The Law and Order President Pardons All His Criminal Friends

[Doc]

11 hours ago, Warcodered said:

No the one where he attempted to use the Department of Justice as a shield.

 

Yeah, same case.  She killed it with all the talking she did over the years, especially that disastrous Anderson Cooper interview.

[SoTier]

On 12/24/2020 at 3:17 PM, ALF said:

FBI team leader: How I know the Blackwater defendants didn't deserve a pardon from Trump

 

https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/24/opinions/blackwater-defendants-pardon-trump-opinion-oconnor/index.html

 

pardons for murders , what a president

 

They're not just murderers.  They're war criminals.  

 

On 12/24/2020 at 3:26 PM, Buftex said:

These are particularly odious...60 of the 65 pardons the Trump has issued involve people directly involved with Trump and his criminal enterprise.  

 

I wonder when he sneaks the Ghislaine Maxwell pardon in...

 

Plus 4 war criminals.   None of these pardons were routed through DOJ protocols for granting pardons;

 

 

On 12/24/2020 at 3:54 PM, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Compelling stuff Buf.  Edge of the seat observation.  I hadn't thought of a presidential pardon as political in any way/shape/form in the past.  This is the first time ever, and of course goes along with @transplantbillsfan and @Bob in Mich theory that no president has ever lied about anything ever.  It's pretty shocking. 

 

Of course you're right --all  the pardons that went before were those issued out of the goodness of presidential hearts to right wrongs and set the wrongly accused free.  

 

I am curious though--How would he "sneak" the Maxwell pardon in?  Are you suggesting that there are secret pardons beyond the 65 that cause you such olfactory distress? 

 

Keep lying to yourself, leh-nerd, and defending the indefensible.  No previous POTUS has so blatantly abused the pardon power by issuing wholesale pardons for his political cronies and war criminals, all without following long-standing DOJ protocols.

 

Edited December 25, 2020 by SoTier

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

4 hours ago, SoTier said:

 

Keep lying to yourself, leh-nerd, and defending the indefensible.  No previous POTUS has so blatantly abused the pardon power by issuing wholesale pardons for his political cronies and war criminals, all without following long-standing DOJ protocols.

 

See, the silliness of your logic starts with “No previous POTUS...”.  You’re myopic to a fault, sir.  Change the seat, change the pardoned individual and someone else just like you is saying exactly the same thing.  
 

From there, you supersize the silly with “has so blatantly abused the pardon power...”.  If you’re making the point that what he is doing is illegal, make that point.  The fact is simple:  he exercised the presidential pardon power, the fact that it torques your walnuts doesn’t make it an abuse of anything.  
 

As for the pardoning of his political allies, man, I’m personally hard-pressed to do anything but applaud him for his decision there.  No need to revisit the Russia inv, but from my perspective it’s pretty simple—those folks got caught up in a political $hyt show the likes of which we’ve never seen before.  Pardon all, pardon often.  It’s the way it works in politics so why fret over it?
 

 

 

[Buftex]

2 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

See, the silliness of your logic starts with “No previous POTUS...”.  You’re myopic to a fault, sir.  Change the seat, change the pardoned individual and someone else just like you is saying exactly the same thing.  
 

From there, you supersize the silly with “has so blatantly abused the pardon power...”.  If you’re making the point that what he is doing is illegal, make that point.  The fact is simple:  he exercised the presidential pardon power, the fact that it torques your walnuts doesn’t make it an abuse of anything.  
 

As for the pardoning of his political allies, man, I’m personally hard-pressed to do anything but applaud him for his decision there.  No need to revisit the Russia inv, but from my perspective it’s pretty simple—those folks got caught up in a political $hyt show the likes of which we’ve never seen before.  Pardon all, pardon often.  It’s the way it works in politics so why fret over it?
 

 

 

Sorry Mr skin-herd, you are the one who is being "silly".  So much of presidentail conduct has depended on the rule of law, and a certain presumption that somebody holding the position would presumably "never do that".  What we have seen over the last four years, it is not safe to just presume that anyone holding the office would automatically have the best interest of the country in mind. 

 

There are certain norms that while not laws, were expectations for adults holding the position.  It is clear from this current administrtation that everything needs to be defined in black and white legal terms, because a piece of ***** like Donald Trump, who has a hmongous cult following, have made it clear, they care little for laws, and even less for " norms".  Some of us really don't want to see the bar lowered anymore than it has been.  It may be the "way it works" but that doesn't mean it should.  

 

[Backintheday544]

On 12/24/2020 at 10:47 PM, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Talk to me G money.  What’s a rape lawsuit?  
 

Please be specific on the case your talking about—time date place and litigants.  

E. Jean Carroll’s defamation lawsuit that revolves around Trump raping her in a department store.

 

In 2021 he will need to be deposed and provide DNA to compare to the sperm sample he left on her dress after raping her. Read more here:

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-23/trump-could-finally-testify-under-oath-in-lawsuit-filled-2021

Edited December 26, 2020 by Backintheday544

[SoTier]

9 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

See, the silliness of your logic starts with “No previous POTUS...”.  You’re myopic to a fault, sir.  Change the seat, change the pardoned individual and someone else just like you is saying exactly the same thing.  
 

From there, you supersize the silly with “has so blatantly abused the pardon power...”.  If you’re making the point that what he is doing is illegal, make that point.  The fact is simple:  he exercised the presidential pardon power, the fact that it torques your walnuts doesn’t make it an abuse of anything.  
 

As for the pardoning of his political allies, man, I’m personally hard-pressed to do anything but applaud him for his decision there.  No need to revisit the Russia inv, but from my perspective it’s pretty simple—those folks got caught up in a political $hyt show the likes of which we’ve never seen before.  Pardon all, pardon often.  It’s the way it works in politics so why fret over it?
 

 

 

 

You can't deny that what I wrote is true, so you spout self-serving bull manure.   Par for the course.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

7 hours ago, Buftex said:

Sorry Mr skin-herd, you are the one who is being "silly".  So much of presidentail conduct has depended on the rule of law, and a certain presumption that somebody holding the position would presumably "never do that".  What we have seen over the last four years, it is not safe to just presume that anyone holding the office would automatically have the best interest of the country in mind. 

 

There are certain norms that while not laws, were expectations for adults holding the position.  It is clear from this current administrtation that everything needs to be defined in black and white legal terms, because a piece of ***** like Donald Trump, who has a hmongous cult following, have made it clear, they care little for laws, and even less for " norms".  Some of us really don't want to see the bar lowered anymore than it has been.  It may be the "way it works" but that doesn't mean it should.  

 

Don’t apologize to me, it’s a waste of time for both of us. The last four or five years of dem ‘leadership’ reflects neither ‘norms’ nor anything close to ‘the rule of law’.  Russia and accusations of treason isn’t  anything new, Joe McCarthy ran the same game not all that long ago.  The difference today is that the status quo folks like you seem willing, and more problematic, eager to stand in line behind the accusers without a second thought.  You’re easily manipulated because you’ve been conditioned to think like a victim. 
 

The larger problem is that it works, and as a result, the game continues to be played as such, albeit more aggressively each cycle.  You asked for it, so buckle up. 

 

 

2 hours ago, Backintheday544 said:

E. Jean Carroll’s defamation lawsuit that revolves around Trump raping her in a department store.

 

In 2021 he will need to be deposed and provide DNA to compare to the sperm sample he left on her dress after raping her. Read more here:

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-23/trump-could-finally-testify-under-oath-in-lawsuit-filled-2021

Thanks.  When did he allegedly rape her?  

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

4 minutes ago, SoTier said:

 

You can't deny that what I wrote is true, so you spout self-serving bull manure.   Par for the course.

Well, if acknowledging the legality of a president to issue pardons is tripping you up, someone is probably to blame someone for your inability to apply reason to everyday events.  It isn’t me. 

[Backintheday544]

58 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Don’t apologize to me, it’s a waste of time for both of us. The last four or five years of dem ‘leadership’ reflects neither ‘norms’ nor anything close to ‘the rule of law’.  Russia and accusations of treason isn’t  anything new, Joe McCarthy ran the same game not all that long ago.  The difference today is that the status quo folks like you seem willing, and more problematic, eager to stand in line behind the accusers without a second thought.  You’re easily manipulated because you’ve been conditioned to think like a victim. 
 

The larger problem is that it works, and as a result, the game continues to be played as such, albeit more aggressively each cycle.  You asked for it, so buckle up. 

 

 

Thanks.  When did he allegedly rape her?  

does it matter? Or are you only against rape if it happened after a certain date?

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

40 minutes ago, Backintheday544 said:

does it matter? Or are you only against rape if it happened after a certain date?

Settle down Skippy.  You’re confusing two separate issues.  
 

The allegation has been made that DJT is the defendant in a “rape lawsuit”.  I haven’t read anything that suggests that is accurate.  What I have read is that the plaintiff in a civil matter is seeking damages for defamation of character.  I didn’t take the time to try and find the original S&C, but if you have it send me a linky dinky do. 
 

So, yes, I am interested in gaining understanding as to what you and yours are alleging specifically with regard to this case.  If you allegation is that DJT sexually assaulted this woman, and that DJT is under criminal investigation/has been arrested for same, stop $&$#ing around with this dipshittery and get it on the table.  
 

I will say that when I asked @Warcodered for details to substantiate his statement about a “rape lawsuit” he didn’t respond.  My assumption is that in spite of his biases, he comprehends what he reads. 

 

 

[Backintheday544]

1 hour ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Settle down Skippy.  You’re confusing two separate issues.  
 

The allegation has been made that DJT is the defendant in a “rape lawsuit”.  I haven’t read anything that suggests that is accurate.  What I have read is that the plaintiff in a civil matter is seeking damages for defamation of character.  I didn’t take the time to try and find the original S&C, but if you have it send me a linky dinky do. 
 

So, yes, I am interested in gaining understanding as to what you and yours are alleging specifically with regard to this case.  If you allegation is that DJT sexually assaulted this woman, and that DJT is under criminal investigation/has been arrested for same, stop $&$#ing around with this dipshittery and get it on the table.  
 

I will say that when I asked @Warcodered for details to substantiate his statement about a “rape lawsuit” he didn’t respond.  My assumption is that in spite of his biases, he comprehends what he reads. 

 

 

Now, now Skippy. You asked when the rape was and ignored the question of does when a rape occur change your opinion of the rape?

 

This is a civil defamation suit. The claim is Trump lied when 1) he said he never met her (this is proven false already) and 2) that he never raped her.

 

With 1 proven true, Carrol is trying to prove 2. She has evidence of a dress with seminal fluid on it. Trump is now being required by the courts to produce a DNA sample to help confirm Carrols story.

 

so while it is not a criminal rape case, the question of did Trump rape Carrol is the relevant question.

 

If the DNA sample does show its Trumps DNA fluid are you going to fall back on this it was too long ago to count argument or would you rather hold a rapist accountable?

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

5 hours ago, Backintheday544 said:

Now, now Skippy. You asked when the rape was and ignored the question of does when a rape occur change your opinion of the rape?

 

This is a civil defamation suit. The claim is Trump lied when 1) he said he never met her (this is proven false already) and 2) that he never raped her.

 

With 1 proven true, Carrol is trying to prove 2. She has evidence of a dress with seminal fluid on it. Trump is now being required by the courts to produce a DNA sample to help confirm Carrols story.

 

so while it is not a criminal rape case, the question of did Trump rape Carrol is the relevant question.

 

If the DNA sample does show its Trumps DNA fluid are you going to fall back on this it was too long ago to count argument or would you rather hold a rapist accountable?

I ignored your question because it was a dumb question, Chief.  It was accusatory by design, and thus gets moved to the trash can immediately. 

 

Based on your second paragraph, I’m assuming you’ve seen the complaint detailing the two counts you’ve outlined.  I have not but will assume you’re on it. 

 

As for you final question, there is nothing for me “to fall back on”.  I’m not being sued, I’m not suing anyone, and have no idea what did or did not happen in a dressing room or anywhere else in what appears to be a roughly 25 month period 25 or 30 years ago. 
 

Generally speaking, in a civil case, I defer to common sense and a standard that can be best be summed up as “is it reasonable?”.    It’s common knowledge that the success or failure of a civil lawsuit often hinges on who makes the best witness, which side tells the best story, the makeup of the jury and the venue in which the case is heard.  When you factor in the exorbitant sums of money involved, it’s often difficult to determine who the actual victim is. 
 

So, assuming DJTs DNA is present on the dress, there are a few different scenarios that come to mind.  Consensual sex.  Non consensual contact.  Mutual *****. Violent sexual assault. A scheme perpetrated to defraud the defendant. The dress belongs to someone else.
 

In these scenarios, all I can do is watch and wait to see what happens.  Certainly, the time factor, the lack of recall on when the assault was alleged to occur, any reporting to the police and or hospital visit will factor into the way I view this sort of thing.  That should all come out in the trial. 
 

As for the first allegation, that Trump said he never met her, well, that’s easy enough to explain.  Would you hold him accountable for neglecting to recall the key grip on the second season of the apprentice?  Well, I know you would, but would reasonable people consider in his 70+ years as a businessman, real estate magnate, presidential candidate and TV star that he recalls every person he ever met?  Frankly, he might actually recall her and chose to say he didn’t.  
 

On the obvious follow up point, with the number of females he’s likely bedded or had some level of relations with, is it reasonable he remembers them all, or even that he wants to admit he remembers them all?  I don’t think so, and would apply the same logic to George Clooney, Mick Jagger, most pro-basketball players and even the Indian from the Village People.  
 

This is pure speculation on my part, but on the allegation that Trump raped her, it’s entirely possible there will be definitive proof she will supply to prove her case.   If she does, I’m 100% supportive of a jury verdict in her favor.  If the argument alone is [dress/jizz/obviously rape occurred] she doesn’t meet a reasonable standard for me to vote on her behalf.  

 

 That said, what I think will happen is that the case will follow the Kavanaugh mold.  There will be gaps in the story, recollection of key dates and events will be sketchy, there will be no physical evidence of violent assault, and we’ll hear that the plaintiff told a trusted confidant at some point later on in life.  That model works. 
 

We’ll be told that victims of sexual assault often follow similar patterns, and I believe that to be true.  Unfortunately, it’s also the pattern followed by fraudsters and scam artists as they pursue paydays in the civil system where it boils down to little more than he said/she said and which attorney is better on his/her feet than the other.  
 

He could be guilty and win;

He could be innocent and lose;

She could be the biggest scam artist in history and prevail;

She could be as trustworthy as Mother Theresa and get steamrolled.

It also could be somewhere in the middle. 
 

On the other hand, maybe DJT sees the canonization of a Kobe Bryant post-assault allegations and opt to buy her out. That’s probably his safe play.  
 

It’s hard to say really.  That’s the problem with the civil justice standard, sometimes it’s all about feelz.