Every Major Potential Lawsuit Against Trump

[Shadow Link]

You mean when he said Mexico was going to pay for a border wall?
You mean when he said he was going to bring back the coal industry?
You mean when he said he was going to save American automobile worker's jobs?
Yeah. I was paying attention and I recognized BS bluster when I heard it.
Were you paying attention? Did you believe the BS bluster? It sounds like you still believe it.

First full year of Trump's administration and the DOW is down 5.6% despite a massive corporate tax cut.

 

[Revoltingest]

The question was whether he’s been charged and convicted of any crimes. The answer is No.

How many people here remember the Jonbenet Ramsey murder?

Boulder CO cops set their sights on the family for the daughter's
murder. First they were convinced it was the father. They leaked
info implicating him & convicting him in the court of public opinion.
Toward this end, they suppressed exculpatory evidence, & booted
any investigators who didn't tow the line. Then they were convinced
the mother killed Jonbenet. They used the same techniques against
her which they used against the father. Finally, they accused her
9 year old brother of the murder. Same tactics...same result, ie,
prosecutors were never willing to prosecute because it was clear that
there was no case against anyone.

There were hundreds of other suspects. The local cops refused
to consider DNA to exculpate the Ramseys or to narrow down
other possible suspects. Cops & other investigators outside of
the Boulder PD saw the frame up, but couldn't steer things in a
more productive direction. And so, 2 decades later, the case
goes unsolved.

This is a common scenario, ie, cops become fixated on blaming
someone for something, & simply cannot see an alternative.
This is why it's unwise to presume guilt or innocence based upon
an investigation. Without a trial to have opposing interests each
paint a thorough picture in their own interest, one cannot know if
someone is being either railroaded or given a pass.

 

[ecco]

Thanks, you just proved my point. By lumping me in with “you people” you made drastically inaccurate assumptions about me.

I am not God-fearing. I have no religion and am not a particularly spiritual person. Perhaps I’m agnostic.

I am not right-wing. I’m a solid moderate who has voted for Democrats and Republicans, and I will continue to vote for the candidates who I believe most closely align with the interests of my family.

I am not a “conspiracy theorist.”

I am not a Trump Sheeple. I agree with some things he had done and disagree with others.

Maybe now you understand the flaw in using the phrase “you people,” but I suspect you’ll refuse to acknowledge that.

Yadda, yadda, yadda.

 

[columbus]

How many people here remember the Jonbenet Ramsey murder?

Here's the big difference.
In Ramsey's case, there was no doubt that a crime was committed. Her body was found.
In the Trump case, his supporters seem generally claiming that no crime was committed. Despite a good deal of evidence, like convictions and obstruction.
Tom

 

[Shad]

Spoken by a true sheeple.

You people railed against the Clintons for what you were told was mismanagement of their charitable organization. No court ever found they did anything wrong.

Yet when a court tells the Trumps to close their fraudulent charity and make restitution, you're OK with it.

The stench of hypocrisy is overwhelming.

You must not understand business and corporate law. A corporation is separate from the individual called corporate personhood. The corporation can be found guilty of a crime while the ownership and staff are not guilty of the same crime. Trump (person) was not found guilty of the crimes of his corporations (personhood). Legal wise Trump has no conviction to my knowledge. Many of his corporations do or have settled.

 

[Revoltingest]

Here's the big difference.
In Ramsey's case, there was no doubt that a crime was committed. Her body was found.
In the Trump case, his supporters seem generally claiming that no crime was committed.

You're wrong on this.
I see them claiming that nothing has yet been proven.
That's not the same as saying none were committed.

But you're not addressing my point, ie, that without more
info than a prosecutor's possibly agenda laden story.
A trial would pit 2 competing stories against each other,
with more facts & a more complete story emerging.
Until then, too many are rushing to judgement.