trump Wins Legal Battle Against His Niece
Mary Trump had claimed that the former president and other relatives had cheated her out of tens of millions of dollars.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/15/nyre … niece.html
Donald Trump wins ruling in rape accuser Carroll's defamation lawsuit
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/appeal … 022-09-27/
Trump scores win over Stormy Daniels' libel suit --- Plus she had to pay his court costs.
This one is still out --- "Donald Trump files $475 million defamation lawsuit against CNN
Oct 3, 2022
— Former President Donald Trump on Monday sued CNN, seeking $475 million in damages, saying the network had defamed him in an effort to short-circuit any future political campaign.
The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, focuses primarily on the term “The Big Lie” about Trump’s false claims of widespread fraud that he says cost him the 2020 presidential election to Joe Biden.
This case will be very interesting.Again WRONG. Trump was not under "investigation" for collusion with Putin. His lb[campaign[/b] was under legitimate investigation, and for very good reasons.
Yes, he IS under investigation for causing the insurrection. Again, for extremely compelling reasons.
Not convicted? He is a master of wiggling out of trouble. His time will come soon now."Trump was not under "investigation" for collusion with Putin."
The hell he wasn't. That was the beginning of the "collusion" investigation - to prove that Trump colluded with Putin - that then went all out when it could not be found. Something we both know to be true.
"His time will come soon now."
Yep. For absolute sure. The seven years of total failure in that regard shows you are right, doesn't it?Please show me where Trump, personally and only him as you keep insisting, was the target of the FBI/Mueller investigation.
Collusion was found with parts of his campaign, conspiracy came up a little short. (Just has his two almost convictions were for his two impeachments. You keep ignoring that over half the Senate voted to convict. The fact that it didn't meet the 2/3rd requirement only speaks to how much under Trump's thumb many Republicans were. America saw and mostly believe his guilt.
Do you consider the guilty verdict of TRUMP Organization a conviction. OR, will you maintain Trump was too stupid to know his micromanaged company waw breaking the law?
BTW, the Manhattan DA is still investigating Trump's role in that illegal activity."Do you consider the guilty verdict of TRUMP Organization a conviction."
No, why would I? The topic and comment was about Trump being guilty of a crime, and to date he has not been found guilty of anything. How about you? Did you consider that third parties, no matter how closely aligned, are not Trump? Perhaps you should quit claiming Trump is guilty of anything until you have proof in the form of a court verdict? But no, of course not - that ruins the whole "Trump Bad Man" thing if he's not guilty. So...if someone associated with Trump is guilty of a crime so is Trump, right?
Why is Trump now fighting DOJ about interviewing two people involved in the latest search of Trump property?
https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/13/politics … index.htmlYet another legal woe for Trump raises its head - His Rape Trial. In April, Trump will face the bar of Justice as the trial for his alleged rape of E. Jean Carroll gets under way. Sooner or later the hens come home to roost.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/13/politics … index.html"I do not think Trump broke any laws. " Something tells me you are about to be forced to change your mind.
Kathleen, your comments would be much easier to understand if you would "reply" to a post rather than the button on the bottom right, where you reply is to the entirety of the thread.
I don't know what you are referring to here, for instance.What are you referring to? Not sure who or what your comment refers to. I certainly have not made the claim Trump did not break the law. I have claimed he has not been indicted.
Actually, my comments here, are mostly in regard to Biden raising the tax on Gig employees, and his lying about raising taxes on anyone making under $400,000 a year. This new change in tax mostly affects the poor and middle class."I certainly have not made the claim Trump did not break the law. I have claimed he has not been indicted." - Thank you for realizing Trump has broken laws. The problem we face is the context you put "not indicted" in implies very heavily you don't think he broke any laws and therefore should not be indicted.
The same goes for Biden. You either don't review my comments or you are trolling to argue.
I have shared my view so blatantly blunt in my opinion I find it odd you did not pick up on it. In my view, they both broke the law. The question is will either be indicted and on which laws? Hopefully, I have made myself clear. You clearly either don't read the comment you reply to or you have a true problem understanding context or you are trolling. I can offer many sources permalinks to give examples of my above statement.
Trump's divisive, hate-filled rhetoric has inspired even more violence. But for Trump and his election denialism, would this wouldn't have happened?.
Election Denier candidate who lost in NM and is claiming fraud (of course) is arrested for conspiring in the shootings at the homes of Democrats who won.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/17/us/solom … index.htmlWhat was it Trump said "you will get sick of me winning" or something like that?
Well here is another "win" for him for weaponizing the legal system.
"CNN
—
A federal judge said Thursday that former President Donald Trump and his attorneys are liable for nearly $1 million in sanctions for a lawsuit Trump brought against Hillary Clinton, ex-top Justice Department officials and several others alleging they conspired against him in the 2016 campaign.
“This case should never have been brought. Its inadequacy as a legal claim was evident from the start,” US District Judge Donald Middlebrooks of the Southern District of Florida wrote. “No reasonable lawyer would have filed it. Intended for a political purpose, none of the counts of the amended complaint stated a cognizable legal claim.”
https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/19/politics … index.html
Donald Trump and George Santos - two peas in a pod, both nuts.We must make sure that what are in effect traitors, get drummed out of our military and police forces.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/20/politics … index.htmlOn this we agree (although not for your exaggerated, hyperbolic, reason) - we don't need people willing to participate in a riot in the military or police.
Of course, it isn't much different than Dem. Rasheen Aldridge, Missouri House Representative, leading a riot onto private property. Or Dem. Libby Schaaf, then mayor of Oakland, Ca., warning illegal aliens to get out because ICE is coming.
Any and all of these show an absolute disregard for the law; a law that all 5 are there to protect and uphold.https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-53891184
You might want to rephrase your condemnation after reading that. It was wrong for those protesting PEACEFULLY to go on to a private road (for those that knew it was private), but that is as far as it goes. Trying to compare that to an insurrection is ludicrous.As I understand it, the rioters destroyed the gate they went through. That is not "peaceful".
As far as comparing it to the Capitol riot, one was led by politicians, one was not, and that was my point. A riot, with property damage, is a riot and pretending it is somehow "different" because it was led by Democrat politicians is a farce.
(A gate across a road pretty much indicates it was private property. No one can mistake that.)If you had read the link, you would have found that they don't know who damaged the gate. Video shows it was intact and unlocked when the peaceful protesters first entered. Who damaged the gate is unknown.
Given the way that you look at guilt, you are being very hypocritical if you pin the damage on the protesters.
Me? That seems like the most likely answer is some assholes taking advantage of the protest, but that is me applying common sense.
The Rest - "A riot, with property damage, is a riot and pretending it is somehow "different" because it was led by Democrat politicians is a farce." - is just you making things up again as well as an apparent inability to separate who has done what to whom are that simple trespassing does not equate to your hyperbolic terminology.Just a bit of help here --- A picture is worth a thousand words
Death toll --- At least 25 Americans were killed during protests and political unrest in 2020
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ … rest-acled
Now I would say the Summer Of Love certainly left more dead, and the cost to the business owners was astronomical.
Not to mention how law enforcement acted to step down and let the riots go unfettered.
damage costs were done to the Capitol building inside and out...
" One Year Since the Jan. 6 Attack on the Capitol
One Year Since the Jan. 6 Attack on the Capitol
https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/one-yea … 0building.
Summer Of Love --
Summer 2020 Riots Really Cause?
One talking point that has been raised repeatedly is that the summer 2020 riots caused $2 billion in damages; not an entirely false claim, but it is a thin one.
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/polit … use-202945
"REVEALED: Widespread vandalism and looting during BLM protests will cost the insurance $2 BILLION after violence erupted in 140 cities in the wake of George Floyd's death"
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl … LLION.html
"Thursday, Jan. 6 2022, marks one year since the attack on the U.S. Capitol that disrupted a joint session of the U.S. Congress in the process of affirming the presidential election results. The government continues to investigate losses that resulted from the breach of the Capitol, including damage to the Capitol building and grounds, both inside and outside the building. According to a May 2021 estimate by the Architect of the Capitol, the attack caused approximately $1.5 million worth of damage to the U.S. Capitol building."
In my view, anyone with a working brain can compare the two incidents. The riots of 2020 factually cause more death, and more damage, as well as was morally unacceptable.Well, there is "compare" and then there is "compare".
The Portland riots alone did far more damage than the Capitol one. It lasted far, far longer, It saw attacks on federal buildings, just as the Capitol riot did. It was about ending federal presence in Portland - dictating how the government should operate. It saw more loss of life. Still, although the differences were massive they can be compared, with the Capitol riot coming off as a wet firecracker in comparison.
Except...that the Capitol riot presents the opportunity to lie about Trump and to attack him again. Between that and scaring the powerful people with an event that was in their backyard rather than across the continent, it's enough. Enough to exaggerate a simple, relatively quiet riot into an "insurrection" designed and intended to overthrow the US government by a handful of unarmed idiots having a good time. And it's enough to claim Trump planned it all and was the cause of it all - that there is nothing to prove that is irrelevant, we still know it to be true because..because...well, because Trump is a Very Bad Man and the Capitol riot was therefore an "insurrection" intended to overthrow the government.The only one of your sources that has credibility is the Guardian. The rest are right-wing propaganda outlets who are well known twisters of truth and don't deserve the time of day
There is also no longer any point engaging with people who are not capable of comprehending the enormity of what happened on Jan 6. It ought to be obvious to any patriotic America but to about 80 or so million voting Americans, it is not.
It is also not worth the time anymore to engage with people who can't or won't tell the difference between the masses of peaceful protestors and the relatively few "professional" rioters unconnected with the reason for the protest who go from protest to protest to sow their destruction.
It is also pointless to engage with people who don't or won't understand that the two events are of entirely different scales and are not comparable as to the raw numbers being used. To be honest and fair, either one needs to take just ONE riot of similar length and compare it to the insurrection OR expand the insurrection to encompass the same timeframe your statistics cover. In the latter case, you will find the insurrection, by comparison, orders of magnitude worse than the riots of 2020.
To be an honest and fair comparison, you would need around 570 individual insurrections to be equivalent to the number of riots in 2020.
SAD,Your view leaves so much to be desired... As I said a picture is worth a thousand words.
Yes, and those pictures and videos of the insurrectionists invading the Capitol and beating some police senseless does say more than 10,000 words.
If you read my posts -- you will perhaps understand the context of the post. I compared damage, and also the death toll. My post was to compare the two protests that turned into riots.
But you didn't do a fair, apples-to-apples comparison.
I think there were a fair number who capitalized on the protests. I think there are always opportunists looking to take advantage of large public displays for their own benefit and they have nothing to do with the actual protest. Criminals are opportunists. Large public gatherings, of any kind, provide opportunity. You want to loot? A protest provides you some good cover. Folks again try to make this a moral high ground position. Trying to display one side as having inherently more morals than the other and realistically it's just not true.
I had friends, friends I have zero doubt did NOT participate in the looting in Portland, that nevertheless just had to visit the "protest" some days (and some nights). Thus giving cover to looters.
Are those people partially to blame for what was going on? Given that they knew what was going to happen (that's why they went - to see the show), do they share in the blame for providing cover? IMO, yes. Once a "protest" shows any sign of deteriorating into violating the law it is time to get out and get out NOW.
That months long riot in Portland could never have happened without thousands of other people, not looting, not burning, not attacking...just being there. They share the blame. IMO.So you're basically saying that people shouldn't gather in any large manner to protest because it may invite opportunistic criminals and therefore make the calls look bad? Simply because people can't separate out the two? Not everyone in Portland showed up to loot and not everyone on January 6th showed up to assault Capital police or cause damage. I think that's the truth and the truth of the matter doesn't allow for extremes on either side and a lot of folks just really want to hold their black / white, either/or, linear thinking. It's never that simple.
In terms of numbers, about 10,000 protested at the Capitol. Of those, a little over 1,000 invaded and started the insurrection.
On the other hand, just use the recent Atlanta protest as an example out of a crowd of several hundred or more protesters, six out of state were arrested for domestic terrorism. There might have been a couple of others that got away, but that was it - 6.
"(that's why they went - to see the show)" - Then 95% of the time, they were sorely disappointed because the violence they wen to see didn't happen.
What "months long riot" in Portland. That riot, as you describe it, never happened. Show me the reports where people rioted continuously for months on end. FACTS FIRST please.
Will you blame the victim "for being there" and giving the criminal a target? Do you blame nicely dressed women for the rape that happened to them? Many on your side do, you know.That there was no months long riot is Portland, Or. is probably the stupidest thin you have said on these forums. It isn't worthy of the time to type more than a couple of sentences in reply.
It truely appears his conversation is geared toward trolling with no other purpose but to deliberately upset others. How could anyone deny the destruction that we saw in Portland? This conversation has become a bazaar. I am stepping away from the twilight zone.
I think Trump said it best -- There are good people on both sides. To mean in any protest, people can be there for individual reasons. Some want to lot and burn, even beat others. Some may protest against a man that they felt was killed by a policeman, and they might be calm, not breaking the law in any respect. Some want to take down a statue, some want to leave that statue right where it was for decades. Some became violent, many more did not.
Some may feel they are protesting a belief that something went wrong in the presidential election and just marching to the Capitol and quickly leaving when the crowd became rowdy. Some may have come there to insight fighting with law enforcement and destroying property.
Hard to place all in one basket --- "There were good people on both sides".Yes, I do believe that we always have people with peaceful intentions.
Yes, Trump did say it worst, for which he was roundly criticized by all thinking people. He said the Nazis and the people protesting them were equal. Here is a clue - There are no good Nazis!!! It is a shame you think there are.
Still this!?! Never happened!
You are peddling in propaganda.This absolutely never happened. It would appear he is just unwilling to consider facts in any respect. Makes it up and believes whatever he finds he is comfortable with. This kind of misinformation is what makes a logical conversation possible.
Let's recall the premise of the rally and who made up one of the "sides."
The "Unite the Right" rally that took place in Charlottesville, Virginia. Marchers included members of the alt-right, neo-Confederates, neo-fascists,, white nationalists, neo-Nazis, Klansmen, and far-right militias. Some groups chanted racist and antisemitic slogans and carried weapons, Nazi and neo-Nazi symbols, the Valknut, Confederate battle flags, Deus vult crosses, flags, and other symbols of various past and present anti-Semitic and anti-Islamic groups. The organizers' stated goals included the unification of the American white nationalist movement and opposing the proposed removal of the statue of General Robert E. Lee from Charlottesville's Lee Park.
Take a look online at some of the photos of the signage these people were carrying and video of the slogans they were chanting. This really wasn't put on by a group of concerned citizens, it was put on by some very hardcore extremist groups.
The group who organized the rally did not really exist of any fine people.
Here is the fine young fellow Jason Kessler who organized the rally..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Kessler
"...for which he was roundly criticized by all thinking people."
I don't know that I would call a knee jerk reaction to Trump the result of "thinking people". Rather it is an unthinking reaction of someone that did NOT bother to think or understand. And, of course, politicians that will say whatever they think will get them a vote; I guess you could call that crowd "thinking people".First, it is clear you did not understand the context of the comment you are responding to. I simply pointed out that at both the Capitol, and the 2020 Summer protest riots there were people there with different intentions.
I think it is time for you to put up a quote to prove this statement. I have offered. When you say 'He said" you need to quote. I think you are truely posting misinformation. I have offered direct quotes in regard to the incident where Trump stated, "there were good people on both sides". The entire conversation offered context to the few words you continue to change up to suit whatever purpose. He did not use the word " Nazis" nor did the context indicate all were equal.
This kind of post is uncalled for. And you have once again become personal --- You have no right to indicate my thoughts, my views.
Please read my comment --- "I think Trump said it best -- There are good people on both sides. To mean in any protest, people can be there for individual reasons. Some want to lot and burn, even beat others. Some may protest against a man that they felt was killed by a policeman, and they might be calm, not breaking the law in any respect. Some want to take down a statue, some want to leave that statue right where it was for decades. Some became violent, many more did not.
Some may feel they are protesting a belief that something went wrong in the presidential election and just marching to the Capitol and quickly leaving when the crowd became rowdy. Some may have come there to insight fighting with law enforcement and destroying property.
Hard to place all in one basket --- "There were good people on both sides".
I will wait for you to offer the Trump quote where he used the word Nazi.No, I understood perfectly. You used a dog whistle that equates Nazis to those who oppose Nazis. I'd find a different example rather than Trump's to get your point across.
I guess you have forgotten the incident that generated what most people consider Trump's basically racist comment - the Charlottesville riot. Here, maybe this will job your memory - https://www.npr.org/2018/08/11/63766541 … -for-trump
Do remember how hard it was for his aides to say a couple of words saying the violence was bad. And then he walked it back with his "both sides" comment.
Some in this forum keep deflecting away from the insurrecting to mostly peaceful Summer protests and mischaracterizing them as "riots", which they were not.
Today, there was a similar situation Atlanta where people were peacefully protesting the building of a "Cop City" training facility and the death of an activist, who I believe shot a cop.
Professional rioters started doing their thing and this is what the police chief had to say about it.
"The protesters marched in a “peaceful manner” Saturday evening down a central Atlanta street but a group within the crowd later began “committing illegal acts,” including breaking windows and attacking police cruisers, Atlanta Police Chief Darin Schierbaum said in a news conference."
It turns out, those that started the rioting, all six of them, were all from out of state (as was the case with much of the violence during the Summer protests.
Unfortunately, those with an agenda want to paint ALL of the protesters with the actions of a few (six so far in this case).
This is quite different from the insurrection where over 1,000 rioted through the halls of Congress stopping it from doing its job. It is those 1,000+, and their leaders like Trump, who are the insurrectionists and not the other 9,000 at the mall who WERE peacefully protesting.
Why some here try to equate the two is beyond my comprehension just as it was when Trump tried to equate Nazis with those that oppose them.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/21/us/atlan … index.htmlHas Trump be been indict and found guilty yet? Shame to all those going after his head.
So there is NO ONE in this world who you would conclude is guilty given the information you know?
How about that guy you say run a red light? You would not conclude he did that and should be arrested?
There are so many flames (not just smoke) around Trump, it is impossible for a reasonable person to think he is innocent of it all.
And because what it appears he has done is so dangerous to American democracy, it should be a crime NOT to go after his head.
I would argue that this anti-American, anti-democracy so-called "Christian Nationalism" is part of the overall attempt to overthrow American democracy. It smacks of White Supremacy, doesn't it?
https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/27/opinions … index.htmlLet's focus on the fact that the vote was acquired by a new means based on the fact that the needs of the pandemic had to be addressed.
Oh, lets not DARE go there.
Its a pity and a shame what happened to the vote that year.
It (the vote) may never be the same and thats the real issue.
Take it or leave it.So, I see you have failed to include all of the locals and visitors, historians and civil war buffs who never wish for a statue to be vandalized, destroyed or removed, no matter their personal thoughts on these statues, which have managed to withstand the test of time (up until this timeframe)
There are those, I am one, who simply wish for history {the good, the bad and the ugly} to be protected & preserved.The people that you speak of aren't the ones who organized the rally though so when we talk about sides I think it's only fair to recognize who pulled the permit. I don't have a problem with anyone trying to preserve whatever history they feel needs preserved but the groups that came together to stage this rally we're not good people. If the historical society of Charlottesville would have organized that rally then I don't think I would have had any issue with it as I can assume there would be a lot of fine people amongst them.
If I were a local of that town though, upon seeing the swastikas and other racist, anti-Semitic imagery I probably would have chosen a different time to advocate for the saving of Lee's statue. I don't think I would have chosen to come out with those folks.There were two sides, the Alt-right had the legal right to protest in that park due to a permit. I have not ever run across any information that any other one or group but Kesslers pulled a permit. It appears the opposite protesters just showed up.
"Upholding the Right of Free Speech for All, Jason Kessler v. City of Charlottesville and Maurice Jones, Charlottesville City Manager.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia and the Rutherford Institute filed a lawsuit in the U. S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia (Charlottesville Division) on August 10, 2017 on behalf of “alt-right” activist Jason Kessler claiming his 1st and 14th Amendment rights were being denied by the city’s refusal to allow him and supporters to access Emancipation Park on August 12, 2017. On June 13, 2017 the City approved a permit application from Mr. Kessler for a “Unite the Right” march at which he estimated four hundred people would be in attendance. The purpose of the rally was to protest the city’s decision to rename the former Lee Park and remove a statue of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee from the park. On August 7, 2017, Mr. Kessler was informed that he would only be allowed to hold the rally if it were moved to another location a mile away. The city claimed that “many thousands” of people were likely to attend the rally, including supporters and opponents, and cited safety concerns. Moving the rally to a different location would dilute Mr. Kessler’s message because the planned location of Emancipation Park is directly related to it, and thus his constitutional rights to free speech, assembly and petition were being violated.
On August 11, 2017, we filed an Expedited Motion for Preliminary Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining Order to allow Mr. Kessler the right to assemble at the park he was originally permitted to assemble. On August 11, 2017, John Kluge, Alight Fund, LLC, David Posner, and Hunter Smith filed an Amicus Brief in support of the City of Charlottesville. On the same day, the Defendants then filed a Brief in Opposition to our Expedited Motion for Preliminary Injunction. A hearing was set before Honorable Glen Conrad on August 11, 2017. After hearing both sides’ argument, the Judge granted our preliminary injunction and ordered that Mr. Kessler be allowed to assemble at Emancipation Park. On August 29, 2017, Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the claim."
You do realize there was as equal a crowd that was participating in fighting with the group that had a permit --- and that was Kessler, the alt-right activist. It would seem the other side had the same culpability.
Perhaps they should have stayed home and there would not have been a riot. One side wanted the state to remain, one did not... So are we to assume the ones that wanted it down is to be placated?
https://www.acluva.org/en/cases/kessler … ottesvilleMy only point is that when we look at the two sides, we have one group who were clearly kkk, neo-Nazi, fascist white supremacist group on one side and their opposition on the other side.
When Mr Trump made the comment of fine people on both sides do you agree? I mean I think the sides were very clear. The fine people of the Charlottesville historical society didn't pull the permit for the "unite the right' rally, it was the Neo-Nazi group who did. I don't think it mattered that fighting broke out. But when you say that there were great people on both sides, well look at the sides. One side was really rotten to the core. There isn't anything great about you if you're a Neo-Nazi. I don't even care that they let the KKK and white supremacists have their rally. Sure they're allowed all the same protections as anyone else but don't tell me they were fine people on both sides.I am not sure the other side CARES whether the ones with the permit were "rotten to the core". Look how they still idolize a truly evil person - Trump.
"There were two sides, the Alt-right had the legal right to protest in that park due to a permit" - It would have been fine if they had remained peaceful. Unlike the Black Lives Matter protest, most of the members of this protest became terrorists.
I believe the facts show the protestors with the permit started attacking the counter-protestors. At that point, they became criminals.
"Maybe they should have stayed home...", lol. Yes, the implication of that statement would be that all the blacks during the 50s should have stayed home as well.
It is the American way to stand up to evil.As I said both sides were fighting in the streets, and many from both sides or groups were arrested for acts of violence. My point was that one side did have a permit, and the other did not have the right to be there.
I will not assume who started the rioting. I don't feel this would be fair.
I made no mention of my view in regard to the right to protest, my statement. I found no need to share my views on that subject. I have been posting here for some time, most would assume I respect the Constitution.
"Maybe they should have stayed home and had very clear context ---
Perhaps they should have stayed home and there would not have been a riot.
Simply said the persons that had a permit, and came to protest taking down the statue certainly would not have been fighting one another.
This should work to clear up the context of my statement.
But, nevertheless, regardless of what you would do, people came out for different reasons, many of them, good people. Would you agree with that statement?
Those that came out for the Nazis were not, by definition, good people. Those are who Trump was comparing to the good (and granted, some not so good) people who came out to stand up against evil.
Please check my post, -- Alt-right had the legal right to protest in that park due to a permit. I have not ever run across any information that any other one or group but Kesslers pulled a permit. It appears the opposite protesters just showed up.
It is clear when, and who had a permit. It was those that wanted the statue down that had no permit.
When Trump stated there were good people on both sides, he was very simply saying we should not put people in groups. Each group's individuals should be considered as individuals.
In my view, his statement was common sense, and actually very understanding of human nature.
The media had a feel day, and many ate up the hate they were spreading. I feel very proud, I did not. And I am very sure you did not either.Check my response. The Nazis didn't have a right to riot.
"The Nazis didn't have a right to riot."
Just the alt-right had no right to riot? We have no idea who started the altercation, none. Are you suggesting the other side the left protesters had the right to promote violence due to their demands that that statue be taken down.?
They did not even have the right to be there, they had no permit. As I said, (hopefully this time around you understand my view) if the left protesters did not show up, there would have been no violence. It took twoCounter-protesters had indeed acquired an official permit for Saturday, when the Unite the Right march was scheduled.
The permit was issued to Walt Heinecke, an associate professor of educational research, statistics and evaluation at the University of Virginia’s Curry School of Education. The "special events certificate of approval" for a public demonstration at two parks in Charlottesville, McGuffey Park and Justice Park. Those are located within one and two blocks, respectively, of Emancipation Park, the location of a Robert E. Lee statue and the destination for the Unite the Right march. The certificate covers Saturday, Aug. 12, from 9 a.m. to 7 p.m.
City spokeswoman Miriam Dickler of the city of Charlottesville said that counter-protesters would have been permitted even outside of the two park locations specified in the permit. "A permit does not bar other individuals from entry to a public park (such as Emancipation Park), nor does it restrict who can be on streets or sidewalks outside of and/or adjacent to the park."Good find --- As I said in a previous comment ---
"There were two sides, the Alt-right had the legal right to protest in that park due to a permit. I have not ever run across any information that any other one or group but Kesslers pulled a permit. It appears the opposite protesters just showed up."
The name you provided did offer information that certainly led to a fact-check, that actually shows the permit. https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2 … r-protest/
Very grateful for your input, clarifies the issue."the Alt-right had the legal right to protest in that park due to a permit. " - [i]More deflection. This isn't about them having a permit or not - it is irrelevant to their character.
That is an interesting view coming from a so-called Law & Order type. In my world, nobody has a Right to riot. Not in America, not anywhere else.
They aren't trying to "history". They are trying to not honor traitors. Put the statues where there isn't a symbol of honor or respect.
There are two sides on this particular issue, those that believe these statues should stay and those who believe they should go and then there are the extremes of either side. This isn't complicated, unless you are peddling in propaganda and wish to revise history, then, naturally, you complicate it. It's imperative!
There would have been more credibility to your side if it wasn't presented by neo-nazis, fascists and the KKK. Unfortunately then your leader, Mr Trump, said that there was good people on both sides. Well one of the sides were those racist people chanting and waving horrendous things. If your group wants to advocate for saving the racist symbolism of the Confederacy, my advice would be to put a better face on it.
It's great that you have been able to uncover so much information from six years ago in your investigation to make it appear as though...not one single good person was in Charlottesville that day!!! Also, not sure what you mean by "my group", I've never been a Democrat and I really hate the fact that the Democratic Party, via the KKK, hijacked the Confederate battle flag (still all about southern pride/heritage and northern aggression for many; like it or not, believe it or not, that's a fact) all those years ago, but they {the KKK} did hijack it, no doubt about it, won't argue the point.
There may have been some decent people who showed up in Charlottesville that day but they certainly weren't the ones who organized the rally.
Those decent people are the ones Trump was speaking of...Case closed.
I don't know how you come to that conclusion when the majority there were neo-nazis and white supremacists.
I would say VAST majority.
But keep in mind, the mindset of Conservatives is that "one welfare cheat means all welfare recipients are cheaters".Yep. And "one bad Nazi" means "all Nazi's are bad to the bone, with zero redeeming attributes".
Are those dead jews still living here on planet earth today?
No clue what you just said. Also, are you familiar with figures of speech?
I read the classics of William Shakespeare. I understand what you mean. Getting somehow real pays.
Funny, Faye finally admitted to decent people being present (good people, is how Trump described them) I concurred. So, because I concurred, the two of you have brought it back to... only radicals were present!
Ya'll can't handle the truth.
Later.
If you go that far back in history, please stop misleading people by equating Conservatives (who happened to be Democrats then) with Democrats today. That is being obtuse.
In 1864, by and large, Democrats WERE your slave-owning (supporting) conservatives while Republicans WERE your anti-slave liberals. In 1936, that dynamic began to reverse until today where it has totally reversed itself.
History matters/Not true. The Republican Party {Lincoln's Party} is, was and forever will be.
Yes, history matters. Is not President Abraham Licolm, who is crdited with the Emanicipation Proclaimation a Republcan? Let the Dem adopt Pence for the Presidency. He's well intentional.
Yes he was, and he was also a liberal.
I am not sure why it is so hard to separate out philosophical beliefs and political parties.
Philosophies are a relative constant. Over time, political parties have been dominated by one philosophy or another .depending on whose in power.
What is constant is the philosophy of conservativism. It has been and always will be a philosophy of inequality and exclusion - which why slavery came so easily to conservatives. In 1864, that was philosophy of the Democratic Party. TODAY, that is the philosophy of the Republican Party (including Pence who has no problem telling people how to live their lives)..
Sorry to disagree - this discussion isn't about statutes. This thread started out with me objecting to using Trump's quote equating the Nazis on one side as being as good as the anti-Nazis on the other.
Had just normal people protested the removal of the statues, then we wouldn't be having this discussion.
You know so much more than leftist American citizens, Miebakagh.
I will leave you to contend with them, if you so choose, I am wasting my precious time here.
Take care.P.S. Between having articles I've spent weeks on, banned and the propaganda on steroids here in the forums, I may lose it some day real soon and then, not only will my articles be banned...but I will feel a helluva lot better!! Just in case, it was nice knowing you. AB
Seems like there is a good reason your articles are banned.
Yes, maybe I will go out with a bang, telling you just what I think about people like you. Perhaps you will have a hand in getting me permanently banned {getting a feather in your cap perhaps} and as stated…I will feel a helluva lot better!
In these “banned” articles, I’ve dared to take the side of women {aka: females/girls} Remember us?
I consider their side of the story, as wokeness has rocked their worlds: as males, identifying as females, have entered into their world and suddenly began to dominate in their sports. Women {aka: girls, females} have lost college opportunities, wins, trophies, platforms, endorsements, scholarships and on and on….as a result.
I consider how they’ve {men identifying as female} have entered into women’s restrooms and locker rooms and women better damn well deal with it and not say anything negative about it, for IF they do, they’ve got the problem!!!!! They are asked to accept it, they are asked to move elsewhere if they are uncomfortable with it!! Did you know that one lone male identifying as female has a women’s locker room all to themselves on, at least one, but more than likely, more than one, college campus!? But, you probably could not care less, you are much too busy straightening out conservatives like me!
I think this is the forum where classified information has been discussed,
Well former VP Pence just joined the ranks. I won't do what most people seem to want to do and blame, without evidence, the person where the documents were found for having PERSONALLY taking them. I don't do that for Biden and I won't do that for Pence. I suspect the documents just found in Pence's residence were, just like Biden's probably were, put their by accident and poor document control.
But, this should take the pressure off Biden for a while while the press goes after Pence (although I suspect Fox and the other right-wing press will ignore it).
https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/24/politics … index.html
I think DOJ needs to expand the scope of the special counsel who is looking at Biden to include Pence and, more generally, document control.
(I wonder if Rep Comer is going to investigate Pence, or just leave it at Biden?Several indictments are imminent says Atlanta DA as she opposes making public the Special Grand jury report ;looking into Trump's attempt to overthrow the Georgia 2020 election.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/24/politics … index.htmlGod, I hope you are not holding your breath. How many of these rediculous investigations do you need to fall through?
Not holding my breathe at all. I am guessing "imminent" means by Friday we will know who she is indicting. That she is indicting multiple people is now a foregone conclusion, based on what she said.
My reasoning is that if she is going to indict only one person, it would be Trump, since she has the smoking gun in the recording of his call with the Secretary of State where he asked/told him to "find enough votes" for Trump to win.
In your world, that may not be illegal, but in my world, it is.Is that Biden's exact quote? Somehow I don't think so.
typo -- THERE IS NO THERE THERE
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/there-is-n … documents/Even with your correction, is that Biden's exact quote? As you often ask me, provide the whole thing, not just the part you like. I know that "There is no there [there] to prosecute Trump on anything. " is false.
Odd response... no way to reply when one is just not willing to trust the facts.
Did you want the quote 'I have no regrets"? LOL, His entire blurb was so off the chain that, thought I would spare you the embarrassment. His full statement was read, and as he read he mispronounced words and quickly left the podium. Actually, the link I provided did have the full video. Not sure what more I could have offered. You need to slow down and check source links before commenting. If you are going to troll, you need some ammo. When I quote, I offer full content. as I did in this case.
Your game is very weak.If is your dodgy responses that are weak. I simply asked for the quote which said Biden made which is ""There is no there [there] to prosecute Trump on anything. "" OBVIOUSLY you cannot do that since he never said that.
What it looks like you did in this fabrication is take one thing he said which included "No There There" and appended it to something entirely different which speaks to prosecuting Trump.
Admit it, you made that quote up.
I've said it before Sharlee and I will say it again, you are a far better woman than I!
I can't even!!!I need to have that playing in the background, when I enter into....The Forums!!
Lest we forget - Trump will be sitting in a courtroom on April 10 being tried for rape.
https://www.reuters.com/legal/trump-fac … 022-11-29/Here is one reason why Trump keeps escaping Justice! Prosecutors decided being president still gives him a pass for wrong-doing even after he leaves office.
'With Trump about to leave office in January 2021, however, Audrey Strauss, the acting US attorney, held multiple discussions with a small group of prosecutors to discuss its evidence against Trump. They decided to not seek an indictment Trump for several reasons, Honig writes, including the political ramifications and the fact that Trump’s other scandals, such as efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election and the January 6, 2021, insurrection, “made the campaign finance violations seem somehow trivial and outdated by comparison.”
“We were well aware of the prudential reasons why you wouldn’t charge a president, even after he was out of office,” one person with knowledge of the investigation told Honig."[/i
https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/27/politics … index.html
But while the federal prosecutors chickened out, it seems the Manhattan DA may not.
Another Quote: [i]"The team in New York came to the same conclusion, also determining that they could not indict a president “under seal” until leaving office.
One prosecutor said, “We wouldn’t even bat an eye about charging Trump, if it was somebody who was less known,” Honig writes."As president, and like any Amricamm president, does a sort of special immunity that covers from being indict apply?
According to DOJ that is true. I don't agree, but then I don't make the rules.
We have a law that claims a president can not be indicted while president. The one saving grace, a president can be impeached for --- "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
https://constitution.congress.gov/brows … demeanors.
This does give our Congress the ability to remove a president from office if they can prove any of the above, and obtain a majority vote to remove said president.Sorry, there is no such law. It is just an interpretation by DOJ lawyers. Not the same thing.
Indicting a president, even prosecuting them, and finding them guilty is not covered by what you mention. You can do all of those things without removing the president.Then why does Richard Nixon, had to resign?
Nixon didn't have to resign. He chose to or be impeached and convicted. At that time, Republicans thought more of the country rather than their party (like they do today). Nixon could read the handwriting on the wall that there were enough votes in the Senate to convict.
Today, I feel Trump could have been convicted of murder and I don't think there would have been enough Republicans in the Senate to convict if he were impeachment for it. In Fact, I don't think the current Republican majority in the House would vote to impeach Trump, as president, if he were found guilty of murder. Worse still, because oft that DOJ interpretation, I doubt Trump would even be indicted for murder, regardless of how strong the evidence - especially if Barr were still the AG.So you mean the Republicans will put their party first above the country, the constitution, the laws of the country and anything else?
That is not only what I mean, by-and-large it is what they have done since Trump became President.
It appeared Nixon knew he would be impeached, and that he did not have the votes to beat the impeachment in the Senate. He did the right thing and resigned. Hopefully, if the investigation shows Biden has committed any form of crime with the documents he had in his home, and his private Penn Center office he will do the same -- resign.
Then why did Biden still hold tight to office?
His he convinced that he too does no wrong?
Okay let Senate set in the impeachment proceedings.
What's good for the goose is good for the...?As of now we just do not know if he had any form of bad intent connected to the documents found in his personal office, home, and garage. He certainly has claimed he has no regrets, and that there is no three there when referring to the documents.
Myself, I feel due to the current investigation into his son Hunter, and the many accusations that have been made by a congressional committee in regard to Hunter and his dad making money from foreign entities we need to have a Congressional investigation to ascertain if President Biden is a risk to have in the White House.
I will offer this source to an oversite committee investigation into the Biden Family. I certainly do not want to make the accusation without a clear Government source.
https://oversight.house.gov/landing/bid … stigation/
Just too much smoke surrounds Joe Biden to not have a speedy Congressional investigation to ascertain if he is compromised. I lean toward being better safe than sorry.
I trust that Congress would follow procedure and have a trail we evidence and it would be open to the public. You see, I still hold onto what I have come to know as government procedure... I am a holdout, I never turn away and ignore, as so many Americans at this point are willing to do --- in my humble opinion. There are many of us still willing to hold a line.I am forced to point out "He certainly has claimed he has no regrets, and that there is no three there when referring to the documents." is misdirection. It is misleading because the statement IMPLIES, given the context, that Biden has "no regrets" that the documents ended up where they were found AND that there is "no there, there" regarding any purposeful reason why they were there.
"his dad making money from foreign entities " - Sorry, that is Trump and his kids you are talking about, not Joe Biden. You are just regurgitating Right-Wing propaganda (lies).
"You see, I still hold onto what I have come to know as government procedure... I am a holdout, " - I applaud you for that, you are one of the few Republicans who does.
Because as best as anyone can tell, neither Pence nor Biden committed any crimes. The mere possession of classified documents does not constitute a crime in and of itself.
Now, if it comes to pass that, like Trump, Pence and/or Biden willfully took those documents THEN, and only then, is there a potential crime. There is also a crime where, again like Trump, Pence and/or Biden refused to give them back (which we know is not the case), then there is a potential Obstruction of Justice crime.But it's on record that Trump, while leaving office arrange with government agents to come and take them away. The agency delayed and the table turned against Trump? What crime then does Trump commit here?
In Mr. Trump's case, the National Archives tried for more than a year after he left office to retrieve all of the records he retained, without success.
To date, there has been no suggestion by the Justice Department that President Biden knowingly retained the records or refused to return them to the government.You will have to show me that "record". I suspect that will be very hard because it simply does not exist except in the minds of Right-Wing propagandists.
Really? Hope someone else here chip in on it.
Okay, read SharleeO1 post above. What d' you say?
Miebakagh57
Please let me add some factual information in regard to how Trump and his attorney handled the document issue. Starting with the archives. I just think it is best to look at facts put out by the Archives. They put out a press statement, but not many seem to have read them. These statements go a long way to providing the truth. Here are the statements, as well as the link to the statements. ( I realize this is a very long comment, but I feel it important to share full facts, not a view, but facts.
"February 8, 2022, statement
Throughout the course of the last year, NARA obtained the cooperation of Trump representatives to locate Presidential records that had not been transferred to the National Archives at the end of the Trump administration. When a representative informed NARA in December 2021 that they had located some records, NARA arranged for them to be securely transported to Washington. NARA officials did not visit or "raid" the Mar-a-Lago property.
February 7, 2022, statement
In mid-January 2022, NARA arranged for the transport from the Trump Mar-a-Lago property in Florida to the National Archives of 15 boxes that contained Presidential records, following discussions with President Trump’s representatives in 2021. Former President Trump’s representatives have informed NARA that they are continuing to search for additional Presidential records that belong to the National Archives.
As required by the Presidential Records Act (PRA), these records should have been transferred to NARA from the White House at the end of the Trump Administration in January 2021.
“The Presidential Records Act mandates that all Presidential records must be properly preserved by each Administration so that a complete set of Presidential records is transferred to the National Archives at the end of the Administration,” said Archivist of the United States David S. Ferriero. “NARA pursues the return of records whenever we learn that records have been improperly removed or have not been appropriately transferred to official accounts.”
Ferriero further stressed the importance of adherence to the PRA by all Presidents.
“The Presidential Records Act is critical to our democracy, in which the government is held accountable by the people,” Ferriero said. “Whether through the creation of adequate and proper documentation, sound records management practices, the preservation of records, or the timely transfer of them to the National Archives at the end of an Administration, there should be no question as to need for both diligence and vigilance. Records matter.”
January 31, 2022, statement
Some of the Trump presidential records received by the National Archives and Records Administration included paper records that had been torn up by former President Trump. As has been reported in the press since 2018, White House records management officials during the Trump Administration recovered and taped together some of the torn-up records. These were turned over to the National Archives at the end of the Trump Administration, along with a number of torn-up records that had not been reconstructed by the White House. The Presidential Records Act requires that all records created by presidents be turned over to the National Archives at the end of their administrations."
https://www.archives.gov/press/press-re … -statement
For press, information contact the National Archives Public and Media Communications Staff via email at public.affairs@nara.gov.
I think it is clear Trump was cooperating with the Archives.
Yes, Trump did let FBI and DOJ agents in his home on June 3, 2022. without the need for a search warrant.
https://apnews.com/article/biden-donald … 1ec8680924
JUNE 3, 2022
Three FBI agents and a DOJ attorney went to Mar-a-Lago to collect additional material offered by a Trump attorney in response to the subpoena. They were given “a single Redweld envelope, double-wrapped in tape, containing the documents,” according to an Aug. 30 filing.
That envelope, it was later found, contained 38 documents with classification markings, including five documents marked confidential, 16 marked secret and 17 marked top secret.
During the visit, the filing said, “Counsel for the former President offered no explanation as to why boxes of government records, including 38 documents with classification markings, remained at the Premises nearly five months after the production of the Fifteen Boxes and nearly one-and-a-half years after the end of the Administration.”
Trump’s lawyers also told investigators that all of the records that had come from the White House were stored in one location — a Mar-a-Lago storage room. Investigators were permitted to visit the room, but were “explicitly prohibited” from opening or looking inside any of the boxes, they reported, “giving no opportunity for the government to confirm that no documents with classification markings remained.”
The Justice Department was also given a signed certification letter stating that a “diligent search” had been completed and that no documents remained."
JUNE 8, 2022
The Justice Department sent a letter to Trump’s lawyer requesting that the storage room be secured, and that “all of the boxes that were moved from the White House to Mar-a-Lago (along with any other items in that room) be preserved in that room in their current condition until farther notice.”
Trump complied with a better type of lock on the door.
"AUG. 5, 2022
The Justice Department filed an application for a search and seizure warrant of Mar-a-Lago, citing “probable cause” that additional presidential records and records containing classified information remained in various parts of the club.
“There is also probable cause to believe that evidence of obstruction” would be found, read the heavily-redacted copy of the affidavit laying out the FBI’s rationale for the search.
The Justice Department also revealed in the Aug. 30 filing that it had found evidence “that government records were likely concealed and removed from the Storage Room and that efforts were likely taken to obstruct the government’s investigation.”
U.S. Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart in South Florida approved the application that same day.
AUG. 8, 2022
The FBI executed the search at Mar-a-Lago, seizing 36 items of evidence, including boxes and containers holding more than 100 classified records, an order pardoning Trump ally Roger Stone and information about the “President of France.”
Agents found classified documents both in the storage room as well as in the former president’s office — including three classified documents found not in boxes, but in office desks.
They included items so sensitive that, “In some instances, even the FBI counterintelligence personnel and DOJ attorneys conducting the review required additional clearances before they were permitted to review certain documents.”
Hopefully, these facts will help you understand the progression of what happened and the dates. It is important to make up your own view. It is much easier to form a view with facts, not media and biased fodder.
Trump was very open with his statements in regard to the documents he had in his position. He never hide and skirted the questions the press asked of him.
SharThank you. It seems they dislike Trump so much that make these characters to be biased against him. The read is long but very factual and informative.
I just hoped to clear up some of the misconceptions we have heard in the media. When one looks for full facts, they are not hard to find. However, they are full and long in words.
Thank you. I've got these facts and information in the links you provide. Instead of the 'biased' or 'fake news' offered by some media groups or propangadist, I listen to the NARA and the APnews factual statements. Thank you, again.
SharleeO, there's a comment here that make me visit your post, and re-examine the links both NARA and the AP statements critically. Seriously, the information and facts that is put out therein are not critical against Trump. NARA or the USA Achievist positively held up Trump and his allies in the sportlight. Critically, I think the Judge who signed the search warrant was obviously feed misinformation, and mislead by both the FBI and the DOJ because they dislike the man Trump. Otherwise, the Judge wouldn't cancelled the search warrant. It's very, very clear that Trump was on the right course. Though all the 'Trump' presidential documents don't arrive at NARA as would be expect. It seems to be the fault or weakness of NARA as notice was given by the Trump team, for its collection before January 31, 2021..
I have come to the conclusion, after doing a lot of reading Trump was cooperating with NARA. There are letters that have been posted that show Trump's attorneys going back and forth with NARA. I feel NARA could have felt the communications were just not timely. That Trump's team was not being as cooperative as they could be. However, many boxes were sent to the archives, and Trump cooperated with the FBI and DOJ agents to visit without causing roadblocks.
I feel the DOJ wanted to cause a splash, and they did by raiding his home unannounced.OK, let's test your conclusion that "Trump was cooperating with NARA"
It is a Fact that "on February 9, 2022, “the Special Agent in Charge of NARA’s Office of the Inspector General sent the NARA Referral via email to DOJ.”' - regarding Trump's continued refusal to turn over all gov't records he took to his residence.
https://oversight.house.gov/release/com … -referral/
Please answer this - If Trump were as cooperative as you say he was, WHY did NARA find it necessary to make a criminal referral to DOJ?
I have asked that before, but it went unaddressed.
Common sense says that if NARA was happy with Trump, they wouldn't have referred it to DOJ to investigate. Do you disagree with that statement?I never made the claim NARA was pleased with the fact it was taking so long to retrieve documents and their concern that they were not receiving all the documents.
What I said is that there was cooperation between Trump's reps and NARA. I also shared in one of my comments ". I feel NARA could have felt the communications were just not timely."
I offered a timeline, anyone could ascertain the Trump team was very slow with their actions. However, I don't feel one could say the Trup reps were not cooperating. It appears to me they were, yet being very slow, in doing so.What you said was "I have come to the conclusion, after doing a lot of reading Trump was cooperating with NARA."
I think NARA takes, at some point, "yet being very slow, in doing so." as not cooperating. Would you agree or disagree?
So, I must ask again - why did NARA criminally refer Trump to DOJ?My point in this conversation was to point out there was some cooperation, as well as boxes being returned, and communications between NARA and Trump's attorney. I have stipulated the response was slow. It was not s if Trump was not in some respects cooperating with NARA.
In regards to why NARA felt it necessary to refer the matter to the DOJ and FBI, I have supplied the letter they wrote to Trump's attorney. They explain why they had the need to bring in the DOJ. I certainly have never given the impression I found NARA's concerns or that they brought in the DOJ anything untoward.
Here is the full letter it gives the facts of why NARA felt they needed to refer the issue to the DOJ. It offers why, and it also mentions that the rump attorneys have been having communications with NARA for some time and that they felt they at that point could no longer not call for help from the DOJ. In my view, this letter offers the best answer to your question.
https://www.archives.gov/files/foia/wal … 0.2022.pdfNobody disagrees with you regarding the fact that Trump did cooperate in a minor way.
Does your response ""I have come to the conclusion, after doing a lot of reading Trump was cooperating with NARA."" . mean Trump cooperated "a lot" or "a little"?
To me, your words imply that Trump was "largely" cooperating and not cooperating on only minor issues. Was that your intent?
As to that letter, I have read it before. It addresses 1) the FBI's desire to look at the contents of the 15 boxes NARA finally received from Trump, 2) Trump's attempt to prevent or delay again that from happening, 3) Trump threatening NARA with asserting "executive privilege" to prevent the FBI from doing their job, and 4) NARA's determination that Trump's claim was bogus and that the FBI will get access.
This letter was dated May 10, 2022. NARA criminally referred Trump's obstruction on Feb 9,three months earlier. DOJ then decided the referral had merit and began to investigate Trump. I maintain that had Trump been TOTALLY forthcoming and handed over everything (not just a little bit) he took in 2021, then NARA would not have made the referral.
Consequently, the letter answers none my questions to you.It is very clear you do not read my posts or you use selective thinking when you post. Here are the posts offered in regard to Trump's cooperation with NARA. I did in no respect say Trump was largely cooperative. In fact, as you will see my words describe the opposite.
My first comment on the issue --- Please note my view at the very bottom of the length of quoted sources
"Miebakagh57
Please let me add some factual information in regard to how Trump and his attorney handled the document issue. Starting with the archives. I just think it is best to look at facts put out by the Archives. They put out a press statement, but not many seem to have read them. These statements go a long way to providing the truth. Here are the statements, as well as the link to the statements. ( I realize this is a very long comment, but I feel it important to share full facts, not a view, but facts.
"February 8, 2022, statement
Throughout the course of the last year, NARA obtained the cooperation of Trump representatives to locate Presidential records that had not been transferred to the National Archives at the end of the Trump administration. When a representative informed NARA in December 2021 that they had located some records, NARA arranged for them to be securely transported to Washington. NARA officials did not visit or "raid" the Mar-a-Lago property.
February 7, 2022, statement
In mid-January 2022, NARA arranged for the transport from the Trump Mar-a-Lago property in Florida to the National Archives of 15 boxes that contained Presidential records, following discussions with President Trump’s representatives in 2021. Former President Trump’s representatives have informed NARA that they are continuing to search for additional Presidential records that belong to the National Archives.
As required by the Presidential Records Act (PRA), these records should have been transferred to NARA from the White House at the end of the Trump Administration in January 2021.
“The Presidential Records Act mandates that all Presidential records must be properly preserved by each Administration so that a complete set of Presidential records is transferred to the National Archives at the end of the Administration,” said Archivist of the United States David S. Ferriero. “NARA pursues the return of records whenever we learn that records have been improperly removed or have not been appropriately transferred to official accounts.”
Ferriero further stressed the importance of adherence to the PRA by all Presidents.
“The Presidential Records Act is critical to our democracy, in which the government is held accountable by the people,” Ferriero said. “Whether through the creation of adequate and proper documentation, sound records management practices, the preservation of records, or the timely transfer of them to the National Archives at the end of an Administration, there should be no question as to need for both diligence and vigilance. Records matter.”
January 31, 2022, statement
Some of the Trump presidential records received by the National Archives and Records Administration included paper records that had been torn up by former President Trump. As has been reported in the press since 2018, White House records management officials during the Trump Administration recovered and taped together some of the torn-up records. These were turned over to the National Archives at the end of the Trump Administration, along with a number of torn-up records that had not been reconstructed by the White House. The Presidential Records Act requires that all records created by presidents be turned over to the National Archives at the end of their administrations."
https://www.archives.gov/press/press-re … -statement
For press, information contact the National Archives Public and Media Communications Staff via email at public.affairs@nara.gov.
I think it is clear Trump was cooperating with the Archives.
Yes, Trump did let FBI and DOJ agents in his home on June 3, 2022. without the need for a search warrant.
https://apnews.com/article/biden-donald … 1ec8680924
JUNE 3, 2022
Three FBI agents and a DOJ attorney went to Mar-a-Lago to collect additional material offered by a Trump attorney in response to the subpoena. They were given “a single Redweld envelope, double-wrapped in tape, containing the documents,” according to an Aug. 30 filing.
That envelope, it was later found, contained 38 documents with classification markings, including five documents marked confidential, 16 marked secret and 17 marked top secret.
During the visit, the filing said, “Counsel for the former President offered no explanation as to why boxes of government records, including 38 documents with classification markings, remained at the Premises nearly five months after the production of the Fifteen Boxes and nearly one-and-a-half years after the end of the Administration.”
Trump’s lawyers also told investigators that all of the records that had come from the White House were stored in one location — a Mar-a-Lago storage room. Investigators were permitted to visit the room, but were “explicitly prohibited” from opening or looking inside any of the boxes, they reported, “giving no opportunity for the government to confirm that no documents with classification markings remained.”
The Justice Department was also given a signed certification letter stating that a “diligent search” had been completed and that no documents remained."
JUNE 8, 2022
The Justice Department sent a letter to Trump’s lawyer requesting that the storage room be secured, and that “all of the boxes that were moved from the White House to Mar-a-Lago (along with any other items in that room) be preserved in that room in their current condition until farther notice.”
Trump complied with a better type of lock on the door.
"AUG. 5, 2022
The Justice Department filed an application for a search and seizure warrant of Mar-a-Lago, citing “probable cause” that additional presidential records and records containing classified information remained in various parts of the club.
“There is also probable cause to believe that evidence of obstruction” would be found, read the heavily-redacted copy of the affidavit laying out the FBI’s rationale for the search.
The Justice Department also revealed in the Aug. 30 filing that it had found evidence “that government records were likely concealed and removed from the Storage Room and that efforts were likely taken to obstruct the government’s investigation.”
U.S. Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart in South Florida approved the application that same day.
AUG. 8, 2022
The FBI executed the search at Mar-a-Lago, seizing 36 items of evidence, including boxes and containers holding more than 100 classified records, an order pardoning Trump ally Roger Stone and information about the “President of France.”
Agents found classified documents both in the storage room as well as in the former president’s office — including three classified documents found not in boxes, but in office desks.
They included items so sensitive that, “In some instances, even the FBI counterintelligence personnel and DOJ attorneys conducting the review required additional clearances before they were permitted to review certain documents.”
MY VIEW ---- I Hopefully, these facts will help you understand the progression of what happened and the dates. It is important to make up your own view. It is much easier to form a view with facts, not media and biased fodder.
Trump was very open with his statements in regard to the documents he had in his position. He never hide and skirted the questions the press asked of him.
Shar
"I have come to the conclusion, after doing a lot of reading Trump was cooperating with NARA. There are letters that have been posted that show Trump's attorneys going back and forth with NARA. I feel NARA could have felt the communications were JUST NOT TIMELY. That Trump's team was not being as cooperative as they could be. However, many boxes were sent to the archives, and Trump cooperated with the FBI and DOJ agents to visit without causing roadblocks.
I feel the DOJ wanted to cause a splash, and they did by raiding his home unannounced."
Miebakagh57 "I am glad you took the time to have a look at the links. I just hope to offer some clarity on what the Trump team had done. I realize some feel it was not enough, which is their right. I feel he was cooperating." Shar
This is my view, you don't like it --- that is your problem. My comments are clear, I just have no interest in your view, we could not be farther apart when it comes to this issue.Thank you, Sha, for re-affirming your opinion and confidence.
This user "ECO" has questioned my motive over and over. I hope you did not get the idea I was attempting to do nothing but province an answer to your question with a couple of reliable sources to help answer your questions.
I said absolutely nothing about your MOTIVE - just your misleading conclusion. I have no idea why, nor do I care that, you choose to misrepresent reality. My only goal is to correct the record.
Yes, I do. Thank you. Moreover, the various press statements put out by the Director of Achivist, and his comments holds the day. But somehow, the FBI and DOJ seems to be programmed into a 'deep state' to dislike 'realDonaldTrump' and assasinate his character! Seriously, Trump, is gunning for another shot at the Presidency. I wish him well.
Why did NARA make a criminal referral to DOJ on Feb 9, 2022, regarding obtaining those records?
If you wish Trump well, then you must not like America very much.Please provide a source where NARA made a "criminal referral". Have you seen a document that indicates this?
What I have seen is --- " WASHINGTON, Feb 9 (Reuters) - The National Archives and Records Administration has asked the Justice Department to INVESTIGATE former President Donald Trump's handling of White House records, the Washington Post reported on Wednesday.
Reporting by Eric Beech; Editing by Tim Ahmann and David Gregorio"
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/nation … 022-02-09/
It would seem using the word criminal referral is very hyperbolic, in my view. As of yet, the investigation has not issued any "Criminal" charges.
What I assume from the information I have read -- the DOJ was asked to investigate if crimes were committed. As they are now doing in regard to Bidenn, and Pence.
Investigate -- carry out a systematic or formal inquiry to discover and examine the facts of (an incident, allegation, etc.) so as to establish the truth.'The National Archives and Records Administration has asked the Justice Department to examine Donald Trump’s handling of White House records, sparking discussions among federal law enforcement officials about whether they should investigate the former president for a possible crime, according to two people familiar with the matter.
The referral from the National Archives came amid recent revelations that officials recovered 15 boxes of materials from the former president’s Mar-a-Lago residence in Florida that were not handed back in to the government as they should have been, and that Trump had turned over other White House records that had been torn up. Archives officials suspected Trump had possibly violated laws concerning the handling of government documents — including those that might be considered classified — and reached out to the Justice Department, the people familiar with the matter said."
As you well know, the actual referral document is not a public record. Nevertheless, the whole point of a referral is to determine if Trump broke the law - one of which is obstruction of justice, a felony. To me, the logic is compelling.
"As of yet" DOJ has told the courts that they are contemplating filing criminal charges which is why they were giving authority to conduct a search of Trump's residence.
You wrote "Archives officials suspected Trump had possibly violated laws concerning the handling of government documents — including those that might be considered classified — and reached out to the Justice Department, the people familiar with the matter said." - In what instances would an organization refer a "non-criminal" matter to DOJ? In the case of Biden and Pence, there was no referral. Given that classified documents are poking up in all sorts of places they shouldn't be, it demands to be investigated by the FBI. In this case, no criminal activity is thought to have happened. That doesn't say they won't find some, but that isn't their focus right now.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics … epartment/
Miebakagh57,
I think the DOJ will do whatever they feel is legal in regard to the Documents Trump took with him when he left the White House. Trump has made the claim he did declassify documents. And again, in my opinion, he was offering some cooperation in regard to NARA.
I feel many that do not like Trump are beyond seeing the fact. Facts would be what would be allowed in a court of law if Trump was indicted on this matter. He has witnesses that have claimed they saw him declassify the boxes that were going to be taken to his home. Will these witnesses go under oath? I think they will, I have seen both media shows, make the claims that they were with Trump when he declassified the boxes.
In regard to evidence that could be presented about Trump's cooperation -- It appears NARA went back and forth with Trump's attorney. for over a year, and it did result in 15 boxes being sent to the Archives.
This alone shows cooperation, one could say that the retrieval was not done with good speed.
Thus far the DOJ has not brought any charges. It will be interesting to see what the DOJ will do if in light of the problems they now face with Biden having Documents found in sever places in unguarded conditions. As well as Pence also has documented.
Yes, Trump did toss his hat into the race. If he is the Candidate, he has my vote. I felt very positive about the direction the country was headed under Trump. I felt safe and felt he was for all the people. I miss having a president that I feel has my back... I felt safe under Trump above all... Last week I was fearful as I was forced to watch a Chinese balloon pass over our country.
SharCongratulations, Shar. Trump will come again!
Your narrative (of which I previously read every word), up to the point where you write "I think it is clear Trump was cooperating with the Archives." contains ONLY instances to where Trump cooperated and NO instances of where he did not, even though there were many.
It is impossible for any rational person NOT to conclude that you believe Trump was fully cooperative. You leave no room for any other outcome. I am sorry you can't see that.
At no point after that sentence did you offer any evidence that Trump WAS NOT cooperative.
If fact, in the second part of your narrative it directly points to a lack of cooperation when you post 'Three FBI agents and a DOJ attorney went to Mar-a-Lago to collect additional material offered by a Trump attorney in response to the subpoena."
Yet in spite of that, you still insist that "Trump was very open with his statements in regard to the documents he had in his position. He never hide and skirted the questions the press asked of him." I guess you are right in regard to the press, but you are clearly wrong regarding NARA, DOJ, and the FBI.
Yes, you are very right that we could not be farther apart when it comes to this issue.
You claim Trump was fully cooperative while I claim, based on the FULL narrative from NARA, DOJ, and FBI that Trump was largely uncooperative - so much so that he will probably be charged with Obstruction of Justice.Okay, my Exorteric. Can I get the facts and statements from the government where Trump was not FULLY COOPERATING? Much thanks.
As I have pointed out before, the fact that they were forced to subpoena the records tied with the Fact that they found records Trump said he did not have proves he was not being fully cooperative.
I have provided such proof multiple times before - it is easy enough for you to google it.Okay. A balance view that tally with NARA statements is what I'll go for.
Shar, permit me and also forgive me for reading this post the 4th time. The contents still motivated me. But this pop out more: 'I just think it is best to look at facts put ov by the Achives. They put put out a press statement(that's from a govrnmnt agency), but not many seem to have read them'. My opinion? Yes, their ignorance will never excuse them.
Thank you, my friend. I feel I have put you through a very long ordeal due to my first post. But, I so appreciate you took my post as it was meant --- to offer some information from better sources than just myself. The subject, as you have learned is complicated.
Please provide you sources. What you say is contrary to what is known to be true. Also, federal judges are not fools and as much as you would like to believe it, our FBI is not like the KGB. After the debacle with J. Edgar Hoover, they have run a very clean and tight ship with very few deviations from the straight and narrrow.
As Sharlee said "I just hoped to clear up some of the misconceptions we have heard in the media. When one looks for full facts, they are not hard to find."
This is the COMPLETE story of the gov'ts fight to pry records away from Trump. Not the cherry-picked narrative just reported.
CBS's timeline contradicts the above narrative in many places while supporting it in others and at the same time filling in the FACT GAP in many others.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-sear … epartment/Gosh, one could write a book on the subject. I feel I offered facts from the archives. And a bit of media report. He can take the info and make his own view. Hopefully, he sees your link, it offers more information that would be helpful.
And I feel I provided a Complete Timeline that contains all of the facts. If he takes JUST your info, then he is getting only part of the story. He needs a total picture to understand why DOJ totally disagrees with your implications.
I also offered him a link to assess the entire timeline and encouraged him to read the full link. The link is an Associated Press timeline. Do you feel I should have copied and pasted the enter lengthy timeline? I trust Miebakagh57 if interested beyond the subject of his question, he would read the full timeline.
I find your comment argumentive, and obnoxious. I offered information and implied Miebakagh57 should look at the information and come to his own view. I did not imply anything nor did I share a view at all. You clearly once again did not read my comment. Please don't respond to my comments unless you read the comment I offered.
My comment is very clear. "Miebakagh57
"Please let me add some factual information in regard to how Trump and his attorney handled the document issue. Starting with the archives. I just THINK IT is BEST TO LOOK AT FACTS put out by the Archives. They put out a press statement, but not many seem to have read them. These statements go a long way to providing the truth. Here are the statements, as well as the link to the statements. ( I realize this is a very long comment, but I feel it important to share full facts, not a view, but facts."
I also closed with this --- "Hopefully, these facts will help you understand the progression of what happened and the dates. It is important to make UP YOUR OWN VIEW. It is much easier to form a view with facts, not media and biased fodder."
Your statement "DOJ totally disagrees with your implications."
Disagrees with what? The archives? The Timeline? What... You make no sense at all. I made no implications. I offered him facts from the archives, and a timeline line, nothing else.
It is clear you are trolling, and you just do a poor job of it. My comment to Miebakagh57 was very clear, and I offered him links and encouraged him to read the links- twice...
Your comment shows a lack of common courtesy, and it factually shows me, you just don't read comments you just reponed with an argumentive statement.
I would hope you would stop trolling me. I just don't appreciate it, and this forum does not allow it.
I have no argument with you, I clearly do not respect the way you conduct yourself. But I try to distance myself from your posts. maybe you should do the same.
If you hope to inform Miebakagh57 of further information, address your comment to him.
The info I offered was backed by reputable sources.Had your comment offered a BALANCED view which ALSO showed Trump actively resisting giving over the documents, then we wouldn't be having this conversation.
But you didn't. you slanted your comments to imply that Trump was no obstacle to returning the documents when, IN FACT, he IS a major obstacle.You are clearly trolling. I truely do not like to do this. I am going to have a moderator look at this conversation. It is clear you are being argumentive, and not respecting my rights here on HP. I don't share my views as truth, I share them as opinions. In the case of this conversation I was sharing facts from the Archives, as well as a timeline put out by AP.
Your trolling is obvious, I did not slant my comment again I encouraged him to have a look at the links. I did not even share a personal view.
Again My comment to "Miebakagh57 was very clear.
"Please let me add some factual information in regard to how Trump and his attorney handled the document issue. Starting with the archives. I just THINK IT is BEST TO LOOK AT FACTS put out by the Archives. They put out a press statement, but not many seem to have read them. These statements go a long way to providing the truth. Here are the statements, as well as the link to the statements. ( I realize this is a very long comment, but I feel it important to share full facts, not a view, but facts.""You are clearly trolling. I truely do not like to do this. I am going to have a moderator look at this conversation. " - Even though I am not trolling (unless you consider trolling putting the truth out there for people to read trolling, please do.
Now it may come to pass that the "moderators" don't give a flip about the FACT that you only present partial facts and imply them to be ALL of the facts.
And BTW - all I did was put out FACTS issued by NARA, as well as DOJ. FACTS you omitted.As I said I offered two links and encouraged MIEBAKAGH57 twice in my comment to have a look at the links.
I am not looking for the moderators to ascertain anything but you insinuating I am doing something I am not or intended to do.
The DOJ had nothing to do with the question he asked. He was looking for facts on how trump had handled his document issue. I have no true facts from the DOJ --- I can not quote Garland making any statement on the Trump timeline or anything about what Trump's level of cooperation was. I am not quoting media fodder. If you have a statement from Garland, I would enjoy reading it. If it had to do with Trump's cooperation with the Archives, it certainly would fit into my conversation with MIEBAKAGH57. I don't care about the views of the media when having a conversation I have added facts. If you have a Garland quote in regards to how Trump was handling the problem of getting documents to the Archives, share it. I don't want a book on a deflected subject.
My opening line to MIEBAKAGH57 " Please let me add some factual information in regard to how Trump and his attorney handled the document issue. Starting with the archives. I just think it is best to look at facts put out by the Archives"
THIS WAS THE SUBJECT of our conversation.OK, let's start from the beginning. MIEBAKAGH57 asked But it's on record that Trump, while leaving office arrange with government agents to come and take them away. The agency delayed and the table turned against Trump? What crime then does Trump commit here?
He CLAIMS that 1) It is on record that Trump, while leaving office arranged with gov't agents to come and take them away AND the "agency" delayed and "turned the table" against Trump.
THEN his ONLY question was "What Crime did Trump commit?"
NOW, one has to read between his lines. One must presume the agency he is talking about is NARA.
Based on what transpired, the gov't agents he apparently is referring to might be the GSA who transported the boxes Trump and his staff packed to send to Mar a Lago. It is CLEARLY NOT NARA because Trump did not turn over any documents to them at that point in time even though that is where GSA should have taken them to. Instead, Trump directed all those boxes be sent to his personal residence.
I have no clue as to what he is talking about "tables being turned". NARA turned no tables UNLESS he is thinking of the referral NARA made to DOJ because Trump was effectively stonewalling NARA in the return of the documents.
YOUR answer was Please let me add some factual information in regard to how Trump and his attorney handled the document issue. You then presented a couple of instances[/i] where Trump and his lawyers did, in fact, turn over [u]a few documents to NARA. You OMITTED all the other times Trump and his lawyers REFUSED to turn over documents.[/i]
You never did answer the question of what crimes Trump committed. So, to answer MIEBAKAGH57's question, they are, according to DOJ's filings.
1. Obstruction of Justice in lying to and preventing the FBI, NARA, and DOJ from reclaiming the documents Trump effectively stole.
2. Violations of the Espionage Act.
3. Removal and Destruction of records that should have been sent to NARA.
THAT was the answer to his question don't you think?
Is CBSnews a federal government media outfit or is it a private concern? That would enable to know more of an unbiased facts, information, and statements.
All of our news media are private. Some, like Fox, have become propaganda outlets. Mainstream media, however is still keeping it honest. That would be CBS, CNN, NBC, ABC, PBS, WAPO, NYT, WSJ (even though they are owned by a Trump loyalist), and the like.
No, I intend to get the big picture of the drama and events, but not from a biased corner. One thing I found odd about the cbsnews is that it doesn't contained the statements from NARA portal and the limitations, because of running litigations in the courts.
Just to keep things level - the same with Pence and Trump other than they need to go to jail.
The countdown begins - 71 days until Trump's Rape trial begins.E. Jean Carroll will have her day in court as did "stormy". Hopefully, she does not end up paying all the court costs for her lawsuit. She has a cold chance in hell proving rape.
Trump also put out a statement when it's all over, he will sue her for defamation.
In my view, Trump has more to worry about out of Georgia due to the 2020 election problems. I think, his famous phone call will be front and center, but that call will be pulled apart and the context is broken down so that the call will not hold the power to convict beyond a shadow of a doubt. Just my view...
The document stuff --- Trump claims he declassified his boxes Kask Petal has backed him and said he was present when Trump declassified the boxes. I don't think it goes anywhere.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-aide … ar-a-lago/
Does not appear Trump's issue is similar to Biden's issue with documents. Plus, Trump's son is not under investigation for many issues. The Congressional hearing starts this next week on Hunter's laptop being canned due to the FBI working with Twitter to hide the story before the election. I think Biden is in for a big problem due to that laptop, and what it ultimately will unwind due to family corruption, and if those documents fit in --- Oh my he is in for a world of problems.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/former … den-laptop
Hopefully, this hearing will be televised. I like to have names and faces on the facts. Makes it very much fairer.The system is rigged such that " She has a cold chance in hell proving rape." is often the case.
Also, Daniels' case was for defamation and from what I read, pretty weak. Although it wasn't nice what he and they said about her and did to her, it didn't seem like it rose to the level of defamation.
I have no idea what physical and circumstantial evidence Carroll has. I think it case got beyond being dismissed on its merits (or lack thereof) so I am guessing the evidence was at least strong enough to get to trial.
Now, do I think Trump did it? Absolutely. It fits in with his narcissistic character. What is there, 20 some women accusing him of everything from unwanted kissing up to putting his had up at least one woman's skirt.
Is he in more jeopardy from GA or DOJ, absolutely. This evidence is much more concrete and current.
I don't think the Supreme Court would back up Trump on his "mind-control" declassification technique or his "open sesame" method. There are protocols that even the President must follow, and he did not do that. He doesn't even claim to have for that matter.
(Bet you Petal admitted to the Grand Jury he lied about seeing/hearing Trump declassify anything.)
But even the purposeful taking of the classified documents isn't the elephant in the tent for Trump. It is clear obstruction of justice in not returning them when initially asked by NARA and later DOJ after NARA dumped it in their laps.
What does Trump or Biden's son have to do with anything other than inflame? Are you one of those who believe the sins of the father carry over to the son (or, in this case, the other way around)?
You really believe that load of Right-Wing BS about the FBI being in cahoots with Twitter. That has been debunked many times over to which I supplied links previously.
Hearing? Do you mean the rape trial?
And why do you offer up known propaganda such as Fox so-called "opinion"? I'll buy Reuters, ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, AP. Those are all credible sources (as is CNN), but Fox opinion is not."I have no idea what physical and circumstantial evidence Carroll has"
She may have told someone when it happened and Identified Trump, that would be evidence, that would stick, IMO.
Petal did go before the grand jury, and there has been nothing leaked on his testimony.
I have followed the Twitter dumps, and they are compelling. As I said I think we need to see the Congressional hearings and see what these three executives say under oath. I am sure that Twitter emails will play a big part in the hearings.
Over the past year, I have used Fox as a starting place for reports and followed up from there. I feel they are the first to report all news. I verify with other outlets."I feel they are the first to report all news. " - You may feel that way, but the only news they report first is anything bad about the Left. If it is bad about Trump or the Republicans, there documented history is they either don't report it (e.g. the primetime Jan 6 hearings, or mislead (or sometimes lie to) the public about it, e.g. almost anything Tucker Carlson or Sean Hannity "reports"
I stay away from nightly opinion news. As I said, I feel that Fox is quick with reporting all news, and I always further my searches to other outlets. I tuned n to Cspan for the hearings. They were uninterrupted, and no commentary.
For anything to do with hearings, I always go to Csan. I like to form my own opinions from watching hearings straight up
Speaking of Stormy Daniels, it seems the Manhattan DA is not done with Trump over that affair.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/30/politics … index.htmlhttps://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/r … oral-votes
Mike Pence himself clearly explained what Trump was attempting to do, that is enough evidence for me.Mike Pence, who has a very high dislike of Trump, clearly explained what he thinks Trump was attempting to do. Through the lens of his own bias, of course; that's what people do.
I would not consider his testimony to be truth any more than I would Trump's. Bias has a way of changing things.So, now Wilderness, you are saying that all of this did not happen? Do I have to dredge up Trump's verbatim quotes, or are you going to question the validity of that as well? I
--------
In the days before the joint session, Trump has pressured his vice president to toss electors from battleground states that voted for Biden to overturn the will of voters in a desperate and futile bid to undo President-elect Joe Biden’s victory in the November election.
“If Mike Pence does the right thing we win the election,” Trump told thousands of supporters who rallied Wednesday on the Ellipse, just south of the White House, an hour before the count in Congress was to begin.
“All Vice President Pence has to do is send it back to the states to recertify and we become president and you are the happiest people,” Trump said, repeating a falsehood he has been promoting leading up to the congressional session.
Trump repeatedly pressured Pence to act during his more than 75-minute speech to supporters. “Mike Pence is going to have to come through for us,” Trump said, “and if he doesn’t, it’s a sad day for our country.”
Shortly before the 1 p.m. start of the joint session and even as Trump continued his verbal haranguing, Pence made clear in a three-page letter that he would follow the Constitution, not the commander in chief. While Trump was speaking, Pence’s motorcade carried him through a heavily-secured Washington toward the Capitol, where thousands of Trump supporters were marching.You have GOT to be kidding me. While Pence, like most other politicians, may lie on occasion, there is an order of magnitude squared difference between him and Trump.
Trump is never to be believed (you can't even believe him when he tells you where his father was born, for god's sake), while Pence should be believed as much as you believe anybody else you listen to.
BTW, everybody, save for the 88 million who have been totally conned by Trump, have a well deserved "very high dislike" of Trump.
Yet Another Trump acolyte is guilty of criminal activity. What is that now? 36?
More fallout from Trump's Coup attempt. In this case, Republicans are using Revenge Politics to silence contrary voices.
"The action comes after House Speaker Kevin McCarthy officially denied seats on the House Intelligence Committee to Democratic Reps. Eric Swalwell and Adam Schiff, the former chairman of the panel – a decision that was condemned by Democrats."
https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/02/politics … index.htmlMr. My Exotoric, the link tells me that what the current Congress Speaker does is what has been done by Pelosi. I view the 'revenge' as an even score with the Dem if you're minding. But it's a pity when both Rep and Dem should be sheilding swords, and make democracy great, they're practising great swordswanship. The whole thing smelt of bias.
When is McCarthy going to kick Santos out of Congress. Here is his latest affront to civil society.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/05/politics … index.htmlI give Tara Readw so much credit for not being silenced... And requesting our Congress to give her the opportunity to be heard.
Maybe when McCarthy takes up Tara Reade's request to investigate her claim of Biden raping her. I mean these women certainly have the right to be heard and find justice.
Biden Accuser Tara Reade 'Will Not Be Silenced,' Would Testify Under Oath
Source Newsweek 12/3/2022 https://www.newsweek.com/biden-accuser- … th-1764401
"Tara Reade, who accused President Joe Biden of sexual assault, said she would "not be silenced" after asking House Republicans to investigate her assault allegations.
Reade worked as a Senate staffer for Biden in 1993, which is when she said he sexually assaulted her. She has said that in addition to making her feel uncomfortable—as other women have also alleged—she also accused Biden of pushing her against a wall and digitally penetrating her. Biden has vehemently denied these allegations.
Now, Reade is calling on House Republicans to investigate her accusations. The GOP reclaimed a narrow majority in the House of Representatives during the November midterm elections, potentially setting the stage for several investigations into the Biden administration.
Reade told conservative news outlet The Daily Caller that she would be willing to testify about her accusations under oath and allow members of Congress to ask her "whatever questions they wanted."
"I think we need to have the conversation, instead of me being erased, and other women that were erased that tried to come forward," Reade told the outlet.
Early Saturday morning, Reade tweeted that she would not be "silenced" by Democrats, who have defended Biden against her allegations.
"As I said in 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, I will not be silenced," she wrote. "Sexual assault is not politically partisan. The Democrats just got caught covering up what happened to me in 1993 to elect their monster."
Reade told Newsweek in a written statement that she "would be willing to go under oath and testify to what happened in 1993," describing herself as "politically homeless at this point and very concerned with the level of corruption."
"The suppressing of my history with Biden is a serious hypocrisy by the Democratic power structure that is supposed to be about women's rights," Reade wrote. "All of this exposes the dark belly of corruption at the highest office of the land. It must be brought into the light including the fact the Biden sexually harassed and assaulted me when I worked as his staffer in 1993. No one should be above the law."
She said she has received contact from a victims advocate from New York, who worked with the women who accused former Governor Andrew Cuomo of harassment.
Reade also pointed to journalist Matt Taibbi's Friday report on how Twitter allegedly suppressed a New York Post article in the run-up to the 2020 presidential election about Hunter Biden's laptop as illustrative of this "corruption."
"I hope there are investigations and real consequences for these individuals involved and Biden resigns or is impeached. Not just for what Biden did to me but to the entire country," she wrote.
House Republicans have not publicly said whether they plan to investigate Reade's accusations of sexual assault, but Representative Lauren Boebert of Colorado signaled support for an investigation on Friday.
"Tara Reade has asked the new GOP House to investigate her claims of sexual assault against Joe Biden," the GOP lawmaker tweeted. "I'm for it!"
Biden's campaign denied Reade's allegations when she first came forward in 2020.
"Women have a right to tell their story, and reporters have an obligation to rigorously vet those claims," Deputy Campaign Manager and Communications Director Kate Bedingfield said. "We encourage them to do so, because these accusations are false."
Marianne Baker, who served as Biden's executive assistant from 1982 to 2000, also said she never witnessed, heard or received reports of any inappropriate conduct.
Reade previously told Newsweek she considered coming forward with her allegations after former President Barack Obama selected Biden as his running mate in his 2008 presidential bid.
"When Obama was up for election, I was very supportive because I'd been a lifetime Democrat," Reade said in 2020. "[Biden] happened to be on the ticket and I thought it about it [coming forward], but I didn't because my daughter was in junior high at that time and I didn't want to bring publicity to our family."
Newsweek reached out to the White House for comment.
Update 10/9/2022, 3:05 p.m. ET: This article has been updated to include a comment from Reade."
Joe Biden has publicly denied the allegations.
However, I remember another president's famous words
'I did not have sexual relations with that woman"...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aGbdni7QNsOld news. Tara's claim was debunked several times over. It was found she was lying.
It also sounds like you are excusing Santos' behaviour because of your perception of Biden's.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/1 … ces-260771
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/12/us/p … laint.html (and yes, I read the unflattering parts about Biden as well)I am not interested in a view of an acquaintance of Tara. this person offered an opinion...
Please note the subject of the article I offered, and Tara's request to have Congress take up her issue in regard to her claim Biden raped her.
Your articles are view oriented. Mine is a factual current article published in Dec 2022, of a woman stepping up and wanting Congress to listen to what she claims is her account of President Biden raping her.
She has every right to be heard.
Both of your links have no relevance or proof Tara's claim is debunked. Not sure why you feel your sources disprove her claim. They at best defame her, without facts.
My source gives a fact --- Tara asked Congress to hear her account under oath. She has every right to be heard.Sorry, she has proven to not be credible and maybe that is why Congress didn't pursue it. Or maybe they did pursue it and decided it wasn't credible. That is why it all died down.
I understand you don't care about what people who know her well or who have interacted with her think or history of making things up to suit her purposes, but those "opinions and views" would be admissible in court as to character.
Further, she has been heard and apparently been found wanting. If she is to be believed, she filed in all the right places and there were plenty of Biden-haters out there to not let it drop had there been any substance. The fact that they haven't brought it back up tells me there is no there there.
tt could be the same for this guy who is accusing Santos, but so far nothing has come outYou seem to just say anything that comes into your head, and it is obvious you believe it. Good luck with that... For me, I feel this woman is being truthful and needs to be listened to. I mean so many other women have also accused Biden of sexual misconduct, it seems he has left a trail od sexual misconduct. Eight women have alleged that Biden either touched them inappropriately or violated their personal space in ways that made them uncomfortable.
Lucy Flores alleged in March 2019 that Biden grasped her shoulders from behind and kissed the back of her head without her consent during a campaign event in 2014.
Ally Coll, a former Democratic staffer, told The Washington Post in April 2019 that when she met Biden in 2008, he complimented her smile, squeezed her shoulders, and held her "for a beat too long."
Sofie Karasek, a progressive organizer, was photographed holding hands and touching foreheads with Biden at the 2016 Academy Awards. Karasek said she felt Biden violated her personal space in that interaction.
Amy Stokes Lappos alleges Biden pulled her face close to him during a 2009 political fundraiser.
Caitlyn Caruso said that after she shared her story of sexual assault at a University of Nevada event in 2016, Biden hugged her "just a little bit too long" and put his hand on her thigh.
DJ Hill alleges Biden rested his hand on her shoulder and moved it down her back at a 2012 fundraising event in Minneapolis. Hill said the encounter made her "very uncomfortable."
Vail Kohnert-Yount, a former White House intern, said when she met Biden in 2013, he "put his hand on the back of my head and pressed his forehead to my forehead." Kohnert-Yount also said Biden called her a "pretty girl."
In June 2019, Biden told the brothers of a 13-year-old girl to "keep the guys away" from her at a campaign event.
At a May 2019 campaign event, Biden told a 10-year-old girl, "I bet you're as bright as you are good-looking."
The apple did not fall far from the tree.No - I say what I have seen reported by credible sources.
Yes, about those eight women (I told you I read the NYT story which contained that). Those were credible women and Biden understood that and apologized (which ended the complaints).
Biden, like so many other people is a touchy feely kind of guy. You may not have ever run into You may not have ever run into such people, but I have personally run into men and women who get too close to me. Some women take a peck at my cheek (rarely, but it happens) or, more often, use endearing terms which make me uncomfortable, especially when my wife is around. Some people are like that and Biden is clearly one of them.
What is important, and just the opposite of Trump, is that Biden listened to those women's complaints, apologized to them, and changed his behavior. So your "whataboutism" doesn't work with me in this case.
Why does Donald Trump keep getting passes by the legal system?
"A former Manhattan special assistant district attorney who investigated Donald Trump said Sunday night there are “many bits and pieces of evidence” the district attorney could use to bring criminal charges against the former president.
Mark Pomerantz, a former senior prosecutor on the Manhattan DA’s team investigating Trump and his organization’s business dealings, said prosecutors weighing similar evidence against anyone other than the former president would have moved ahead with charges in a “flat second.”
Pomerantz made the comments in a “60 Minutes” interview promoting a new book about his time investigating Trump. He pointed to evidence he had access to during the investigation – principal among them, that Trump personally signed off on inflating his own net worth to obtain more favorable banks loans"
Later in the article, the current DA, who refused to prosecute (which led to Pomerantz AND the General Counsel resigning in protest), says in his defense that other, less senior, prosecutors thought they were still shy on proving "intent". Pomerantz, the main prosecutor, thinks otherwise. The current DA is still investigating.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/05/politics … index.html
Hopefully, the current Manhattan DA will have guts enough to finally bring an indictment against Trump.
Also, "Meanwhile, Bragg’s office last week accelerated its investigation into Trump’s alleged role in a hush money payment made to silence adult film star Stormy Daniel’s allegations of an affair. Trump has denied the affair." It is interesting to note that the AG attorneys were ready to indict on this matter but chose not to because bigger cases against Trump were in the works.I see the Right-Wing domestic terrorists are at it again. First the Capitol and now our power grid.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/06/politics … index.htmlJust to remind you the definition of Right-wing
1."the section of a political party or system that advocates for free enterprise and private ownership, and typically favors socially traditional ideas; the conservative group or section.
"a candidate from the right wing of the party"
2. advocating for or taking measures to promote free enterprise and private ownership, and typically favoring socially traditional ideas; conservative.
Not sure why you have chosen to associate these two criminals as persons that lean to the right or confident themselves right-wing. Your link is to an article with the title --- "Neo-Nazi leader and Maryland woman allegedly plotted to ‘completely destroy’ Baltimore, Justice Department says"
So, It is obvious you feel right-wing persons that advocate for free enterprise and private ownership, and typically favor socially traditional ideas, are neo -nazis? Maybe you could offer your definition of right-wing.
I am very right-wing, I have nothing in common with neo-nazis. It certainly appears we have very different definitions of the term right wing.I know what those on the right say they used to stand for. But, as best as I can tell, it is no longer true. All the right seems to care about nowadays is to tell people how to run their lives and what subjects can and cannot be taught in school.
I associate them with the Right because they do and Trump embraces them.
Trump's lawyers once again claim there are no more classified documents to be found on Trump properties. Of course they have been wrong each other time they made similar claims. I wonder what the FBI will find when they check again.
Now they are blaming the flawed gov't policies in controlling classified documents. Their problem is that with Biden and Pence, the only problem is that excuse only works if only a few documents slip through - not the hundreds Trump took with him.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/12/politics … index.htmlLOL....CNN's motives/schemes and propensity to lie and deceive, are world renowned.
Is if it any wonder that Trump had to described such media outlets as 'fake news'?
You do know you are describing Fox and other right-wing propaganda outlets. Polls and surveys prove you wrong about CNN many times over.
This is why it's world renowned. Case made, case closed.
agree --- CNN is best known for distorting facts to suit whatever narrative they hope to portray. The very low audience ratings. shows a minority of human beings watch this type of reporting. Makes one wonder, why anyone would watch such a new outlet.
Find CNN in a lie that wasn't a mistake for which they admitted and apologized for. If you can't (or want), then you know you are so wrong.
It seems to me as if you are asking Miebakagh to show up at the crime scene, evaluate what has been going down, find all incriminating evidence & make an arrest ---- decades too late!
I have heard that CNN has learned their lesson and they are working hard at becoming more fair and more balanced. So there's that and that's good.
I imagine you "heard" that from someone like lyin' Tucker Carlson who wouldn't know the truth if it slapped him up the side of the head.
The fact is, CNN has ALWAYS has been honest and fair in their reporting. (I have noticed your side keeps making that ridiculous claim but never provide any examples where CNN was dishonest on purpose like Fox is) Your side keep saying its not because the TRUTH they report is not very flattering of your side.For starters Eso, "my side" is with America and the American people.
I have rabbit ears for my television, don't get to tune into Tucker these days.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with working at one's trade to improve it. To become more fair and more balanced is a good thing...I am surprised at your response. It was meant to be a compliment. I sometimes do have an angle, but not this time."For starters Eso, "my side" is with America and the American people."
I can say that about "my side" as well, yet we are on opposite ends of the political spectrum.For starters AB, your side is in the distinct minority. Biden clobbered Trump in 2020. The Democrats stopped the Republicans cold in 2022, a year where the Republicans were supposed to romp all over the House, take back the Senate, increase their margins with governorships and state legislatures. Your side failed miserably.
* Ds flip 3 governorships while the Rs flipped only one.
* Ds picked up four legislative chambers while the Republicans flipped only 2
* Ds gained a seat in the Senate instead of losing 2 as predicted.
* The Rs in the House have only two seats to spare to keep control and I bet one of those - Santos - will fall before the term is over. This will almost certainly be replaced by a Democrat. If one more battleground Republican dies or quits, there is a good possibility the Ds will gain control of the House before 2024.
* Biden's disapproval rating at 51 hasn't been that low since Dec 18, 2021, not too long after he shot himself in the foot with Afghanistan.
* Biden's Approval rating at 44.2 hasn't been this high since Dec 18, 2021 as well. In fact, there have been two polls I saw that had Biden with positive numbers.
* And finally, how many people identify as MAGA? You know, those who 1) Whose actions demonstrate they do not respect the Constitution, 2) Whose actions demonstrate they do not respect the rule of Law, 3) They refuse to accept the results of the 2020 and 2022 elections if their side lost, and 4) They are working hard to rig the next election by passing election laws to favor their side.
The Washington Post crunched some numbers and determined:
* 28% of the country identifies as Republicans
* 41% identify as Independents of which about 34% lean Republican, for a total 45% - hardly
* After some more math, they deduce between 15% of the country - around 50 million - are MAGA. I think it is fair to say the rest, 85%, oppose MAGA and what they stand for.
All of that to say that I disagree that your side stands with America.
I am glad you believe CNN is improving, and there is always room for it, but it was very good to start with. Proof of that is no one as yet to come forward where they were purposely deceitful like you can for Fox and the rest.
What about other newspapers and magazines that publicly admitted mistakes and apologized? Have these a bent for lieing? Thanks.
That didn't answer my question, it deflected from it. I makes no difference what others do, your claim is that CNN lies a lot. All I am asking for you to do is prove it or say they do not purposefully lie.
I've never 'claim' that 'CNN lie a lot'. The inference is even wrong. Seriously, differences matter. Wouldn't you agree there's a difference between fox news and CNN? Your claim against my question and statement is odd.
Pence proves, once again, what a spineless woose he is and is now fighting the subpoena to testify to the Grand Jury. This should delay Trump's indictment many more months - sigh.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/14/politics … index.htmlPence has always been a (p*ssy), following behind Trump like a lapdog.
If he is planning to run for President, I guess he is afraid to ruffle any feathers, unnecessarily, by being seen as attacking Trump. Just look what happened to Liz Cheney?
Because he himself has made it quite clear that Mr. trump was intimidating him to throw out vote counts, outside the boundaries of his authority on J6.Yep. I just don't see very many Republicans taking him seriously. I did make one misstatement. Pence showed a LOT of spine in standing up to Trump's illegal pressure to throw the election. While immeasurably important, it was the only time..
As for a lot of spine, Pence's instincts for self preservation may have well kicked in on that occasion. He knew that if he got into trouble abusing his authority and discretion, it would be him on the hot seat, while Trump will claim no responsibility for any outcome not to his benefit. Pence was expendable and could be fed to the wolves once his usefulness had passed.
DOJ tells judge they have evidence that Trump committed a crime as they try to force one of Trump's attorneys to tell them more. (If there is evidence of a crime, attorney-client privilege evaporates.)
https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/14/politics … index.html'two sources familiar with the Justice Department’s motion told CNN."
Really -- again CNN, no names, no faces, no there there.CNN is pure LIEberal propaganda, no more no less. CNN conveys to the public when CNN wants conveyed. Anyone who believes that CNN tells the truth, well I have a $500 50-room mansion in Scarsdale, NY I want to sell.
Same statement I just made to Miebakagh57 - "your claim is that CNN lies a lot. All I am asking for you to do is prove it or say they do not purposefully lie."
You will clearly go broke since the vast majority of CNN viewers think CNN is honest.Well the majority of CNN viewers aren't discerning in the least. Most news sources aren't truthful. A smart 10 year old knows this. They tell you what THEY want the public to know, no more no less. I knew that the news lied in junior high school-my parents taught me this. They told me to ALWAYS DISCERN what you read.
Where is your proof for this obviously false statement -"Well the majority of CNN viewers aren't discerning in the least. " ?
Wanna bet your parents lied to you about that? Give us examples or admit you are wrong.
BTW, studies show the left "discerns" much more than the right because the left challenges what it hears and, as we see with Trump, the right believes whatever their Dear Leader says.
To say it another way, it is obvious Democrats don't take what Biden says at face value while Trumplicans fall over themselves defending Trump's lies.I am discerning. I always have been discerning. It seems that the modern leftists accept without question what the Democrats state while modern conservatives question what they deem to be illogical, even from the Republicans. You seem to be accepting of everything CNN says. I question things that are illogical &/or false. It used to be that the left was discerning while conservatives accepted things. Not anymore. Now, it is the left who are blindly accepting while the conservatives are the true rebels.
"It seems that the modern leftists accept without question what the Democrats state while modern conservatives question what they deem to be illogical, even from the Republicans. " - Interesting, but the reverse is true. PROOF - look how many Republicans (the majority) believe the 2020 election was rigged!
Could you provide a recent poll that proves your view that -- " look how many Republicans (the majority) believe the 2020 election was rigged!"
Again you make a claim, and present it as "true" and claim proof without any actual source. Or were you sharing your personal view?I'll present several when GM does the same. She made the original claim did she not, yet you didn't ask her for a poll or say to her "again you make a claim, and present it as "true" and claim proof without any actual source. Or were you sharing your personal view? - I am just looking for fair play here.
The difference I see is GM offered an opinion of a pure view. She certainly did not make the matter a fact claims as you seemed to do.
Her comment was purely her view - " GMWILLIAMS WROTE:
I am discerning. I always have been discerning. It SEEMS that the modern leftists accept without question what the Democrats state while modern conservatives question what they deem to be illogical, even from the Republicans. "
Your comment - Interesting, but the reverse is true. PROOF - look how many Republicans (the majority) believe the 2020 election was rigged!
Can you see how matter a fact your words are ---
"but the reverse is true". You further claim there is proof, and make a claim the majority of Republicans believe the election is rigged.
You need to play fair to receive fair play.What is the reverse of what GM said? Wouldn't it be
"It SEEMS that the modern rightists accept without question what the Republicans state while modern liberals question what they deem to be illogical, even from the Democrats. "
She offered no proof, I did. I gave what is a well known fact that has been true ever since Trump uttered his lies. By challenging the truth of my proof is like challenging me when I say "the sky is blue on a clear day".
If fact, polls over time have stayed above 50% of Republicans believe Trump's lies. Any poll you look at confirms that and I seriously doubt you can find even ONE poll, recent or otherwise, that says differently. I believe that if you could have, you would have, just to show me up.
Trying to wiggle out by using words like "SEEMS" doesn't negate the fact she is making a claim she believes to be true.Let's go back to your statement the one I am still waiting for you to verify with some form of proof. GM has nothing to do with your claim.
"PROOF - look how many Republicans (the majority) believe the 2020 election was rigged!"
You then deflect to this --- "If fact, polls over time have stayed above 50% of Republicans believe Trump's lies. "
This has nothing to do with your claim -- "PROOF - look how many Republicans (the majority) believe the 2020 election was rigged!" Now does it?
Troll much? LOL
Her use of "seems" clearly indicates she is offering an opinion.
Definition of seem ---used to make a statement or description of one's thoughts, feelings, or actions less assertive or forceful.
You need to brush up on terms that indicate one is sharing a view.Let's get this straight - you want me to prove the sky is blue on a sunny day, correct?
"Seem" - why say it if you aren't putting that forward as your belief? It is just a way of being mealy-mouthed.
I do it myself a lot with the use of the word "apparently". That means I believe what follows is "probably" true but there is room for some doubt. "Seems" fills the same function grammatically. Using the word "seems" tells the reader they believes what she is saying is "probably" true.
Same, same with "offering an opinion". You wouldn't "offer" it if you didn't believe it to be true or "probably" true. Otherwise, why waste everybody's time in writing it?
My claim, was in response to what GM said. THEREFORE, it has everything to do with her, grammatically speaking. I didn't make the claim out of the blue, did I? It was responding to an erroneous statement.Her statement was not in my view erroneous, in no respect was it wrong or incorrect. She shared a view, you have no right to dictate wrong or right. It's clear you don't understand that.
No interest in continuing this conversation, it in my view is non-sensical.
Here is a similar way of using "seems". I just wrote this to my ADTS staff:
"It SEEMS that WFQA just acquired Comprehensive Medical Services (who is a client and vendor of ours),", That is not an opinion but a statement of fact properly using the word "seems"I have no intention of a back and forth. It is soooo--- obvious that we think differently. You continue to divert away from the subject. Which was your matter-fact statement.
"PROOF - look how many Republicans (the majority) believe the 2020 election was rigged!"
Still waiting for the PROOFClearly then, you must live in a vacuum if you have run across these and have to ask a silly question:
* Sept 2022 - Nearly 700 days after Trump started his election lies, a majority of Republicans are STILL duped by Trump - https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics … s-big-lie/
* Oct 2022 - From Jan 6,2021 to Jun 2022, the average of Yahoo's polls said 66% of Republicans fell for Trump's lies. After the Jan 6 committee started exposing the TRUTH, the number of true believers fell only 6 points to 60%!
* Dec 2022 - I finally found a story that say a lot of Republicans have come to their senses, at least temporarily, regarding the legitimacy of the 2020 election. At the moment, they found that less than 50% of Republicans think the election was stolen. Some polls be a lot, some polls just barely below. But, the article has a lot of caveats that suggest that might not be
sustainable and will jump back up again.
What amazes me, of course, is that any Republican, let alone elected ones, would believe the election was stolen given the wonderful job the Jan 6 committee did.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics … -election/
Three journalists leaving CNN after retracted article
https://money.cnn.com/2017/06/26/media/ … index.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/27/busi … trump.html
THE 10 WORST EXAMPLES OF FAKE NEWS. AND CNN WINS
Only 10? From Glen Greenwald a damning list of fake news fails: "The 10 worst, most embarrassing US media failures on the Trump-Russia-story." Buzzfeed's latest effort - claiming Trump ordered his lawyer to lie to Congress - doesn't even rate as the worst. Has the US media ever been so corrupted by bias and malice?
https://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andr … 8df193525eYour first points is a good news story for CNN, it is a shame that Fox doesn't follow their lead in discovering the truth and handing out consequences. Nope, Fox just keeps propagating the lies.
Your second point just shows how biased the author of that piece of wasted print is. 3 out of 10 were reported by CNN (the Post had 2), yet this idiot has to declare in bold print that CNN wins? Wins what? Reporting.
It is also evident that Bolt believes each one of those news outlets actually LIED in reporting those stories (assuming they were lies in the first place). Meaning they KNEW what they were reporting was false (like Fox frequently does).
Bolt is guilty of what he was criticizing.
Well, why don't you count me in? Am I a Trumptian? Where's Kathryn Hill to make a note, anyway?
Thank you. I had a discerning mind, or I wouldn't put up a question.
Sort of like the "I heard that,,," statements you make, isn't it?
BTW, it does not go unnoticed you don't have the same response when Fox uses anonymous sources. Why is that?
Well, we had a little peek behind the Special Grand Jury investigation. They found:
1) There was no wide-spread fraud in GAs elections and that Trump's election lies are just that, lies.
2) Some witnesses lied to them and they recommend the DA go after them. I would highly suspect Giuliani is one of them.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/16/politics … index.htmlSpeaking of "honest" media...
Fox News hosts, execs privately blasted Trump election fraud claims shared on network, court documents show
A court filing made public late Thursday shows top executives at Fox News and leading hosts on the network privately dismissing former President Trump’s claims of voter fraud in the days that followed the 2020 presidential election, expressing worry about how fact checks of the president’s assertions might upset the network’s audience.
Top network hosts Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham in text messages referred to the voter fraud allegations made by Trump and his associates as “insane” while network leadership debated how rebuking those claims on the air might hurt the conservative media giant’s reputation with its viewers, according to the filing.
“Sidney Powell is lying by the way. I caught her. It’s insane,” Carlson wrote in one text message to Ingraham, the court filing shows.
“Sidney is a complete nut. No one will work with her. Ditto with Rudy [Giuliani],” Ingraham responded.
On Nov. 21, Carlson texted an unidentified Fox employee that it was “shockingly reckless” of Powell to claim the election had been stolen from Trump.
Attempts to fact-check claims of voter fraud coming from Trump and his associates on air also did not sit well with some leaders at the network, the filing shows.
On Nov. 9, as the network was broadcasting a White House press briefing during which press secretary Kayleigh McEnany was making false statements about voter fraud, host Neil Cavuto cut away, telling his viewers he could not “in good countenance continue to show you this.”
Raj Shah, a Fox Corp. executive, wrote to network leadership after the episode, saying Cavuto’s action represented a “brand threat,” according to the filing.
On Nov. 12, after Fox News reporter Jacqui Heinrich published a tweet disputing claims from Trump about Dominion, outlining how elections officials had determined the company did not engage in voter fraud, Carlson sent Hannity the reporter’s tweet saying, “Please get her fired … It needs to stop immediately, like tonight. It’s measurably hurting the company. The stock price is down. Not a joke.”
More
That poor gullible people, still blind.So this is cable network news? Very excellent I think?
I'm glad I'm discreting and discerning. I couldn't let politics left and right to cloat my mind. Seriously, all these news sources are targeting one specific and prominent person, 'real' Donald Trump. His sin? He has done no wrong by putting America First! Critically, are all the 'fake news' media outlets apology to Trump specifically? They should. Trump was the President of the USA when the news media labelled him that bad! Just sayying they made a mistake is not enough.
It's a surprise you were able to be the first to offer this.
Most of the sources breaking this news are working from the first reports. It doesn't look good for Fox now, imagine what it will be like by Monday when the text of "the texts" has a weekend of MSM evening news coverage (relative to distribution, not spin)
Saying without implications, this could get embarrassing for some.
GAYes.
It should be more than embarrassment, though.Years ago, when am about to go to university, I read a story where it was corrupted with sources. Instead of the various reads reflecting the original authority, a sort of distorted truth was churned out from the first that source the originality. The writer of the mind expository book comment that one go to the original and make out stuff there. And I've been doing that for years. Critically, by questioning some biased posts and comments in this and the other forum threads, I've been lead to open the original well(s). My good I want to stand out.
“It’s remarkable how weak ratings make good journalists do bad things,” the filing quotes Fox Washington news executive Bill Sammon as saying.
Their fundamental document is a redacted copy of Dominion's court filing. I read must of it the other day - very damning. I can't see anyway they won't win.
Frankly, I think Dominion should sue each one of those Fox "personalities" who lied on the air.I can't see personally how Dominion could win the case they have put forth.
The Press is the arbiter of freedom of speech and reports merely rely on inherently newsworthy claims. Yes, defamatory statements can often involve hyperbolic characterizations or mere opinions of the person reporting a given story. It is up to the person reporting the story to add
a caveat, a cautioning word to make it clear the report has not been verified but is alleged.
Fox hosts are very good at their jobs, and if one listens will note well-placed context to cover themselves.
Dominion might get lucky, and Fox may lay some cash-out and settle the case. But, in my view, Dominion would lose in a court of law.Legally, I don't know if Dominion has a winning case, but in our world of perceptions, I think Fox looks guilty as charged.
They may be able to hide behind 'wording' and 'disclaimer' excuses to beat the case in a court of law, but I think they have damaged their brand in the court of public opinion. At least in the minds of non-Trump supporters.
GAI am relying on one of the things Dominion must establish to win - that Fox knew what they were publishing was false. Just the handful of emails and texts that Dominion presented in their brief (there apparently there were many more) would, I think, establish that in the mind of any reasonable juror.
The rest is much more of a given: 1) that Dominion a monetary or reputational loss due to the false reporting and 2) that the reporting was false, whether Fox knew it or not. I think that makes up the three elements of proof for defemation.Have you read the emails and texts? I agree they certainly show that hosts did not believe the allegations they were being told to report by mind, you producers. This in itself shows me that the host's characters are poor, and they had little fortitude to stand up to the bigwigs. This was unethical and I would assume many have lost faith in Fox's reporting.
The higher up's seem to be standing behind the story was newsworthy due to it coming from the president of the United States and his associates. And claiming they don't pick and choose news due to bias. They report it with disclaimers.
In my view, this is also unethical, but I think most media take this license and make a claim it is freedom of the press.
I feel and hope Fox will be made to pay retribution, I would hope they would lose the case in court.
However, I think they covered themselves well. They certainly in my view will lose viewers and possibly ratings for this cheap ploy as CNN did with Russiagate."Have you read the emails and texts? " - [i]Yes,. In fact, I have read the entire redacted filing. I would question your assumption that people like Carlson, Hannity, Bartolomeo, etc are being forced to lie by higher ups. They lie so much to their unsuspecting viewers that it would not appear to be involuntary.
I don't think that so long as Fox viewers do not watch mainstream media, they will never lose faith in Fox because they won't know what Fox has done.
If your second paragraph is actually true, and they were hoodwinked by Trump and his associates, then I am not sure I would find them unethical. But, because what they reported was so far in outer space, they "should" have known something wasn't right and factchecked it. By not doing so and reporting what they found (as the one reporter Carlson wanted fired did) then you are right, they were highly unethical.
Your fourth paragraph is speaking my language.
I would argue that CNN lost viewers "because" of reporting on the Trump campaigns involvement with Russian actors and sympathizers. I think you will find that ALL cable news outlets lost a ton of viewers during that time period.
I cannot find where viewership for Cable and Network news are combined in the same survey - I had to look at two. It turns out that the worst of the network news (CBS) has more viewers than all the cables combined!!! In that metric, neither Fox nor CNN have anything to crow about. Most people get their news from either ABC, NBC, or CBS, in that order.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/markjoyell … 4792555f59
https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/here-ar … 22/514702/
It is so very clear that is what Fox thinks of their viewers - gullible and blind to the TRUTH.
If reasonable people have considered at the very least adding additional sources (or more than one) when they watch news broadcasting - this is certainly motivation to do so.
I am writing a letter to our local editor suggesting exactly that to all the Trumplicans in my county.
I guess it depends on who someone considers "good journalists".
A good journalist, if not independent is always a vulgar fellow!
An interesting odyssey of a box of records that ended up having some classified documents in it. This is about the box Trump lawyers found in Trump's private office which the FBI previously searched. It was apparently put there after the FBI left.
Even though the Special Prosecutor is digging into to how that could have happened., having read the narrative I don't detect anything beyond carelessness with this episode. Regarding the classified documents, it boils down to whether the documents were obviously classified or, as the lawyers' claim, almost impossible to tell. A separate issue is why wasn't this box turned over to the NARA along with the original 15?
https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/24/politics … index.htmlSo they trying a mischief or to turn the table against Trump?
As every single poll that has come out has had the majority of the GOP agreeing that the 2020 election was rigged as late as November of 2022, and that somehow by ignoring the historical consistency of those polls from the end of 2020 until the end of 2022 can lead to a declaration that no proof exists is pretty ridiculous.
The point being, that it is really simple using a google search to list many polls to back his claim. At this point in time, it's a generally accepted fact for anyone who has the capability to run a search about the topic. He has asked for one to contradict it, just one, and that cannot be achieved apparently.
But it's no wonder when so many of the party leaders were openly lying to their supporters:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmEYFwdQOfU&t=308s
The thing that made me come out of retirement was the clearly trolling comment that the Democratic Party is the one so willing to be the gullible rubes in this country.Out of retirement or returning from exile?
Either way, it was a pleasant surprise to see you.Both, my exile ended months ago but this forum has turned into Parler, jr. with one user spamming the site with every far-right story that triggers their gullible little heart. Let alone moderators who name it bickering when you easily disprove misinformation.
I used to publish around 14 Hubs a year, but have concluded that a site that is so full of misinformation does not deserve to benefit from any future work that I wish to create.So, you're giving up? I agree with your assessment, but that simply means a change of method is required. Somebody still has to fart in the choir room once in a while. The new (relatively) moderation 'rules' just means they have to be 'sneakers'.
Now, adjust, adapt, and get back in there. ;-)
GA'fart in the choir room once? An habit or a character?
Get back in there to what end?
Not sure how many times those of us living in actual reality can explain to those that wish to believe things as dumb as Biden orchestrated a massive election coverup from his basement with the help of multiple Republican Secretaries of State to steal the 2020 election. It became quite clear that no amount of conversation would prevent some, heck - many, here from believing that fabrication.
Let alone the fabrication that all the country's many issues were caused by Biden, despite the country being in the middle of a recovery from a once-in-a-generation pandemic. The delusions being spewed here, from those being programmed to hate by their media, were not something they wished to be saved from. Just go to any thread recently. It's mostly people posting their circular logic to each other in confirmation of a thought that blames the other party and excuses any culpability for contributory policies of the party that represents them.
It used to be comical to mock each other for everyone wearing rose-colored glasses. Then the rose-colored glasses view led to an attack on the nation's Capitol and it stopped being funny. And the alternate reality that people chose to live within led to an attempted coup against a legitimately elected government. All that disinformation became dangerous. It went beyond skewed versions of the news to the attempt to have millions believe complete fabrications that were in no way the truth.
And it became very clear that many on this site readily choose to live within that alternate reality. Even when they can now see that their main media source openly lied to them about the legitimacy of our Democracy. That the Secretary of State in Arizona buried results of an investigation that proved that the Big Lie was just that.
In a way, leaving this site was the change of method. Instead of trying to save the unsavable and listen to their distorted views and pre-programmed anger, I went to other platforms that has more of a mix of issues and not just Fox News reposts.
I'm just starting to appreciate Sarah Silverman's political comedy, and this segment should be mandatory viewing for everyone on the right. I especially like the part where all the Fox News anchors tell all their viewers exactly how they need to feel after listening to their opinions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAxlXz1Hrr8Well, if your reason for participating was to correct misbeliefs or change someone's mind I can understand your frustration. I think there was a study that found that no one has changed anyone's mind on the internet since 1994. It also found that those who try generally take themselves too damn seriously.
The Silverman clip was spot on.
GAExtremely well put, Valeant, and understandable and OH SO TRUE!!!!
English is a very fundamental subject. And dynamic in its entity.
New revelations about Fox News' part in Trump's attempted coup:
* “Yes. They endorsed,” Murdoch said, according to the filing, when asked about the hosts’ promotion of false claims about the election. - Speaking about his big money making entertainers.
* “I would have liked us to be stronger in denouncing it, in hindsight,” the media mogul added at another point in the deposition. - I seriously doubt that since it would have cost him money.
* " In the wake of the election, Murdoch wrote in an email to the New York Post’s Col Allan, describing election lies that Trump was pushing as “bulls**t and damaging.” - Most think he means "damaging" to Fox
* "Murdoch said it was “wrong” for Tucker Carlson to host conspiracy theorist Mike Lindell after the election. When asked why he continued to allow the MyPillow CEO to continue appearing on Fox News, Murdoch signaled it was a business decision. “It is not red or blue, it is green,”
* "[Paul] Ryan told the Murdochs that many of those who thought the election had been stolen did so “because they got a diet of information telling them the election was stolen from what they believe were credible sources.” - We can see that here on this forum.
* "Murdoch responded to one email from Ryan by telling him that Sean Hannity had “been privately disgusted by Trump for weeks, but was scared to lose viewers.” - This TRUTH always loses out at Fox.
* "When Shepard Smith attacked the “Trump administration’s ‘lies’” on air, Rupert emailed Scott and Fox News president Jay Wallace calling it “Over the top!” and telling them, “Need to chat to him.” In another instance, Lachlan Murdoch told Scott that then-correspondent Leland Vittert was “smug and obnoxious” when reporting from a Nov. 14 pro-Trump rally. Murdoch said the tone should be a “celebration of the president.”
https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/28/media/do … index.htmlSounds like a lot of passing the buck. Murdoch could have pulled the plug from day one. Wonder what the hosts he is blaming will have to say about his testimony?
As I said the big wig's could have pulled the plug. They did not, they were looking for ratings and cash. IMOFor once, we agree. We also know what the the hosts he is blaming were saying, their emails and texts were in a filing last week. Not one of them believed what they were saying on air. They knew they were lying.
This is why I think separate suits should be brought against each.
I wrote a letter to our local editor in my ruby red county. My bottom line was that I hoped, after reading what I wrote, that at least some of the die-hard Trumpers (I didn't call them that) would at least watch some mainstream news while digesting the Fox lies.I hope to get a link as a follow up to the story. Thanks.
From the top down this was unethical, and dirt play. The top dogs as well as the hosts could have pulled that plug. They are all responsible.
I did not see anything wrong with initial reports about election fraud, but this subject dragged on for months. They are saying they had a right to report all the allegations. Legally they may have, but IMO, it was uncalled for to push the reports out 24/7 for a very long time.I suspect that if they had not libeled/slandered anyone and simply lied to their viewers, that would be legal - because they are cable. I think they could have their license revoked if they had been a broadcast network because those entities have an obligation to tell the truth while I don't think cable has a similar obligation.
Further, unlike other networks, cable or otherwise, the hosts/journalists are held to a high standard. Violate it, and you get disciplined as CNN has done several times (if fact you have reported that a couple of times).
For Fox, Newsmax, Daily Caller, I wouldn't be surprised the lying hosts don't get a raise.
More good analysis regarding the Fox News Lie Machine.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/01/politics … index.htmlIt's CNN reporting! I would rather think the BBC would be much cleaner. When cnn report on the Nigerian 2023 presidential election, it was not clean.
In the post above, and a few others I have read on the topic, there seems to be a very concise effort to omit that the Fox Hosts not only reported on the allegations, but condoned and promoted them. Lou Dobbs, Maria Bartiromo, Jeanine Pirro and Sean Hannity were especially noted to have done this and confirmed by Murdoch under testimony.
The thought that it's in any way acceptable by Fox to knowingly defame a corporation and undermine democracy for partisan purposes and profit is not surprising though.I would add colluded and maybe conspired as well.
As a person from a country with a rich cultural tradition of coups, yes, it was indeed a coup d'etat, although I might cringe at the non-military aspect of this coup (A coup in plain clothing? What's wrong with you people, don't you appreciate the cinematography of tanks riding in front of government building?)
It still, nonetheless gets our coup stamp of approval™️.
Although Bolsonaro's less consequence-free imitation of Trump's coup attempt shows that this recent fad in far-right politics might be getting a bit stale, what this says for future coup enthusiasts is yet to be seen.
Related Discussions
- 89
Paul Manafort Indictment Not For Collusion
by ga anderson 6 years ago
This should be a hot one. The much anticipated Special Counsel's first indictments have been unsealed - and they aren't about Pres. Trump and Russian election collusion, (yet???)But like a lyric from a song; 'whoo eee, whoo eee babyyy...' It sure paints an ugly picture. And one that seems to be a...
- 24
Bombshell Durham Report. Hillary paid to spy on Trump Campaign
by Readmikenow 10 months ago
Some journalists, Republican lawmakers, and other notable public figures responded to an explosive report from over the weekend involving Special Counsel John Durham’s investigation into the FBI’s Trump-Russia probe by saying that the Trump White House was spied on.Durham said in the court filing...
- 43
Is THIS One of the Examples of Trump Obstruction of Justice"?
by Scott Belford 20 months ago
There can be know doubt that the Trump Jr. meeting with various Russians connected with Putin was collusion. It is not important that the those on the Russian side ended up only talking about influencing Donald Trump to end a set of 2012 sanctions against Russia. What is important is that...
- 246
President Obama and his administration spied on President elect Trump?
by Jack Lee 6 years ago
This is a shocking relvelation, if true, undermines our whole democratic process...Why is this not headline news?
- 19
Manafort to Cooperate with Mueller
by J Conn 5 years ago
If he's going to cooperate, that would assume that there's something of value to the investigation in there. Should be interesting to see what he shares.
- 16
The Trump Dossier revisited.
by Randy Godwin 6 years ago
Today Sen. Diane Feinstein released the transcripts of the Richard Steele interview against the wishes of Republican committee members. Steel was worried about Trump being possibly blackmailed if he became POTUS and contacted the FBI as he should have. This was before the election and before the...