U.S President: Donald Trump

The Office Presidency is a lucrative role, but even more so once leaving it just look at the hundreds of millions Bill Clinton has made and is still making, looks like Obama will get there too. So enough of the hypocrisy regarding Presidents and former President, making tons of money either in or out of office, the fact is they’re still using their Presidential title to make millions.

Originally Posted by Mick

The Office Presidency is a lucrative role, but even more so once leaving it just look at the hundreds of millions Bill Clinton has made and is still making, looks like Obama will get there too. So enough of the hypocrisy regarding Presidents and former President, making tons of money either in or out of office, the fact is they’re still using their Presidential title to make millions.

Yes but we’re not talking about Trump making money after he has left office. We’re talking about him not properly separating his business interests whilst he is actually President, hiring his children to government roles and always going to his own golf courses.

If Clinton rather than Trump had been the first President not to put her business interests to a Blind trust and had hired her own family would that not be an issue?

If it’s not illegal, no I would not complain, it’s a bit like the Tax avoidance issue, it’s not illegal, so pointless complaining about it.

Didn't stop people complaining about Benghazi - nothing illegal was done, but there were 10 inquiries into it, and nothing illegal was found.

Didn't stop people complaining about Clinton's emails, even though a FBI investigation concluded no "reasonable prosecutor" would bring a criminal case against Mrs Clinton, but that she and her aides were "extremely careless" in their handling of classified information.

So careless, but not illegal.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Didn't stop people complaining about Benghazi - nothing illegal was done, but there were 10 inquiries into it, and nothing illegal was found.

Didn't stop people complaining about Clinton's emails, even though a FBI investigation concluded no "reasonable prosecutor" would bring a criminal case against Mrs Clinton, but that she and her aides were "extremely careless" in their handling of classified information.

So careless, but not illegal.

Well that's ok then, we don't need to mention Clintons name again next time the Donald does something stupid ! (which I predict will be very shortly...)

Originally Posted by Hugh

Didn't stop people complaining about Benghazi - nothing illegal was done, but there were 10 inquiries into it, and nothing illegal was found.

Because nothing legal was found, doesn't mean nothing illegal was carried out, not to mention and I keep pointing this out, which you conveniently ignore, is that the Benghazi's victims family say Hillary even lied to them, said one thing to them and something else in an email that was later leaked.

Originally Posted by Hugh

Didn't stop people complaining about Clinton's emails, even though a FBI investigation concluded no "reasonable prosecutor" would bring a criminal case against Mrs Clinton, but that she and her aides were "extremely careless" in their handling of classified information.

So careless, but not illegal.

Hugh. that's right, twist what I said to Damien.

Actually, have you read Comey's drafted response?

It was later changed from 'grossly negligent' to 'extremely careless', the change being significant because being 'grossly negligent' potentially constitutes a crime and not to mention she lied under oath saying she did not pass any classified emails when Comey later said she did!

At the end of the day, she gets brought up because she was Trump's opposite number and this business of being accused of deflection and whataboutery, I only have to go to other threads and other members are guilty of doing the same!!!

Thankfully, she lost, it's sweet victory, after all the alleged rigging done for her by the DNC, the former DNC chair is absolutely ripping in to her at the moment, for stealing the Nominee from Sanders. So while, you think the sun shines out of her arse, it does not and the DNC may have won with Bernie but they went with her.

“alleged rigging"?

http://uk.businessinsider.com/donna-...rigged-2017-11

Brazile responded to Trump's tweets with several of her own later on Friday, arguing that Trump misquoted her and mischaracterized her accusations.

"Trump looks for a daily excuse to distract from his job. No, the primary system wasn't rigged! States control primary ballots," Brazile wrote. "Today's lesson: Being quoted by Donald Trump means being MIS-quoted by Donald Trump. Stop trolling me. #NeverSaidHillaryRiggedElection"

btw, defending someone from what I believe is partisan and made up accusations does not equate with believing in her personal rectal daylight projection ability.

Originally Posted by Hugh

“alleged rigging"?

http://uk.businessinsider.com/donna-...rigged-2017-11

btw, defending someone from what I believe is partisan and made up accusations does not equate with believing in her personal rectal daylight projection ability.

Yes, alleged rigging, are you going blind?

That is what I said and I stand by it especially since in her new book she does say it was rigged.

It was even on CNN that is what she said FFS.

Brazile writes the DNC was rigged in Clinton's favor because her campaign was largely financing the party early on in the presidential election.

Brazile's comments rip a scab off a wound that plagued the Democratic Party during last year's primary and charge the Clinton campaign with impropriety.
The Democratic strategist said the agreement "was not illegal, but it sure looked unethical."

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/11/02/po...ook/index.html

Purposely linking CNN, as you know, your favourite read for all things Anti-Trump.

[1andrew1]

This alternative media source (hopefully not fake!) seems to raise a fair point in that none of these anti-Trump celebs has followed through on their promise to leave the US if he was elected.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-1...you-still-here

Not to do with Trump so much but don't want a start a new thread.

In Alabama there is a Special Election for the Senate in December. Normally this is a safe Republican seat but the Republican candidate has been accused by many women of going after teenagers including one who was 14 years old when he was in this thirties.

They can't remove him from the ballot so some Republicans are still publicly backing him. Now though it's a closer race.

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by Damien

Not to do with Trump so much but don't want a start a new thread.

In Alabama there is a Special Election for the Senate in December. Normally this is a safe Republican seat but the Republican candidate has been accused by many women of going after teenagers including one who was 14 years old when he was in this thirties.

They can't remove him from the ballot so some Republicans are still publicly backing him. Now though it's a closer race.

The problem there is that it is legal to marry at 14 in Alabama with parental consent. He had consent to be with her at the time (allegedly) and there is no accusation on sexual impropriety.

The state requires a $200 bond to be executed, payable to the State of Alabama. If one or both parents are deceased, proper evidence of such must be provided. Individuals under the age of 14 may not marry.

Same in South Carolina.

https://www.thespruce.com/legal-age-...-state-2300971

The accusation is specifically about a 'sexual encounter' and not marriage:

A woman named Leigh Corfman says that when she was 14 years old in 1979, Moore initiated a sexual encounter with her when he was 32 years old, The Washington Post reported. Three other women told the Post that Moore pursued them when they were between the ages of 16 and 18.

He asked for Corfman's phone number and picked up a few days later near her house and drove her to his home in the woods 30 minutes away, the report said. Moore told Corfman "how pretty she was and kissed her," the report said.

Moore, on a second visit, took off Corfman's shirt and pants and he removed his own clothes, the report said, which added that he touched her over her bra and underwear and "he guided her hand to touch him over his underwear

But either way it's unlikely any conviction is going to be brought against him but the reaction from the public of him doing that when he was 30 years old and she was 14.

[pip08456]

We can only wait and see what happens rather than jumping to conclusions without evidence. An accusation is not proof of guilt.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by pip08456

We can only wait and see what happens rather than jumping to conclusions without evidence. An accusation is not proof of guilt.

Indeed it is not proof of guilt but sometimes where there's smoke, there's fire.

Originally Posted by pip08456

We can only wait and see what happens rather than jumping to conclusions without evidence. An accusation is not proof of guilt.

No but then these allegations are rarely if ever 100% proven. That they have multiple testimony from different women is generally how we handle it. Same with Kevin Spacey and the rest that are coming out now.