Trump-Epstein connection casts shadow over election campaign Jeffrey Epstein's undisclosed revelation involving Trump triggers renewed scrutiny amidst

Damocles said:
What power? One does not prove a negative, one states what "powers" the President has from the ruling then we can argue whether they are "new" or not. Official Acts of the Executive pretty much always have immunity. This is what makes it so a DA only extremely rarely can be charged for trying a crap case that shouldn't have been tried, even sometimes ignoring exculpatory evidence and trying anyway and falsely convicting people.

I do not see new powers, in fact I see exactly what Jarod and I predicted, "official acts" will have immunity, unofficial acts will not. The interesting add to it that I was not expecting was saying that one could not use an official act as evidence of a crime in an unofficial act, and that is what may likely overturn his current conviction. You can try a former President for things they do in office, just not things they do as part of the job they have. It's pretty darn standard.
Click to expand...
Oh my


You guys really fucked your selves huh grind

Pretending nothing was decided in this SCOTUS decision gains you exactly what?
 
NakedHunterBiden said:
Interesting you never provided the quote I asked for.
Click to expand...
Honestly I hadn't read that post. There were notifications but I may have missed one or two, I had like 20...

What I do know: She was old enough to remember it and to think it was inappropriate, it also happened more than the once some stories will try to suggest (the one with a cousin that sprayed her with lighter fluid causing the emergency wash)... That one wasn't even described as inappropriate. She speaks of being hypersexualized and of the inappropriate showers she had with her father (multiple). You can download the entire diary online, it isn't even difficult to find. (slideshare)

www.slideshare.net

Ashley Biden Diary.pdf

Ashley Biden Diary.pdf - Download as a PDF or view online for free
www.slideshare.net www.slideshare.net

Anyway... you can pretend that it isn't inappropriate, but if your daughter is old enough to remember it and to believe it was inappropriate, IMHO it was.
 
Damocles said:
What power? One does not prove a negative, one states what "powers" the President has from the ruling then we can argue whether they are "new" or not. Official Acts of the Executive pretty much always have immunity. This is what makes it so a DA only extremely rarely can be charged for trying a crap case that shouldn't have been tried, even sometimes ignoring exculpatory evidence and trying anyway and falsely convicting people.

I do not see new powers, in fact I see exactly what Jarod and I predicted, "official acts" will have immunity, unofficial acts will not. The interesting add to it that I was not expecting was saying that one could not use an official act as evidence of a crime in an unofficial act, and that is what may likely overturn his current conviction. You can try a former President for things they do in office, just not things they do as part of the job they have. It's pretty darn standard.
Click to expand...
Yeah, you do see new powers even if you do not recognize them.

Trump’s communication with Jeffery Clark to conspire to overturn the election is immune. And any motive behind such communication is also immune. That’s new ground. New power.

Motive has ALWAYS been an element in any criminal matter. Now, it isn’t. Even in a criminal conspiracy.
 
domer76 said:
Yeah, you do see new powers even if you do not recognize them.

Trump’s communication with Jeffery Clark to conspire to overturn the election is immune. And any motive behind such communication is also immune. That’s new ground. New power.

Motive has ALWAYS been an element in any criminal matter. Now, it isn’t. Even in a criminal conspiracy.
Click to expand...
Again, not new power. As I noted, in previous cases even false convictions where they ignored and didn't share exculpatory evidence were not enough to put an executive on charges, so long as they were "doing their job". Official acts of executive power have pretty much always had immunity. I did note that I was surprised by them mentioning that one though, I even specifically mentioned that it was the likely reason his current conviction would be vacated or, if this judge continues to ignore the law, overturned.
 
Damocles said:
Again, not new power. As I noted, in previous cases even false convictions where they ignored and didn't share exculpatory evidence were not enough to put an executive on charges, so long as they were "doing their job". Official acts of executive power have pretty much always had immunity. I did note that I was surprised by that one though, specifically mentioning that it was the likely reason his current conviction would be vacated or, if this judge continues to ignore the law, overturned.
Click to expand...
It most certainly is new to eliminate motive as a consideration in a criminal matter. Or to eliminate conspiratorial communication simply because it was with someone in the Executive Branch.

I didn’t see anything about the latest conviction because he was not yet even in office to claim executive power.
 
NakedHunterBiden said:
Again we don't know the details. I have personally washed my little ones in the shower with myself when they were small. That doesn't mean anything nefarious happened. If you believe that Biden molested or raped his daughter and you think the diary is proof and Ashley will testify to such then bring it to court. I certainly would never vote or support someone who have committed such acts. Now it seems that it's a different story when it comes to republicans and their nom who has actually been proven to have done such things.
Click to expand...
yes we do.

she admitted it's hers.
 
domer76 said:
It most certainly is new to eliminate motive as a consideration in a criminal matter. Or to eliminate conspiratorial communication simply because it was with someone in the Executive Branch.

I didn’t see anything about the latest conviction because he was not yet even in office to claim executive power.
Click to expand...
That isn't a "power" is the issue at hand there.
 
domer76 said:
Call it whatever you like. It’s an immunity that opens the door to incredible abuse by a person like Trump. An immunity that flies in the face of legal, criminal doctrine. One of motive.
Click to expand...
Which, again, I gave an example of rulings in the past where folks under executive authority have had this same immunity, you just want to ignore it. I get that you really desperately want to believe that this is all "new", but it isn't. It's the same thing that keeps a DA who has tried and convicted someone falsely, even ones that have kept exculpatory evidence from the defense, from facing charges. You don't get to assign motive to their actions.

Personally I do not like those particular rulings, but they are not "new".
 
Damocles said:
Honestly I hadn't read that post. There were notifications but I may have missed one or two, I had like 20...

What I do know: She was old enough to remember it and to think it was inappropriate, it also happened more than the once some stories will try to suggest (the one with a cousin that sprayed her with lighter fluid causing the emergency wash)... That one wasn't even described as inappropriate. She speaks of being hypersexualized and of the inappropriate showers she had with her father (multiple). You can download the entire diary online, it isn't even difficult to find. (slideshare)

www.slideshare.net

Ashley Biden Diary.pdf

Ashley Biden Diary.pdf - Download as a PDF or view online for free
www.slideshare.net www.slideshare.net

Anyway... you can pretend that it isn't inappropriate, but if your daughter is old enough to remember it and to believe it was inappropriate, IMHO it was.
Click to expand...
So when you said she was 13 it was a lie. Got it.
 
NakedHunterBiden said:
So when you said she was 13 it was a lie. Got it.
Click to expand...
Sure. Pretend that made your point. I totally admit that I don't have the quote that they got the thing from, but link you to the entire diary and then tell you why I believe it is inappropriate (women should be believed, neh?), now you are pretending that nothing I said hit home? Only deliberate ignorance would be able to get you to maintain that stance at this point.

First you suggested the diary was not confirmed, I showed it was, then you pretended that because you showered with your kids when they were 2 it was okay... Then I pointed out that this child was old enough to remember and to understand that it was inappropriate... to which you answer: Well you can't show the quite that she was 13! (From what I read several of the times she talks about being in her early teens when it happened, but I don't have the time to read through 131 pages of her diary to bring them here).

Suffice it to say: I'm sorry I said 13, I should have asked, "Were your daughters old enough to remember and write about how inappropriate it was in their diaries?"
 
Damocles said:
Sure. Pretend that made your point. I totally admit that I don't have the quote that they got the thing from, but link you to the entire diary and then tell you why I believe it is inappropriate (women should be believed, neh?), now you are pretending that nothing I said hit home? Only deliberate ignorance would be able to get you to maintain that stance at this point.

First you suggested the diary was not confirmed, I showed it was, then you pretended that because you showered with your kids when they were 2 it was okay... Then I pointed out that this child was old enough to remember and to understand that it was inappropriate... to which you answer: Well you can't show the quite that she was 13! (From what I read several of the times she talks about being in her early teens when it happened, but I don't have the time to read through 131 pages of her diary to bring them here).

Suffice it to say: I'm sorry I said 13, I should have asked, "Were your daughters old enough to remember and write about how inappropriate it was in their diaries?"
Click to expand...
I don't know why you felt the need to lie about it. Now I know to take your comments with a grain of salt.
 
NakedHunterBiden said:
I don't know why you felt the need to lie about it. Now I know to take your comments with a grain of salt.
Click to expand...
I didn't lie. When asked for something I flat told you I didn't have it here at this time, and instead did a mea culpa and answered with why I believe even you think it is inappropriate. Now your turn. Why do you pretend that you think it is appropriate?
 
NakedHunterBiden said:

Trump-Epstein connection casts shadow over election campaign​

Jeffrey Epstein's undisclosed revelation involving Trump triggers renewed scrutiny amidst court disclosures.

tribune.com.pk

Trump-Epstein connection casts shadow over election campaign | The Express Tribune

Jeffrey Epstein's undisclosed revelation involving Trump triggers renewed scrutiny amidst court disclosures.
tribune.com.pk tribune.com.pk

July 03, 2024

Jeffrey Epstein transcripts released, detailing graphic crimes and underage payoffs​

Florida judge releases graphic 2006 transcripts detailing Epstein's crimes and underage payoffs.


tribune.com.pk

Jeffrey Epstein transcripts released, detailing graphic crimes and underage payoffs | The Express Tribune

Florida judge releases graphic 2006 transcripts detailing Epstein's crimes and underage payoffs.
tribune.com.pk tribune.com.pk
Click to expand...
So Q got it wrong about which side has the pedophiles?

Say it isn't so.
 
Damocles said:
I didn't lie. When asked for something I flat told you I didn't have it here at this time, and instead did a mea culpa and answered with why I believe even you think it is inappropriate. Now your turn. Why do you pretend that you think it is appropriate?
Click to expand...
I already replied saying I find said allegations inappropriate. What are your thoughts on the actual topic of the thread?
 
evince said:
He had lots of Underage girls he would ogle in his beauty pageants

I’m sure he offered some lots of shit
Click to expand...
trump paid a lot of money to get access to desperate girls. There were the beauty pageants, and the semi-fake "modeling agencies." he is always going for plausible deniability with the child molesting... But what sort of person wants plausible deniability when dealing with children? That is someone who is doing something wrong.

A 14 year old "towel girl" working in the men's room of mar-a-lardo for tips, and trump is claiming he lost all the evidence of what was happening? I do not even need to know the details of what happened to Giuffre to know that is a dark story.
 
Hello Damo,

Damocles said:
What power? One does not prove a negative, one states what "powers" the President has from the ruling then we can argue whether they are "new" or not. Official Acts of the Executive pretty much always have immunity. This is what makes it so a DA only extremely rarely can be charged for trying a crap case that shouldn't have been tried, even sometimes ignoring exculpatory evidence and trying anyway and falsely convicting people.

I do not see new powers, in fact I see exactly what Jarod and I predicted, "official acts" will have immunity, unofficial acts will not. The interesting add to it that I was not expecting was saying that one could not use an official act as evidence of a crime in an unofficial act, and that is what may likely overturn his current conviction. You can try a former President for things they do in office, just not things they do as part of the job they have. It's pretty darn standard.
Click to expand...
The conviction is not being overturned. The conviction is for things DJT did before being elected. He illegally influenced the election by making payments in excess of the allowed amount to benefit his campaign. Later, the records of the payments were falsified under his direction. None of that was an official act while in office.
 
Last edited:
Funny how this is a thread about DJT being a pedophile rapist and it somehow got derailed into being about something else. How does that happen?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top