House Republicans subpoena Hunter and James Biden as their impeachment inquiry ramps back up

[essentialsaltes]

I understand clearly what the deflection is by Biden's attorney.

No, this is Representative Swalwell of California doing some political showboating. And a fine display it was.

 

[The Barbarian]

I understand clearly what the deflection is by Biden's attorney.

"You want to talk about crooked families? Here ya go..."

The cool thing is that the republicans had nothing to match it. Perfect.

I simply don't understand the purpose of posting this nonresponsive statement here in a post that is not about Trump.

Puts a sharper point on the train wreck the House republicans have made of this issue.

 

[7thKeeper]

Your point with this snippet of testimony?

Really? That somehow flew over your head?

 

[The Barbarian]

Really? That somehow flew over your head?

Humor is lost on those guys.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Comer getting the respect and deference he deserves.

View attachment 343486

Is he talking about Jared? As I recall Abbe Lowell represented Jared Kushner in the Mueller probe.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Really? That somehow flew over your head?

The misplaced mockery was evident. It's the "Squirrel!!" technique from that movie. Classic deflection from the real issue.

 

[The Barbarian]

Classic deflection from the real issue.

They're trying really hard. But there's a problem. Evidence. Or rather the lack of it. Trump got impeached twice, indicted dozens of times, and found guilty of lying about his rape of a woman and bank fraud, because there's all that evidence showing he committed those offenses.

But as Comer is reluctantly admitting, there just isn't evidence to build some kind of conspiracy theory about Joe Biden. Reality matters, even for enough republicans to wreck Comer's hopes to deflect from Trump's massive legal and criminal problems.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

They're trying really hard. But there's a problem. Evidence. Or rather the lack of it. Trump got impeached twice, indicted dozens of times, and found guilty of lying about his rape of a woman and bank fraud, because there's all that evidence showing he committed those offenses.

But as Comer is reluctantly admitting, there just isn't evidence to build some kind of conspiracy theory about Joe Biden. Reality matters, even for enough republicans to wreck Comer's hopes to deflect from Trump's massive legal and criminal problems.

Impeached and indicted = accusations. The impeachments failed; there were no convictions. The attempt to keep him off the ballot also failed just today. And no, he was never charged with rape at all. Or insurrection, by the way. The bank fraud was determined in a civil trial unilaterally by Judge Engoron in the Letitia James case. It's under appeal now.

Too bad this level of effort wasn't directed at the actual crimes of Epstein and company.

 

[The Barbarian]

Impeached and indicted = accusations.

Because there's sufficient evidence to impeach and indict. Notice it's already determined that Trump sexually assaulted Carroll and then slandered her, denying he committed the crime. Notice it's already determined that Trump committed bank fraud. He's still got some trials to go. The reason we don't see Joe Biden indicted is, there's no evidence. Same reason Comer is pessimistic about his impeachment scheme. Even many republicans are unwilling to vote for impeachment without some evidence of a crime.

The impeachments failed;

Republicans had a majority in the Senate. So he got a pass. But the evidence remains for historians to evaluate. It hardly matters, now.

And no, he was never charged with rape at all.

He was charged with slandering Carroll by saying she was lying about his sexual assault on her.

Jury finds Donald Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation in E. Jean Carroll case​

Jury finds Donald Trump sexually abused E. Jean Carroll in civil case

A Manhattan federal jury found that Donald Trump sexually abused E. Jean Carroll in a luxury department store dressing room in the spring of 1996 and awarded her $5 million for battery and defamation.

www.cnn.com

Jury found him liable for that slander. And when he lost and slandered him again, they found him liable again. That time, for $83 million.

Too bad this level of effort wasn't directed at the actual crimes of Epstein and company.

Actually, Trump was accused of sexual abuse by one of his pal Epstein's victims, but it never went to court. It's telling that Trump rewarded the prosecutor who let Epstein off with a slap on the wrist by making him Labor Secretary. But we can't prove he actually sexually abused minors. It's all circumstantial evidence.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Because there's sufficient evidence to impeach and indict. Notice it's already determined that Trump sexually assaulted Carroll and then slandered her, denying he committed the crime. Notice it's already determined that Trump committed bank fraud. He's still got some trials to go. The reason we don't see Joe Biden indicted is, there's no evidence. Same reason Comer is pessimistic about his impeachment scheme. Even many republicans are unwilling to vote for impeachment without some evidence of a crime.


Republicans had a majority in the Senate. So he got a pass. But the evidence remains for historians to evaluate. It hardly matters, now.


He was charged with slandering Carroll by saying she was lying about his sexual assault on her.

Jury finds Donald Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation in E. Jean Carroll case​

Jury finds Donald Trump sexually abused E. Jean Carroll in civil case

A Manhattan federal jury found that Donald Trump sexually abused E. Jean Carroll in a luxury department store dressing room in the spring of 1996 and awarded her $5 million for battery and defamation.

www.cnn.com

Jury found him liable for that slander. And when he lost and slandered him again, they found him liable again. That time, for $83 million.


Actually, Trump was accused of sexual abuse by one of his pal Epstein's victims, but it never went to court. It's telling that Trump rewarded the prosecutor who let Epstein off with a slap on the wrist by making him Labor Secretary. But we can't prove he actually sexually abused minors. It's all circumstantial evidence.

Accusations are not convictions. Only convictions matter. The Carroll case from several decades ago was a civil case, by the way.

Judge Engoron is going to be overturned, I'm guessing, but we shall see.

No, one most definitely cannot draw the conclusion that Biden didn't do anything wrong or sell influence just because the wagons have circled. Just wait a few years. He may be gone but it will eventually come out.

Yes, I'm well aware that Trump had several accusations that came to nothing, and cases were dismissed.

 

[The Barbarian]

Accusations are not convictions. Only convictions matter. The Carroll case from several decades ago was a civil case, by the way.

And a jury found that Trump sexually assaulted her, and then defamed her by saying she was lying about it. Twice. It's why he's going to have to pay her $88 million.

Judge Engoron is going to be overturned, I'm guessing, but we shall see.

Not even Trump's lawyers think so. They're trying to run out the clock to avoid another conviction before the election.

No, one most definitely cannot draw the conclusion that Biden didn't do anything wrong or sell influence just because the wagons have circled.

Your problem is that our system doesn't require the accused to provide evidence that he's innocent. The accuser has to provide evidence that he's guilty Tough system, but it works. The laptop fiasco for instance. When push came to shove, republicans had nothing. In the Ukrainian scheme, their star witnesses contradicted republican charges, and one of them turned out to be parroting Russian propaganda.

You think we didn't notice?

Yes, I'm well aware that Trump had several accusations that came to nothing, and cases were dismissed.

Trump was certainly close to Epstein and flew with him on occasions. Whether or not he assaulted that young girl in Epstein's control, we won't know because it was settled before it went to court. But we do know that Trump rewarded the prosecutor who gave Epstein a slap on the wrist with a cabinet job and we also know that Epstein mysteriously "committed suicide" when he was in a federal prison under Trump's control.

We know Trump knew about Epstein. We know he committed sexual assault and boasted about getting away with it. Provability is a harder thing than truth. For which Trump should be very, very grateful.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

And a jury found that Trump sexually assaulted her, and then defamed her by saying she was lying about it. Twice. It's why he's going to have to pay her $88 million.


Not even Trump's lawyers think so. They're trying to run out the clock to avoid another conviction before the election.

Your problem is that our system doesn't require the accused to provide evidence that he's innocent. The accuser has to provide evidence that he's guilty Tough system, but it works. The laptop fiasco for instance. When push came to shove, republicans had nothing. In the Ukrainian scheme, their star witnesses contradicted republican charges, and one of them turned out to be parroting Russian propaganda.

You think we didn't notice?


Trump was certainly close to Epstein and flew with him on occasions. Whether or not he assaulted that young girl in Epstein's control, we won't know because it was settled before it went to court. But we do know that Trump rewarded the prosecutor who gave Epstein a slap on the wrist with a cabinet job and we also know that Epstein mysteriously "committed suicide" when he was in a federal prison under Trump's control.

We know Trump knew about Epstein. We know he committed sexual assault and boasted about getting away with it. Provability is a harder thing than truth. For which Trump should be very, very grateful.

I'm well aware of the facts, and the reality is that there was no way the presentation and facts of this 3 decade old accusation could meet the criminal standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" so it was tried at the civil lower standard. There is no conviction. There is a financial penalty.

Nothing here is "my problem". The reality is that we have an innocent until proven guilty standard, as it should be. Trump cut ties with Epstein decades ago, when he some idea of what he was into. Few believe Epstein killed himself, for what it's worth, but that is the "official narrative".

We currently have two standards, one for Trump or any advisors, supporters, and another lower standard for Biden et. al, because of the quality of those running the government.

 

[The Barbarian]

I'm well aware of the facts, and the reality is that there was no way the presentation and facts of this 3 decade old accusation could meet the criminal standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" so it was tried at the civil lower standard. There is no conviction. There is a financial penalty.

The jury found that he sexually assaulted her and lied about it. Not surprising. He's bragged about getting away with sexual assault on a microphone he didn't know was open.

Nothing here is "my problem". The reality is that we have an innocent until proven guilty standard, as it should be. Trump cut ties with Epstein decades ago, when he some idea of what he was into.

Trump joked about Epstein, liking girls "on the younger side", was sued by one of Epstein's victims for raping her when she was a minor, and he rewarded the prosecutor who gave Epstein a sweetheard deal on charges of sex with minors a job as Labor Secretary. He bragged about getting away with sexual assault. Not enough to convict. Still you'd have to be very naive to deny what it indicates.

You have two standards, a very low one for Trump or any advisors, supporters, and another higher standard for Biden et. al, because of ideological convictions.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

The jury found that he sexually assaulted her and lied about it. Not surprising. He's bragged about getting away with sexual assault on a microphone he didn't know was open.


Trump joked about Epstein, liking girls "on the younger side", was sued by one of Epstein's victims for raping her when she was a minor, and he rewarded the prosecutor who gave Epstein a sweetheard deal on charges of sex with minors a job as Labor Secretary. He bragged about getting away with sexual assault. Not enough to convict. Still you'd have to be very naive to deny what it indicates.

You have two standards, a very low one for Trump or any advisors, supporters, and another higher standard for Biden et. al, because of ideological convictions.

The jury found he sexually assaulted her 30 years ago and he refutes it, you mean.

Trump cut ties with Epstein.

The reverse is true on the ideological convictions. You have the disparate standards. I do not.

 

[The Barbarian]

The jury found he sexually assaulted her 30 years ago and he refutes it, you mean.

He denied it. But a jury of his peers found that he did it. No point in denial, especially given his history and his boasting about getting away with sexual assault.

Trump cut ties with Epstein.

After he partied with Epstein and his girls, over a financial deal. And he made the prosecutor who cut a sweetheart deal with Epstein, Labor Secretary. And Trump was sued by one of Epstein's victims, who said he also molested her.

Trump called Epstein a ‘terrific guy’ who enjoyed ‘younger’ women before denying relationship with him​

Loading…

www.washingtonpost.com

And then Epstein "commits suicide" under odd circumstance while in prison under Trump's control. Your ideological convictions force you do ignore all of this.

 

[The Barbarian]

Here’s a roundup of some of the women who have accused Mr Trump of sexual assault or harassment.
E. Jean Carroll,

Alva Johnson

Jessica Leeds,

Ivana Trump

Jill Harth,

Kristen Anderson

Lisa Boyne

Cathy Heller

Full list of the women who have accused President Donald Trump of sexual assault

The president has been accused by dozens of women of sexual misconduct. Mr Trump has denied those allegations

www.independent.co.uk

(details deleted; some of it is pretty crude) But it appears that Trump has always done what he bragged about doing.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

He denied it. But a jury of his peers found that he did it. No point in denial, especially given his history and his boasting about getting away with sexual assault.


After he partied with Epstein and his girls, over a financial deal. And he made the prosecutor who cut a sweetheart deal with Epstein, Labor Secretary. And Trump was sued by one of Epstein's victims, who said he also molested her.

Trump called Epstein a ‘terrific guy’ who enjoyed ‘younger’ women before denying relationship with him​

Loading…

www.washingtonpost.com

And then Epstein "commits suicide" under odd circumstance while in prison under Trump's control. Your ideological convictions force you do ignore all of this.

You know who funded that legal case that Carroll launched? It's pretty transparent.

"Billionaire LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman funded E. Jean Carroll’s prosecution alleging former President Donald Trump raped her, through a nonprofit group the major Democratic donor backs; now that a jury has found Trump guilty of sexual abuse, some have questioned Hoffman’s role in the process.

The judge allowed Trump’s defense team to question Carroll about Hoffman’s funding, after Trump’s defense pointed out an October deposition in which Carroll testified no one else was paying her legal fees.

While Hoffman is known for his work founding LinkedIn, he’s also a big Democratic donor, funding a number of Democratic causes, candidates and legal battles, including civil lawsuits filed by the victims of the “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, according to a post on LinkedIn.

What Was Reid Hoffman’s Role In Funding E. Jean Carroll’s Case?

The LinkedIn co-founder is a major Democratic donor.

www.forbes.com

 

[The Barbarian]

You know who funded that legal case that Carroll launched? It's pretty transparent.

You mean there was a level playing field for lawyers? No wonder Trump was throwing tantrums. He's not used to that kind of thing.

The judge allowed Trump’s defense team to question Carroll about Hoffman’s funding, after Trump’s defense pointed out an October deposition in which Carroll testified no one else was paying her legal fees.

But when did she get that assistance against Trump's hyper-expensive legal team, and why would you find that unfair?

"Whaaaaaa! No fair! She got expensive lawyers too! Whaaaa!"

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

You mean there was a level playing field for lawyers? No wonder Trump was throwing tantrums. He's not used to that kind of thing.


But when did she get that assistance against Trump's hyper-expensive legal team, and why would you find that unfair?

"Whaaaaaa! No fair! She got expensive lawyers too! Whaaaa!"

If she perjured herself, that's a crime.

If the case is politically motivated, that's a crime as well.

You are missing the major points.

 

[The Barbarian]

You mean there was a level playing field for lawyers? No wonder Trump was throwing tantrums. He's not used to that kind of thing.


But when did she get that assistance against Trump's hyper-expensive legal team, and why would you find that unfair?

"Whaaaaaa! No fair! She got expensive lawyers too! Whaaaa!"

If she perjured herself, that's a crime.

Comes down to evidence. What do you have? You know that Trump would still be liable, given the facts.

If the case is politically motivated, that's a crime as well.

That would be difficult to prove, given what Trump did to her. You are missing the major points.

I get that he probably figured he'd never be held responsible for what he did. Maybe he figured she'd never have the money to go after him.
He seems to be facing consequences for the first time in his life.