OlDawg

So, I have no idea what--if anything--will come of this stuff. But, let me see if I can get it straight. Clinton initiates fake dossier on Trump claiming Russian ties. Obama doesn't deny. Probes, arrests, and a lot of money and time is spent to find out what was already known. It was all hogwash started by Clinton. Obama doesn't deny. Obama endorses Clinton. Trump wins 2016 election. Clinton accuses Jill Stein & Tulsi Gabbard of being Russian assets during 2020 election. Obama says nothing. Biden is elected. Democrats toss Biden and install Harris as 2024 candidate. Trump is elected. Gabbard and the IC find evidence that Obama Admin. knew everything was rubbish from the beginning, but never denied & pursued a false narrative anyway. Obama denies. Obama has yet to admit the entire story was fabricated from the very beginning. Have I got this about right?

[Hidden Content]

AstraZeneca to invest $50 Billion in U.S. Medicines, R&D and Manufacturing [Hidden Content] This is very big news. Pharma coming back to the U.S. This is why I try to judge based on policy vs personality. Policies are what matter.

So, are we taking advice from Brennan now? Again, not disputing the seriousness of the crime. Yes, it was a crime if proven. Just disputing the characterization from a legal standpoint. SCOTUS has ruled on treason many times as you've pointed out. This doesn't appear to fit. But, it does fit numerous other felony categories that could justify SERIOUS jail time among other penalties. I've mentioned falsifying documents already. Election subversion would also seem to be an easy one if the documented evidence proves out. Providing false testimony, and--yes--even criminal conspiracy could be other pertinent charges. These are all felonies in this circumstance. Not quite sure what it says about us that we could have 2 POTUS/former POTUS with felony convictions.

I think I know what you're trying to say, but any legal system based on religion is against the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. So, Shariah Law will never be legally binding according to U.S. law. Parties can enter into an agreement using it if both agree. But, it won't be legally binding. Any agreement would roll back under U.S. law if there were a dispute. I do think the Democratic Party has gotten themselves into a pickle with this issue. New York City is really making many have a wake-up call.

They’re becoming so real looking now, it’s hard to tell what’s real and what’s not. Pretty soon it’ll get to where if you don’t see it live, you’ll have to really dig to find out if it’s real or AI. Gonna’ make it even more difficult to make sure you’re getting something accurate from the direct source. Have to think about more than just ‘spin’ nowadays.

Just wanted to let everyone know, if I call you a bad name, it wasn’t me. It was my AI influencer. Wimbledon influencer with over 165k followers is actually an AI creation [Hidden Content]

The issue I see is with any federal charge, a full pardon could be granted by a future POTUS. Like TH said, legacy may be the biggest impact. Legacy means a lot to these people. Income would be affected. Maybe some jail time until the next sympathetic POTUS. But, the cases would probably drag through the next election cycle.

Falsifying documents is a VERY serious charge. It seems this could be easily proven with the documents available. Much easier than a treason/sedition type charge which would tear the country apart. [Hidden Content]

I hope history will remember Trump more for resetting world trade. That would mean his tariff gambit worked, the U.S. remained the economic juggernaut with the standard for currency, and the American people were better off from a security, employment, and personal financial position. I’m relearning Spanish to help me stay sharp—not Mandarin.

Some of the debt was ‘supposedly added’ because of parliamentarian rules not allowing some of the offsetting cuts. I say ‘supposedly’ because CBO uses static numbers & doesn’t calculate in possible growth due to cuts in regulation, onshoring, and other investments. It’s been proven throughout American history that lower taxes ALWAYS returns more money to the government’s coffers.

As has been said by others, both sides spend too much. But, the Freedom Caucus—which aligns closest to a limited government/libertarian view—had to be promised more clawbacks to get their support for the OBBB. So, one side is fighting to maintain government control over almost every segment of our lives, and the other side is at least making an attempt to return to federalism. It’s not really a hard choice right now. Might not be ideal. But, a clear difference. Gridlock is typically good. But, it won’t help shrink the deficit—if that’s your concern. It would just maintain status quo. If OBBB hadn’t passed, our economy very likely would have gone into a recession because of the tax increases.

Libertarians align more closely with conservatives as far as government is concerned. Shouldn’t be surprising at all.

SCOTUS has ruled that motives can’t be questioned for official acts of a POTUS. This was an official act by Obama. It wasn’t an attack on America itself. It was a political hit job. Very different. This doesn’t mean others are protected in the same fashion as the SCOTUS ruling only applies to POTUS. But, I still don’t see treason or sedition being applied. I could see some type of falsifying documents charge for those involved besides Obama. Only the far right fringe would say differently. Just another flashy object that continues to help erode the people’s trust in their government. Trump would do well to take away all their security clearances immediately which is in his authority. I believe he already has for Brennan. Not sure on others. I’d also make sure Obama (and Clinton/s) was not allowed any classified info. He’s a simple civilian now like the rest of us.

Trump is a narcissistic, egotistical braggart. That said, I wouldn’t doubt if he cozied up to Epstein because it made him feel ‘part of the crowd.’ He needs attention in the worst way. I’m not sold he REALLY knew everything that was going on at the time. As I’ve said, I look less at personalities and more to policies. He’s attempting to shrink government. Or—at least—redirect many functions back to the States where they belong if you believe in our Constitution. For that, I’m okay with many of his policies, even though they may not personally benefit me and mine. Musk would be better off either supporting independent challengers to vulnerable seats, or supporting the Libertarian Party—which happens to be very closely aligned to the Freedom Caucus as far as government’s role. Ron Paul was basically the forefather of the Tea Party/Freedom Caucus movement, and the Libertarian Party is already sanctioned in all 50 states. Between his obvious views on Mary Jane, limited government, and his desire for personal liberty, he fits in the Libertarian Party better anyway.

The wise part of the ruling maintains the separation of powers. SCOTUS rules on constitutional matters. Lower courts rule on criminality via powers granted. As I edited before your post, this ruling will also be what protects Obama from current accusations. Yes. Broad leeway was given.

Needless fears. There are checks and balances aplenty. In the end, there’s the 2nd Amendment. For better or worse, this alone sets America apart from other nations.

SCOTUS specifically ruled POTUS isn’t above the law. Read the actual ruling. SCOTUS specifically ruled POTUS can’t be ‘second guessed’ for official acts performed under his/her duties granted by the Constitution. The decision was sent back to lower courts for further development. Trump was re-elected. Case was closed before further development of what was official and what wasn’t. SCOTUS NEVER gave carte Blanche for any POTUS to perform illegal/criminal acts. But, they set the bar very high as to not infringe on Presidential powers. This ruling will also be what protects Obama from current accusations. Not so for others.

Not too bright without the teleprompter is he? LOL He managed to basically say hetero men have no feelings, and gay men are sissies all in the same response. Of course, since his father went absentee when he was 2, and he was raised by his mother & “the village”, what would one expect. It would have been hard for him to comprehend the duties of a husband and father from a first-hand experience. Would make me feel kinda sorry for him…if I had any empathy.

According to Epstein's attorney, Patel was wrong. There's no list. No black book of John's. There were multiple accusers who provided testimony that jurors believed to convict Epstein and Maxwell. Many of those accusers have settled out of court with the Epstein estate to the tune of millions of dollars. Part of the settlement agreement may very well have been their silence. That would also mean their silence about the men involved. That's probably why we've never heard more about Prince Andrew. Trump may very well have been more involved with Epstein than he would like to portray. I wouldn't doubt it one bit. Rich, connected people hang in the same small circles. But--again--according to Epstein's attorney, Trump wasn't directly involved in the pedophilia activities. Not even sure he knew exactly how bad it really was, although he knew the girls were young. I'm not a major Trump fan. I look at policies vs. personalities. But, I think he used this to gin up his base, and it's backfired politically. That's a long way from me thinking he was involved in pedophilia. Again, he can't release anything from the federal grand jury information, or the other court documents without approval from the various judges. Also, the settlement issues may throw a curve in some of this info being released. I've said from the beginning, you're not going to get much.

Wrong on so many levels. But, I guess this means you agree Obama interfered in the election. Got it. I agree with you.

The smartest thing this government could do would be to start revoking all security clearances at separations of service for either military or political personnel. Obama still has his clearance. Why? Same with any of them. Never did understand the policy of allowing them to continue. If someone needs to be read in, make them pass another clearance based on up-to-date information.

Article 3 Section 3 of the Constitution defines ‘treason.’ It’s a very clear, narrow definition to keep it from being thrown around loosely. As distasteful and corrupt as Obama’s actions were—if proven—they don’t amount to treason, sedition, or insurrection. The previous Socialist-In-Chief will never be charged with anything due to immunity, statute of limitations, & just plain old protection of the Office of the President. How anyone could possibly vote Democrat—after the biggest conspiracy in U.S. history with the Biden Admin., Democrats installing their own candidate regardless of the people (for the 2nd time), and this—is beyond me. But, plenty will do just that. Idiots.

Much of progressivism is about devaluing the nuclear family. The whole “It takes a village” concept—which I can’t stand. Nothing in Jesus’ teachings anywhere espousing that concept in the way people (progressives) mean nowadays. In fact, quite the opposite. Parents are primary. Period.