Did Trumps lawyer really just argue in court that Trump could murder someone and not be charged?

Perhaps that’s true of a capital crime, but no one is likely to be elected President in the first place with such suspicions hanging over their head. Secondly, this may explain why Democrats still consider Biden to be a viable candidate for the Presidency, even though suspicions are mounting that he used his position as VP to pad his son’s bank account, let alone demand his protection from prosecution by withholding aid to Ukraine.

I won’t blindly defend the Clinton’s, I’m not naive enough to think that they never did anything wrong, what I will cast doubt on is that they are as corrupt as most on the right have been lead to believe. I think if they were as corrupt as some on the right allege, more people would have come forward. There would have been documents uncovered etc.

Take for example all the emails that Clinton deleted. Do I think she should have done that. NO, I think it was incredibly stupid on her part. I think hosting a private server, whether or not it was allowed or illegal, was stupid and the optics were terrible.

She should have negotiated a trusted 3rd party to review all of her private email and turned over to the State department relevant emails. That said, I work in IT, I can tell you that when you send an email, it does not just exist on your system. (I’m a data storage engineer, this is what I do)… When you send an email, it exists on your system and the systems of the people that receive that email (and if it’s forwarded even more systems). It is often backed up to system that, even if you delete the data, there are still records of who, what, where and when an email was sent and received. Physical tapes often exist with this data.

The thousands and thousands of emails that were deleted, if they were nefarious in nature, it would have been uncovered by now by anyone willing to dig deep enough.

Yeah, I’m more of a results-oriented guy. That said, what do you think about changing the voting system from what we have now, known as “first past the post” to something like “instant runoff” voting?

As usual I’ll be the first to concede that Hunter Biden sitting on the board of a Ukrainian gas company was at best poor optics, at worst opens suspicions of favoritism ect…

That said, it’s hard to listen to this objection come from anyone who supports Trump formally or informally allowing his children, in-laws and the sycophantic suck-ups and those that made big donations that are all around him to positions of influence and power.

Then there’s stuff like this…

I’ve head this, but everything I’ve seen says this is just a right-wing talking point with zero evidence.

If you voted for Hillary Clinton, you are a sheep. She was the worst major party presidential candidate since the 19th century. If you look at the two who might have been worse that her, you might have to combine the worst parts of them to equal her.

Poor old Horace Greeley was mentally unstable. He ran as a Democrat and a Liberal Republican in 1872 against U.S. Grant. About three weeks after the election, his mind totally snapped, and he was admitted to mental institution where he soon died.

James G. Blain openly took money from the railroad industry. He got hung up twice when a man named James Mulligan produced letters that showed that Blain had taken pay-offs from the railroad industry. He probably lost the Republican presidential nomination over it 1880 and it hurt him again in 1884. That was election when Grover Cleveland owned up to fathering a child out of wedlock.

Hillary had both problems. She is constantly involved in shady deals to increase her wealth. Her recent statements that virtually anyone who opposes her bid for the presidency is a Russian agent would make one question her sanity or at least her honesty.

I did not vote for Trump in the primary. I voted for Ted Cruz because I did not trust Trump. I voted in the Florida Republican Primary, and by then there were only three candidates left, Trump, Cruz and sorehead, John Kasich. who is a “never Trump Republican.”

If I had been you, I would have voted for Jill Stein or some other extreme leftist rather than voting for Hillary. She are Bill are greedy and toxic. I hope that they are done with running for public office.

She deleted them because she would have been caught red handed. She is a lawyer. She is not stupid.

Why do you think that Goldman Saks paid her half a million dollars plus travel expenses to speak them? Do you find her to be a great speaker? If you do, you are in the minority. I won’t go to listen to her if you paid me.

I looked at the gross revenue that a road company of a Broadway show takes in for night’s performance. Even at a huge venue, they don’t collect any more than Hillary gets for one of her speeches. They have costumes, sets, an orchestra, theater costs and royalty rights to pay. Hillary has a pant suit, hairdresser and probably a speech writer to pay.

Do you think that paying her that kind of money is the up and up? I don’t.

She did a pretty good job of covering her tracks, she smashed the hard drives, which what my computer guy does to our old machines and she used Bleach Bit on the memory. She smashed the cell phones and anthing else that had evidence on it. She had time to do it because she had Comey and other people in the Justice and Home Land Security Departments. running cover for her. Comey had decided that she was innocent before he began his sham investigation.

She had Jim Comey, director of the FBI, running interference for her. Now that he’s gone and an investigation has been opened, all of the story might come to light. Give it time.

Few people will recall this, but when Hillary got the Democrat nomination, the IRS came in and made her foundation fort over a big chuck of money because it had been used for her personal purposes. It counted as taxable income. No one made anything over it, but she would have paid so quickly if the whole business had been on the up and up.

maybe no one comes out to spill the info on the Clintons cause they know they’ll wake up dead in the morning…like the rest of the ‘whistle blowers’ did.

Doing what? Does deleting emails mean she committed a crime? I mean, I’m open to the idea you might be right, but accusations and innuendo do not count as evidence, god knows if they did Trump would be spending the rest of what’s left of his life looking though bars.

I don’t know, sounds pretty fishy to me. Have any actual evidence, or just playing on the bad optics? Because again, I have said here many times, I dislike the money being passed around like this. I’ve worked in sales for some of the nations biggest companies where salespeople are strictly forbidden to accept or give gifts as part of contracts in private or in government, but all you need to do to get around most of that is hire a person as a “consultant” and pay them for doing nothing, sort of like delivering a speech.

Do you want to support removing money like this from politics? I’ll stand right with you. I think it’s a disgrace and the right and left should demand better from those that serve us in our government.

Obama was 1000 times better speaker than any modern President, save perhaps (arguably) Reagan.

Have you been ASLEEP for the past 6 months, CSB. There is VIDEO TAPE of Biden BRAGGING about getting the prosecutor who was investigating Hunter Biden’s company for corruption fired by telling the then-President of Ukraine that if he didn’t immediately fire the guy, “Then you don’t get the billion dollars. I’ve got another what, 6 hours, before I leave. Son-of-a-bitch, the guy got fired before I left.”

1 Like

Yes, Biden was caught on tape saying that, but it does not matter to the Democrats. Their anger and impeachment stuff only goes in one direction. Biden’s excuse for his son was that he said to him, “I hope you know what you are doing,” and left it at that. Maybe he did, but the people who paid him all that money didn’t do it get his expertise in energy or investment banking because he freely admits that he little of that.

I don’t think that it’s going to matter because Biden is going to get knocked out in the primaries. The kids want a socialist, and the old hippies, who are my age, are pleased that the party has become what they wanted it to be in their youth. The primary and caucus voters more motivated that the general population. That’s why the Democrat vote is skewed further to left than it will be in the general election.

I don’t know if it will be Sanders or Warren. Warren might have the edge because she looks younger and doesn’t act like your angry socialist grandpa at thanksgiving dinner. She also comes from Harvard, which means she must be “brilliant.” “Everyone” knows that all the great thinkers have darkened its halls at one time or another.

The question is how much will the drip, drip, drip of fake news from the Schiff committee will affect Trump’s re-election chances. That’s what the Schiff farce is about and why it’s so secretive. The leaks are in one direction, bad for Trump, and intended to increase his negatives.

There is also a bogus, cooked the books Fox News poll that says 51% of the voters want Trump impeached. The thing was made of 48% Democrats in the sample which is good 15 points higher than their edge in voter registration. Whoever made that pool and created that sample space was looking for a result before they began the process. It sounds like some NBC or CNN would do.

Biden was discussing his efforts on behalf of the Obama administration to pressure Ukraine into to prosecuting corruption and firing Viktor Shokin, an ineffective prosecutor. That effort by Biden has been used by Trump supporters to argue, inaccurately, that Biden single-handedly had Shokin fired because Shokin was investigating Burisma, a Ukrainian group of energy exploration and production companies of which Biden’s son Hunter was a board member.

However, Shokin was not fired for investigating Burisma, but for his failure to pursue corruption investigationsincluding investigations connected to Burisma. And Biden wasn’t alone in the effort to push Shokin out, but rather was spearheading the Obama administration’s policy, which represented a consensus among diplomats, officials from various European countries, and the International Monetary Fund that Shokin was an impediment to rooting out corruption in his country, according to Bloomberg:

Shokin became prosecutor general in February 2015. Over the next year, the U.S. and the International Monetary Fund criticized officials for not doing enough to fight corruption in Ukraine …

The U.S. plan to push for Shokin’s dismissal didn’t initially come from Biden, but rather filtered up from officials at the U.S. Embassy in Kiev, according to a person with direct knowledge of the situation. Embassy personnel had called for U.S. loan guarantees to Ukraine to be tied to broader anti-corruption efforts, including Shokin’s dismissal, this person said.

Biden’s threat to withhold $1 billion [in U.S. loan guarantees] if Ukraine didn’t crack down on corruption reportedly came in March [2016]. That same month, hundreds of Ukrainians demonstrated outside President Petro Poroshenko’s office demanding Shokin’s resignation, and he was dismissed.

BS, of course. You can try to cover for Biden all you like, but the FACT is that Shokin WAS investigating Burisma and, by implication, Hunter Biden, who was paid millions just for adding his name to their letterhead and providing Burisma access to the American VP, who was the “point man” in the Obama Administration for all things involving Ukraine. The investigation of Burisma ENDED with Shokin’s dismissal. Coincidence? I seriously DOUBT it.

1 Like

1 I don’t doubt that some of what’s been going around in regard to the Clintons is claptrap, but there’s more than a little fire to go with all the smoke. Including at least some of the dead bodies.
2 They’re slick at covering the tracks they can’t buy or blackmail off.
3 It wasn’t stupid if she intended to hide nefarious activities with it and she knew how to manipulate the situation to keep from going to jail, which thus far, she has. Stupid she is not. She’s a cold, calculating, unscrupulous, and all too successful manipulator.

4 Not if she’s guilty of assorted felonies of which the e-mails provide evidence (and remember, this is Hillary Shred-The-Whitewater-Documents Clinton we’re talking about).
5 If she has a private e-mail server, there’s no provider to have an outside record of what’s on her accout.
6 As to the accounts she sent them to, I imagine she was quite careful about who, and whose provider they were sent to. For that matter, do we know that those with whom she communicated with that server didn’t have their own e-mail accounts on it?

1 Like

The context clearly refers to “local authorities” since it is a “local authority” that is demanding Trump be deprived of his Right to privacy regarding his tax returns; nobody argued that NO jurisdiction could investigate, indict or prosecute a sitting President for any crime.

Nothing to see here as usual.

It came out on Lou Dobbs show last night that one MONTH before the Biden incident demanding the firing of Shokin, Shokin’s office raided the home of the CEO of Burisma and seized his property and records, which kind of knocks into a cocked hat your claim that Shokin was fired because he was “dragging his feet” in the Burisma investigation. Reporter John Solomon, through FOIA, has obtained the RECORDS of both that raid AND a letter sent by the Obama State Department in coordination with our Ambassador at that time, DEMANDING that the investigation into Burisma stop immediately.

1 Like

omgosh…shokin was not the corrupt one…and right now…being in this spotlight…he is in a degree of hiding in fear for his life. Biden is lying again and if you remember…lying is what has dogged him his entire career when he’s attempted a run for the presidency.

1 Like

Are you under the impression that communicating State business without utilizing the States network which is a check for corruption is legal?

Do you think that a Secretary of State can never once use her official Email and instead utilize a personal server in her bathroom is not a clear violation of the Law?

Are you suggesting that the classified information that we did find had been trafficked on her illegal server does not constitute a felony?

1 Like

Honestly, I don’t know the letter of the law, but I do know that you’d have to show criminal intent.

Again, I’m not aware of a law that prevented what she did. I think it was incredibly stupid and I think it should be against the law, but again, was she ignorant of the law or was she doing it with corrupt intent?

That’s what matters and I know of not a single credible allegation that she attempted to evade the law with the emails she sent or deleted.

I worked in IT in the government. I can only say I worked at a Naval Base as a civilian contractor and was as, part of my duties, required to scrub unclassified info from civilian networks. I, with the help of MP’s on several occasions, instructed military and civilian personal to hand over their computers because they had sent or received classified information on unclassified equipment. Rarely if ever were the people responsible charged with felonies. Some were warned, others reprimanded and in one case and officer was demoted. but no one was ever charged with a crime.

Why? Because intent matters. If in Clinton’s case it’s learned that her deletion of the email was to facilitate some other crime to server herself or worse, the interests of an enemy, then yes, I think she should be charged with a felony.

The mere FACT that she deleted 33,000 of her e-mails is, in and of itself, a CRIME. Those e-mails were, at that time, under Congressional SUBPOENA, and she’d been SERVED with it so she KNEW what she did was criminal. There’s your “intent.” If you or I did what she did, we’d STILL be in Leavenworth making gravel out of big rocks.

3 Likes

Hillary is a lawyer, and she was a United States Senator from 2001 to 2009. After that she was secretary of states for years. Are you telling me she didn’t know the law? Please.

1 Like

That is absolutely not true, every part of what Hillary did was explicitly forbidden by law and there is no “intent clause”; in fact it specifically states that negligence is no less of a crime.

3 Likes