What is a nationalist?

Your comparison of some civil proceedings against a billionaire businessman... which in most cases is an attempt at a winning "lotto ticket", and the settlement, as with most successful businesses the cost of doing business, to a public servant who violated the public trust endangered our nation's secrets and operatives by her illegal and cavalier attitude, who has used her position to enrich herself illegally and is being criminally investigated by the FBI, is ridiculous and laughable in the extreme.


As for the Rules of Evidence, this forum is not a court of law and therefore I'm not bound by those rules, however I can say without reservation that from what evidence I have seen there's more than enough to justify a prima facie case against the Clinton clan and that is sufficient for an Criminal indictment. Also, my knowledge of federal prosecutions tells me that in about 90% of federal criminal cases are settled by plea bargain.

Your defense of a person suspected of crimes which rise to the level of treason and graft by citing a businessman who is merely being sued monetarily, shows your patently and ridiculous bias and how weak your argument is.

You don't believe there are food deserts?

Yeah maybe in the Sudan... But not here out on the Block

well, we do know that, based upon the precedent set within the Clinton administration that allowed the Paula Jones case to go forward on a sitting president, the next four years of "Self dealing" "fraud", conflicts of interest" "Pay to play" may be a bit embarrassing for der Donald(unless the GOP congress rescinds the dictum that they placed on Bill Clinton). He cant even convince us that he can set up an honest blind trust (by making his kids the administrators??).

As far as Ms Clinton, so far its innuendo, turnabout, and assertion , and that hardly defines "prima facie".

So you include actual FRAUD as a cost of doing business? Its ok to perpetrate a fraud is that what you are saying??

You seem to dig your hole deeper and deeper .

I guess we'll see... there must be a prima facie case in as much as the FBI is still involved in a criminal investigation of the Clinton Foundation... I find it interesting that Trump came out publicly and said that he had no desire to call for a special prosecutor in relation to Hillary or the Clinton Foundation as there is no need for it in that the FBI is investigating... This way it looks like he is not personally after Hillary because he knows that is Attorney General will not put the brakes on or interfere with this current investigation not like what occurred with Loretta Lynch and the email scandal.

prima facie usually means that there is evidence to proceed. The FBI has stated their opinion a few weeks ago when they fucked with the election. Or are you behind in your reading?

Talk to me when Trump is indicted for criminal fraud... Not when some lawsuit frivolously claims fraud... The distinction here is civil vs. Criminal... Apparently conveniently overlooked in your Hysteria.

UHH , hes settled, Its a FRAUD case. He was yelling like a madman how he would sue the **** out of these folks (who hes defrauded). Yet he (wisely) accepted a settlement to prevent a case moving forward and he having to testify in his own defense.

"Your crimes are huge, mine are forgettable "

I see how these next four years are gonna go

I believe this Trump presidency will be one of the most corrupt - and that's saying something. His policies promise to be influenced by his business dealings. And to the degree they do and the country they do it with - yes, our national interests including security issues will be compromised. Apparently he's already shown this proclivity with Russia. China is on the docket. Middle East?

Eventually I believe there's going to be "The Trump Tapes" and it won't be pretty..Trump is an opportunist and a self aggrandizer. The way he ran his campaign on lies, exaggerations, fear mongering, hypocrisy - his character portends a horrible presidency..

Maybe Clinton did some illegal stuff and maybe she ought to be jailed for it - I don't know all the details to say she should or shouldn't (but then again, if we called a spade a spade, lots of politicians, including presidents should have been jailed for the crap they pulled) but to imply that Trump somehow wouldn't approach what Clinton has allegedly done is naïve in the extreme. He's all about winning and my guess he'll eventually beat Clinton in corruption as well..


It wasn't just civil proceedings, there were criminal charges levied at him for sexual misconduct as well. You may be able to wave some of these off as women pursuing money, but I doubt all of the accusers were of that variety. Trump didn't give his game away in that 'Bush' tape, he had several decades of interviews to let us know where he stood in relation to women, but in that tape he basically lays out for us his ill behaviour and then then tries to hide behind 'locker room' talk and gets his hair in a fluff because folks used that as evidence of his assaultive nature..Really? Rich powerful men sexually assaulting women? When does THAT ever happen? It might be no more or less than in the general population, but when it then gets put on tape? That's an uphill battle for Trump..

Yeah he said it because he has more important things to worry about like being president and I'm sure if he had lost the election he would have been more than happy to let the cases go to fruition as it is they got half of what they were asking for... In this case it was just a matter of good business. And as far as you screaming fraud I don't see them coming to lock Trump up on that charge do you? LOL

Two points... As I said before I really don't care what Trump does as long as he appoints originalist jurists to scotus as he promised from the list he gave out.

Second, as far as any "criminal charge" for "sexual misconduct" I know of no such pending charge, do you?

Whether or not they were pending charges is irrelevant. This is the court of OUR public opinion as you so eloquently stated in an earlier post. Why would legal charges necessarily matter?

By your logic, if you knew someone was with you all night and they were charged with murder they clearly couldn't have committed, the fact they were with you and clearly innocent would make no difference? The OJ acquittal made no difference?

By the same token if you clearly saw someone you might hire in your business murder someone and no charges were levied due to insufficient evidence or conflicting evidence (someone else provided this person an alibi - nullifying your evidence), you would forget about it and hire the person?

This is about what you believe someone to be like based on their character and behaviour. Just because Clinton will not go to jail or be pronounced guilty doesn't mean anything to me if I believe she is guilty - for whatever reason..

So the question is - do you feel Trump will be more corrupt or as corrupt as Clinton or how about just "corrupt"? That is the crux of the matter. I believe he will be. That he skates free of charges just reinforces ideas about the rich and their privileged legal status. And in other news, rain is wet.


Clearly you care about more than this if your assertions about Clinton are to be taken seriously. You indicted her for breaching national security using that as reason for her to be jailed. Trump gets a pass for his potential to do this? You really don't care what Trump does beyond scotus appointments? Treason?

Here's the difference... the director of the FBI said that Hillary was complacent in the violation of federal law but because he didn't believe that she would ever be prosecuted under the statute which did not require intent his decision was not to recommend indictment. The FBI has indicated with a 99% certainty that bad actors gained access to her email... Email that contained at the highest level secrets and identities of operatives and this is in the opinion of me and countless others Rises to the level of treason whether intended or not. Also there is a prima facie case which establishes a for pay with Clinton state department and the Clinton Foundation; a self enrichment proposition.

When there's enough evidence to indicate that Donald Trump as a public servant entrusted with the public trust has violated that trust as Hillary Clinton has I will be the first to jump on the bandwagon and call for his head.

Fair enough. You don't believe Trump will be as corrupt as Clinton. I do, probably much worse. He has all the markers of a two bit 'banana republic' dictator (how much he is able to express this trait is a question). I believe when all is said and done his presidency will be much worse than what Clinton is alleged to have done..


I believe treason to be treason must have intent.

I fully account for Clintons (both) shady dealings - though I'm not convinced that her email idiocy was intentional. I also believe that folks that give Trump a pass do so on account of hating Hillary. I just can't see how anyone can truly think that Donald J. Trump will not be at least as corrupt or worse than Hillary. I don't need to wait and see. The only thing stopping him is other politicians - a dubious arrestment. His basic psychology is fully understood to those of us with only a small amount of psychological understanding. He makes it clear. That is a good thing. Like when racists don't hide who they are. You know what you got..

You mean armchair psychologists who got a passing grade in psych 101?

I was not referring specifically to those with an understanding related to a degree from an educational institution. Sometimes the formally uneducated lady swinging on her porch chair has a much better understanding of things psychological than so called formally educated people..most of the time because people like the one to which I refer have had direct experience with a particular type..they may not be able to articulate in psychological terms what they are dealing with, but nonetheless understand perfectly.

And if this is an appeal to my particular case, lets just say I happen to be more than qualified on both sides of that coin..

I never said I believe that he will be less corrupt...I said if he is I would call for his head then. I would never assume (remember what that gets you) his psychology and future actions.

You're right, treason requires intent. She intended to circumvent the security procedures which led to exposure...and therefore is prosecutable.

Well, that's the rub, we have no choice but to wait..

However, my comments are not directed via my being a legal prosecutor. My comments are directed towards what I consider a valid assumption that this man who has shown that he will lie to get where he is and exhibits numerous other psychological "maladies" (typical politician) will continue those habits.

So, yes, I do assume he will do those things and with good (aforementioned) reasons. But yes, I have no choice but to see how it plays out. He won the election. Hell froze over, maybe he'll soon become a minister..

Quote "I see how these next four years are gonna go" Quote



You are sure as hell right about this. Can anyone see a republican congress and republican Supreme Court doing anything about the abuse of power of a republican president? In your dreams. The best part is all those extra smart people who voted for this crooked con man are going to be just as screwed as the rest of us.