Thanks for the relevant commentary on succession; I think yours is the first piece I’ve read to raise that point!
As far as the ballroom goes, I fail to see how it solves the problem of security, because presidents speak in all kinds of places outside and inside Washington. Do we really want a president who refuses to appear in public except at the presidential ballroom in DC? Courts and kings come to mind. (And I doubt that most future presidents would so restrict their appearances, but I do think that any president who has reason to be particularly fearful or paranoid might.)
Also, your points about securing a building vs. securing a room are also helpful. Part of me understands those saying that the shooter didn’t get close at all, and part of me understands those saying that he got way too close for comfort. Your thoughts break down why both arguments make sense, as well as the broader implications of securing a building.
Thanks for this good review and analysis of the evening's event. On a random note, I think what is really interesting is how many people think this was staged.
1) There is already a security protocol in place for such events - when a President goes abroad, how does the SS prepare for all eventualities? Typically, the SS takes control of the floors above & below the Presidential floor, etc. Follow that.
2) The WHCD should remain OUTSIDE the realm of the Executive Office of the Presidency, otherwise, it'll be another in his barrage of abusing and circumventing norms, rules, laws, especially with regard to the media and freedom of the press. POTUS should always be the Guest, not the Host at the WHCD.
3) The last assassination attempt at POTUS, besides trump, was Ronald Reagan in 1981. There were NO assassination attempts during George Bush 1 (4 years), Bill Clinton (8 years), George Bush 2 (8 years), Obama (8 years), or Biden (4 years), encompassing 32 years, 2 Republicans and 3 Democratic Presidents. There have been 3 since, all targeting the current president. Of the 3, only this latest attempt has the perpetrator's association with the Left been fairly discerned. One can draw their own conclusions regarding heated rhetoric, personal character, policies, etc. from the set of facts above.
4) You make an excellent point in #6 - the presidential line of succession should come from the party occupying the Executive Office, following the 1886 line of succession.
A threat on social media, or in public somewhere toward a POTUS that is then discovered, investigated, and dealt with (arrested or prosecuted) with NO actual attempt is NOT considered an assassination attempt, otherwise the media would have reported on these non-attempts (perhaps some have), and the consuming media public would have heard of them.
Yet again, Gabe, thank you for your composed and sensible thoughts. You consistently provide new and rare insights that teach and challenge me to grow.
Chuck Grassley is in better possession of his mental faculties than Donald Trump (admittedly a low bar). The Dems bypassed a senescent Dianne Feinstein when she was in line to be President Pro Tem. If the Senate recognizes the seriousness of the position and requires a non-senile person (as they did with Feinstein but failed to do with Thurmond), that problem is avoided. But it is not comforting to depend on Senators acting responsibly.
Excellent article and Gabe is the only one I've seen who clearly showed the Hilton layout. Small point of order. The Grassley thing is more a Heller Catch-22. Schrodinger's dilemma was knowing whether the cat was alive or dead.
Absolutely the elephant in the room. Who was it who said that he was willing to put up with a few deaths to keep the right to bear arms? Oh, right. I remember.
You write: "In his manifesto, Allen calls Trump a 'pedophile,' repeating an allegation that has marinated in left-wing media but has never once been proven." While I agree that this has not been "proven", that is largely due to the fact that the inept FBI has yet to follow up on the witness who was questioned by them a few years back who stated that she had been sexually and physically abused by the President when she was 13 years old. For the FBI to question her on 4 separate occasions with no variation in her very detailed account generally only occurs if the FBI believes there is a strong degree of merit to her story. This is not an allegation that has merely marinated in the left-wing media, but an allegation that persons across the political spectrum (including a number of far-right influencers and media people) have been openly discussing since the file containing those reports and detail the account have been released to the public. I would expect more accurate reporting than what you provided as it sounds like something I would expect to read or hear from an outlet like Fox news.
I am not a Dem to begin with. I don't even live in your country. I do follow FACTS, however. If you bothered to read what I wrote, I did not state that the allegations have been proven, but apparently you prefer to read what you think it said, and not what it actually said. What I did write, with regard to the Epstein files and the report directly from the FBI, in 2019, when your guy was President, is that the FBI appears to have found CREDIBLE allegations about him and his behavior with a 13 year old. They interviewed her FOUR times, not something they would bother to do unless they found her allegations CREDIBLE. The fact that there has been no follow-up since then has been one of the "mysteries" about the lack of transparency from the Dept of "Justice", particularly when they claim there is "nothing further to investigate". That beggars belief and does not pass the smell test, particularly when there are literally MILLIONS of files they refuse to release. What are they afraid of? So, keep your eyes closed, and your hands over your ears, and you will just get along fine. No need to use critical thinking on your part as that would only require you to actually question what you are being told by an administration that does not actually ooze with transparency. You probably also believe that the US is the "hottest" country in the world. Take a second out of your bubble and read a few newspapers from other countries. The US clearly is not popular with MOST countries. One last thought: MAGA is unique in my experience of 73 years on this planet. No matter what evidence may be available to contradict things that come out the mouth of you president, you refuse to believe it and feel that saying something to denigrate the other party is enough to refute those facts. Even Nixon's staunchest followers in the 70's finally had to concede that he was guilty in Watergate and decided it was time to move on. Apparently, MAGA is going to remain on the Titanic until it sinks. Just remember to bring your life preserver.
Boyo, you confuse truth with support for the man. As to 73 years of experience on your part, I counter with 72 on mine as an anti-war participant since the early 70’s and a political activist since the ‘80s. Your sly alliteration between complaints of abuse and actual proof of bad acts is a sign of a certain, shall we say, political perspective on your part that allows you to allege but not prove. A plausible reason for speaking to your unknown complainant numerous times is that each contact produced new facts and perhaps new allegations that could not be sustained. But I’ll allow that it would be of value to know the circumstances rather than to jump to conclusions.
Your baseless jump to my being in a “bubble” is simply another attempt to insult me deferentially. I’ll assume you are from Europe, which I travel to regularly. Unless you are from Canada, which automatically reduces your credibility. So , yes I read other opinions from other countries, and like your opinions about a country you are clearly unfamiliar with, I find many opinions on American politics to be headline driven and factually faulty. ( Like yours).
I will give you this- the US is a failing hegemon. The economics are failing(read up on the coming sovereign debt crisis and the fact that our Federal Reserve no longer controls America’s economy) and look to the EU debt crisis which is likely to leave the EU at war with Russia and in a debt crisis of its own by 2028, perhaps as bad as a full blown Depression.
I am neither alleging or in a position of proving, as you put it. The allegations, as they are known legally, were made by a woman to the FBI. The FBI's interest would seem apparent if they interviewed her 4 times. They have a protocol in these interviews, and if the party they interview contradicts previous statements, they normally terminate the interview and do not schedule follow-ups. That, in itself, should spark interest in anyone who may want to know the truth.
I find your statement in this most recent post somewhat disingenuous seeing that your initial post responding to my comment relied on assumptions by you that it was baseless, when in fact, it is not. Your saying so does not change that. In a court of law, such evidence/testimony would likely be admissible and it would be up to the jury/judge to determine the credibility of the witness. When one examines other facts of a sexual nature with regard to the president such as his previously being found liable for sexual abuse by a jury, his very public comments regarding how he can get away with "touching" other women without their permission, his long-term relationship with Epstein, in addition to the allegations with the FBI, his telling Norah O'Donnell he is not a rapist or pedophile when not even asked the question (she merely read the guy's manifesto) is somewhat telling and reminds me of Nixon when he said he was not a crook. It doesn't take a much of a leap to wonder why the investigation of many of those mentioned in the files, particularly him, has been stymied. Particularly, when they manage to find the time to interview parties that are never mentioned in the files, such as Hillary Clinton. As to the complainant, she is known, but not to the public for very obvious reasons. She is not "my complainant", as you suggest. The report made it clear that there were no contradictions throughout the 4 sessions and that it was not dropped for the reasons you suggest. That is apparently something you want to believe because perhaps it does fits in with your "political perspective".
Finally, your comment that the US is a country I am "clearly unfamiliar" with is another assumption on your part that fails as I was born and lived in the country for nearly half my life and spent much of it studying politics, the law and history, both formally and informally. Your imperious tone does not make any of your statements any more substantive or correct. Finally, I find your comments regarding Europe and Canada something only an American could make. The fact that you could state that someone in any other country is less credible as a result of living there while somehow someone living in the US, on that basis alone, should somehow make them more credible, is laughable. I am aware enough about Canada to know that they have more of a free press than what passes for a Washington press corps that has yet to know how to cover this president after 10 years and a president who attempts to censor journalists at every turn. I look forward to your condescending retort.
1st-You are sure about FBI protocol. In an interview process you know nothing about?
Then you argue about admissibility in a court of law. As a trial attorney here in the States for 40 years I can assure you , you are wrong. You go on about this witness as if you have read about her directly. And still you thereafter make assumptions that are not fair. Moreover if this is all ya got, you’ve not enough to prove anything.
As to Hillary , she is a percipient witness as to her husband who had Epstein to the White House many times in the ‘90s and is known to have flown on Epstein’s plane over 20 times. And in the end your witness was not believed. Also standing alone there is no basis upon which to build conclusions, although you try hard to do so.
Your “informal “ knowledge of the law is apparent. And under no circumstances are you aware of the current status of Canada which has toppled into a near fascist state that allows minimal dissent-please review the government response to Convoy political action during Covid.
But other than that, you’re doing great!
btw , we are repeating ourselves. You may have the last go at it, as I am done. As are your arguments. Balligh tua
The FBI protocol I speak of is something that has been repeated several times by past members of the FBI in interviews I have read as well as seen. I see no reason for them to lie about something like that. Also, it would comport to common sense, as it be nothing different with everyday police detectives. With regard to the witness, I have read her reports to the FBI directly as it is available to anyone who cares to read them. I do not know the witness, nor do I need to know her as I never claimed that her story is credible or not, only that would be a decision to be made by a judge and/or jury. I am not sure about the "assumptions you speak of, but if you are referring to the FACTS regarding the president, they are more than fair as he was adjudicated in a court of law and found liable for sexual abuse. His comments again are facts as they are accessible to the public. They are statements he made, and are not hearsay. Again, you continue to suggest that I made a definitive statement that he was guilty. I never said any such thing, only that there seemed to be enough evidence to suggest further inquiry by the DOJ. You seem to have a vested interest in that not happening by your statements.
You continually suggest that I am making conclusions when I have not, and, yet, at the same time you have drawn your own conclusions as to the veracity of the witness and as to why the case has not continued at this point when you are not privy to any discussions within the FBI with regard to her. Why is that? Are you to tell me that, as an alleged lawyer, that if your client presented you with such evidence, you wouldn't investigate further in order to determine whether she had a case to be made. If not, I would find your actions bordering on malpractice.
As to Hillary, if that is why you believe she was questioned, you are beyond naive (is that why she was asked questions with regard to "Pizzagate?). Suffice it to say, why is she one of the few witnesses to be questioned by the Republican majority House while there are other individuals who are actually named in the files (the president, for one, literally named more than anyone else, except for Epstein himself). And, if you were to suggest that since he is president, that cannot be done, I would refer you to Bill Clinton in 1998, who did present himself.
Your condescension is boundless. For one, I am a law school graduate of an accredited US law school, class of 78 (and I passed the bar exam on my first try). For another, I actually have been living in Canada for over the past 30 years and what you describe of it must be a fever dream. This country is not remotely a fascist state, as you describe, and actually sounds far more like your country under the current president. The recent rankings among countries with regard to both freedom and democracy by those organizations that measure such things seem to contradict your bizarre statement. Since you make a claim without any evidence to back it up, I will help you with that. Freedom House, which is non-partisan, and highly regarded, presented their findings for which countries are considered most free as evaluated by several metrics. Canada, this so-called fascist country as you proclaim, came out the FIFTH HIGHEST on the list out of 208 jurisdictions with high marks in political rights and civil liberties. The US has been rapidly declining in the past decade. "Freedom House classified the United States as 'Free' but highlighted significant declines in political rights and civil liberties, noting it had one of the largest declines among "Free" rated countries.
So, in summation, counsel, you don't appear to have learned much during your heralded law career as you make any and all assumptions, not only about the issues I brought forth, but about me (all of which has been far off the mark), I would have thought that you would have learned the pitfalls of making assumptions, rather than presenting facts, but as the old adage about the law says: ""If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts; if you have the law on your side, pound the law; if you have neither the facts nor the law, pound the table". I rest my case.
Perhaps not, at least in many person’s minds, but the office he holds deserve respect and the fact he achieved it through a national election deserves admiration.
I agree that the office he holds merits respect, but that fact also requires the person holding it also treats it with respect, which he clearly does not as evidenced by his actions on a daily basis. While I could write a book on what those actions are, I will just provide a short list which includes his war on Iran (including not following proper protocol before taking action), his brutal utilization of ICE and interfering with attempts to investigate the 2 murders in Minneapolis by that state, the illegal actions/bombings of boats from Venezuela, the inflammatory comments and actions against the press nearly daily, etc. while ironically attending an event on Saturday that was intending to celebrate the freedom of the press.
By all means write your book, hopefully with some research and less biased opinions, for example: he acted under legislated war powers, as did other presidents in recent history, to enforce a policy which every American politician of note had insisted upon in the last 30-40 years; protocol is meaningless when your Congressional opposition treasonously leaks what you brief them in hopes of hurting you; ICE “murdered” no one in Minneapolis; and make the anti-drug boat destruction case to American families devasted by illegal fentanyl smuggling from Venezuela. Be sure to include a chapter on “inflammatory comments and actions” covering
No, your president acted unilaterally when deciding to bomb Iran which is, in fact, usurping their powers, though the Republicans have willingly ceded such powers to him apparently. Your statement of "treasonously" is quite inflammatory and begs for facts to back that up. What exactly are you talking about and please support that statement with FACTS, if you would. The only well publicized leak I am aware of is when Hegseth included the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic on a Signal app group (an app that is not normally allowed for such high security discussions) when discussing classified information regarding imminent military strikes. While that would have been an offense that any other Sec of Defense would have been fired for, apparently the President was fine with that.
As far as ICE is concerned, while no formal charges have been filed against any of them as of yet, shooting someone in the back that presented no threat to you (his possession of a gun was legal, as per the Second Amendment, and was holstered) as he was attempting to help a woman up after an ICE officer pushed her the ground, as was made quite clear by numerous camera views of the incident, certainly would merit further investigation under normal circumstances. For some reason, the president's Dept of Justice does not agree and prevented the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension from even studying the crime scene in their own state . However, my current understanding is that the Attorney General of Minnesota is intending to remedy that soon.
Finally, with regard to Venezuela, since the people on the boat were never apprehended, or any cargo on the boat for that matter, difficult to make any claim of fentanyl on the boat. In fact, there was never any claim by the president that there was fentanyl on the boat. They claimed there was cocaine on the boat. Further, Venezuela is not known by anyone as a country that either makes it or traffics fentanyl. It is primarily manufactured in China and then sent to Mexico. Nowhere in this chain is Venezuela included.
However, you are entirely missing the bigger point, and that is that it is the actions of the US on those boats were arguably a violation of international law and potentially a war crime. The US was not attacked by Venezuela or by the members in those boats. The US attacked without provocation. The usual protocol in a situation where you may suspect that a boat may be hauling and trafficking drugs is to use the act of interdiction which would include stopping the boat while stating the reasons for such and then proceed from there, including confiscation and/or arrest. No proof has ever been provided for the US's actions and the member on board those boats were never provided an opportunity to state why they were there or what they had on board (because they were killed), and thus not provided due process which constitutes extrajudicial killings. At no time did they fire upon the US. The actions of the US were also a violation of the UN charter and with no authorization by the UN Security Council. The "double taps" that were proudly proclaimed by Hegseth (there's that name again) are also prohibited during armed conflict, and are considered by many experts to constitute war crimes.
So, you asked for a book; however, what I have written is only in response to your latest comments. My comments ARE based on FACTS while I can clearly see that yours are not. You do not seem to have even the most basic understanding of international law and also appear to lack even the most basic facts of these actions. Just because you do not agree with the facts does not make me biased. It just makes you appear ignorant, as in preferring to not know the facts so you can cling to the idea of "admiring" your president. I prefer to "admire" those who earned the admiration by their actions/statements. Winning an election does not suffice. It's what they do while in office that matters.
Good start on the book, it will sell well to half the country, the other half prefers a chief executive who defends America’s interests and its citizens…. When you take a gun to a protest, bad things can (and did) happen…. I’ll take back the “inflammatory” word when Adam Schiff publicly apologizes for his lies, Jimmy Kimmel admits his commentaries are tasteless, Hakeem Jeffries recants his “Total War Everywhere” exhortation, and other Members of Congress cease calling for the Chief Executive’s “elimination”.
One attendee of the Correspondents' Dinner claims that the bullet that hit a vest worn by a security person was fired by another security person, not by Allen. Can you confirm?
Interesting about the presidential succession. I firmly believe that cabinet members should not be a part of it as they are not elected. I think it should be Speaker of the House then Senate Majority Leader then the heads of various committees in the House and Senate. I also wonder about the Vice President. Is there a separate succession plan for him/her?
Interesting that there are still all of the cabinet members and the VP standing behind T***p as he spoke after the event. It seems as though we should have learned not to have all of those people in the same room at the same time!
Not necessary to have the President, VP and Speaker at the event.
Dogs always follow their master.
Perhaps the vp and speaker were excited to hear Trump deliver his "special" talk he lamented not being able to give.
And why were any of the people in that room more important than students in school who have to fear this will happen to them one day?
They think they are. They make the rules. So here we remain.
Thanks for the relevant commentary on succession; I think yours is the first piece I’ve read to raise that point!
As far as the ballroom goes, I fail to see how it solves the problem of security, because presidents speak in all kinds of places outside and inside Washington. Do we really want a president who refuses to appear in public except at the presidential ballroom in DC? Courts and kings come to mind. (And I doubt that most future presidents would so restrict their appearances, but I do think that any president who has reason to be particularly fearful or paranoid might.)
Also, your points about securing a building vs. securing a room are also helpful. Part of me understands those saying that the shooter didn’t get close at all, and part of me understands those saying that he got way too close for comfort. Your thoughts break down why both arguments make sense, as well as the broader implications of securing a building.
Thanks for this good review and analysis of the evening's event. On a random note, I think what is really interesting is how many people think this was staged.
Excellent thoughts, Gabe, here's my 2 cents:
1) There is already a security protocol in place for such events - when a President goes abroad, how does the SS prepare for all eventualities? Typically, the SS takes control of the floors above & below the Presidential floor, etc. Follow that.
2) The WHCD should remain OUTSIDE the realm of the Executive Office of the Presidency, otherwise, it'll be another in his barrage of abusing and circumventing norms, rules, laws, especially with regard to the media and freedom of the press. POTUS should always be the Guest, not the Host at the WHCD.
3) The last assassination attempt at POTUS, besides trump, was Ronald Reagan in 1981. There were NO assassination attempts during George Bush 1 (4 years), Bill Clinton (8 years), George Bush 2 (8 years), Obama (8 years), or Biden (4 years), encompassing 32 years, 2 Republicans and 3 Democratic Presidents. There have been 3 since, all targeting the current president. Of the 3, only this latest attempt has the perpetrator's association with the Left been fairly discerned. One can draw their own conclusions regarding heated rhetoric, personal character, policies, etc. from the set of facts above.
4) You make an excellent point in #6 - the presidential line of succession should come from the party occupying the Executive Office, following the 1886 line of succession.
Yes there were. We apparently just didn't hear about them.
A threat on social media, or in public somewhere toward a POTUS that is then discovered, investigated, and dealt with (arrested or prosecuted) with NO actual attempt is NOT considered an assassination attempt, otherwise the media would have reported on these non-attempts (perhaps some have), and the consuming media public would have heard of them.
Sensible and informative. Thanks.
Yet again, Gabe, thank you for your composed and sensible thoughts. You consistently provide new and rare insights that teach and challenge me to grow.
Thank you so much, Cinda!
Why no mention of gun laws?
Chuck Grassley is in better possession of his mental faculties than Donald Trump (admittedly a low bar). The Dems bypassed a senescent Dianne Feinstein when she was in line to be President Pro Tem. If the Senate recognizes the seriousness of the position and requires a non-senile person (as they did with Feinstein but failed to do with Thurmond), that problem is avoided. But it is not comforting to depend on Senators acting responsibly.
Excellent article and Gabe is the only one I've seen who clearly showed the Hilton layout. Small point of order. The Grassley thing is more a Heller Catch-22. Schrodinger's dilemma was knowing whether the cat was alive or dead.
The glaring point not discussed is weak gun laws and easy access to guns!
Absolutely the elephant in the room. Who was it who said that he was willing to put up with a few deaths to keep the right to bear arms? Oh, right. I remember.
You write: "In his manifesto, Allen calls Trump a 'pedophile,' repeating an allegation that has marinated in left-wing media but has never once been proven." While I agree that this has not been "proven", that is largely due to the fact that the inept FBI has yet to follow up on the witness who was questioned by them a few years back who stated that she had been sexually and physically abused by the President when she was 13 years old. For the FBI to question her on 4 separate occasions with no variation in her very detailed account generally only occurs if the FBI believes there is a strong degree of merit to her story. This is not an allegation that has merely marinated in the left-wing media, but an allegation that persons across the political spectrum (including a number of far-right influencers and media people) have been openly discussing since the file containing those reports and detail the account have been released to the public. I would expect more accurate reporting than what you provided as it sounds like something I would expect to read or hear from an outlet like Fox news.
There is NO PROOF THAT TRUMP IS A PEDOPHILE. except from
Dem slanted observations and assumptions like yours. NONE
I am not a Dem to begin with. I don't even live in your country. I do follow FACTS, however. If you bothered to read what I wrote, I did not state that the allegations have been proven, but apparently you prefer to read what you think it said, and not what it actually said. What I did write, with regard to the Epstein files and the report directly from the FBI, in 2019, when your guy was President, is that the FBI appears to have found CREDIBLE allegations about him and his behavior with a 13 year old. They interviewed her FOUR times, not something they would bother to do unless they found her allegations CREDIBLE. The fact that there has been no follow-up since then has been one of the "mysteries" about the lack of transparency from the Dept of "Justice", particularly when they claim there is "nothing further to investigate". That beggars belief and does not pass the smell test, particularly when there are literally MILLIONS of files they refuse to release. What are they afraid of? So, keep your eyes closed, and your hands over your ears, and you will just get along fine. No need to use critical thinking on your part as that would only require you to actually question what you are being told by an administration that does not actually ooze with transparency. You probably also believe that the US is the "hottest" country in the world. Take a second out of your bubble and read a few newspapers from other countries. The US clearly is not popular with MOST countries. One last thought: MAGA is unique in my experience of 73 years on this planet. No matter what evidence may be available to contradict things that come out the mouth of you president, you refuse to believe it and feel that saying something to denigrate the other party is enough to refute those facts. Even Nixon's staunchest followers in the 70's finally had to concede that he was guilty in Watergate and decided it was time to move on. Apparently, MAGA is going to remain on the Titanic until it sinks. Just remember to bring your life preserver.
Boyo, you confuse truth with support for the man. As to 73 years of experience on your part, I counter with 72 on mine as an anti-war participant since the early 70’s and a political activist since the ‘80s. Your sly alliteration between complaints of abuse and actual proof of bad acts is a sign of a certain, shall we say, political perspective on your part that allows you to allege but not prove. A plausible reason for speaking to your unknown complainant numerous times is that each contact produced new facts and perhaps new allegations that could not be sustained. But I’ll allow that it would be of value to know the circumstances rather than to jump to conclusions.
Your baseless jump to my being in a “bubble” is simply another attempt to insult me deferentially. I’ll assume you are from Europe, which I travel to regularly. Unless you are from Canada, which automatically reduces your credibility. So , yes I read other opinions from other countries, and like your opinions about a country you are clearly unfamiliar with, I find many opinions on American politics to be headline driven and factually faulty. ( Like yours).
I will give you this- the US is a failing hegemon. The economics are failing(read up on the coming sovereign debt crisis and the fact that our Federal Reserve no longer controls America’s economy) and look to the EU debt crisis which is likely to leave the EU at war with Russia and in a debt crisis of its own by 2028, perhaps as bad as a full blown Depression.
I am neither alleging or in a position of proving, as you put it. The allegations, as they are known legally, were made by a woman to the FBI. The FBI's interest would seem apparent if they interviewed her 4 times. They have a protocol in these interviews, and if the party they interview contradicts previous statements, they normally terminate the interview and do not schedule follow-ups. That, in itself, should spark interest in anyone who may want to know the truth.
I find your statement in this most recent post somewhat disingenuous seeing that your initial post responding to my comment relied on assumptions by you that it was baseless, when in fact, it is not. Your saying so does not change that. In a court of law, such evidence/testimony would likely be admissible and it would be up to the jury/judge to determine the credibility of the witness. When one examines other facts of a sexual nature with regard to the president such as his previously being found liable for sexual abuse by a jury, his very public comments regarding how he can get away with "touching" other women without their permission, his long-term relationship with Epstein, in addition to the allegations with the FBI, his telling Norah O'Donnell he is not a rapist or pedophile when not even asked the question (she merely read the guy's manifesto) is somewhat telling and reminds me of Nixon when he said he was not a crook. It doesn't take a much of a leap to wonder why the investigation of many of those mentioned in the files, particularly him, has been stymied. Particularly, when they manage to find the time to interview parties that are never mentioned in the files, such as Hillary Clinton. As to the complainant, she is known, but not to the public for very obvious reasons. She is not "my complainant", as you suggest. The report made it clear that there were no contradictions throughout the 4 sessions and that it was not dropped for the reasons you suggest. That is apparently something you want to believe because perhaps it does fits in with your "political perspective".
Finally, your comment that the US is a country I am "clearly unfamiliar" with is another assumption on your part that fails as I was born and lived in the country for nearly half my life and spent much of it studying politics, the law and history, both formally and informally. Your imperious tone does not make any of your statements any more substantive or correct. Finally, I find your comments regarding Europe and Canada something only an American could make. The fact that you could state that someone in any other country is less credible as a result of living there while somehow someone living in the US, on that basis alone, should somehow make them more credible, is laughable. I am aware enough about Canada to know that they have more of a free press than what passes for a Washington press corps that has yet to know how to cover this president after 10 years and a president who attempts to censor journalists at every turn. I look forward to your condescending retort.
1st-You are sure about FBI protocol. In an interview process you know nothing about?
Then you argue about admissibility in a court of law. As a trial attorney here in the States for 40 years I can assure you , you are wrong. You go on about this witness as if you have read about her directly. And still you thereafter make assumptions that are not fair. Moreover if this is all ya got, you’ve not enough to prove anything.
As to Hillary , she is a percipient witness as to her husband who had Epstein to the White House many times in the ‘90s and is known to have flown on Epstein’s plane over 20 times. And in the end your witness was not believed. Also standing alone there is no basis upon which to build conclusions, although you try hard to do so.
Your “informal “ knowledge of the law is apparent. And under no circumstances are you aware of the current status of Canada which has toppled into a near fascist state that allows minimal dissent-please review the government response to Convoy political action during Covid.
But other than that, you’re doing great!
btw , we are repeating ourselves. You may have the last go at it, as I am done. As are your arguments. Balligh tua
The FBI protocol I speak of is something that has been repeated several times by past members of the FBI in interviews I have read as well as seen. I see no reason for them to lie about something like that. Also, it would comport to common sense, as it be nothing different with everyday police detectives. With regard to the witness, I have read her reports to the FBI directly as it is available to anyone who cares to read them. I do not know the witness, nor do I need to know her as I never claimed that her story is credible or not, only that would be a decision to be made by a judge and/or jury. I am not sure about the "assumptions you speak of, but if you are referring to the FACTS regarding the president, they are more than fair as he was adjudicated in a court of law and found liable for sexual abuse. His comments again are facts as they are accessible to the public. They are statements he made, and are not hearsay. Again, you continue to suggest that I made a definitive statement that he was guilty. I never said any such thing, only that there seemed to be enough evidence to suggest further inquiry by the DOJ. You seem to have a vested interest in that not happening by your statements.
You continually suggest that I am making conclusions when I have not, and, yet, at the same time you have drawn your own conclusions as to the veracity of the witness and as to why the case has not continued at this point when you are not privy to any discussions within the FBI with regard to her. Why is that? Are you to tell me that, as an alleged lawyer, that if your client presented you with such evidence, you wouldn't investigate further in order to determine whether she had a case to be made. If not, I would find your actions bordering on malpractice.
As to Hillary, if that is why you believe she was questioned, you are beyond naive (is that why she was asked questions with regard to "Pizzagate?). Suffice it to say, why is she one of the few witnesses to be questioned by the Republican majority House while there are other individuals who are actually named in the files (the president, for one, literally named more than anyone else, except for Epstein himself). And, if you were to suggest that since he is president, that cannot be done, I would refer you to Bill Clinton in 1998, who did present himself.
Your condescension is boundless. For one, I am a law school graduate of an accredited US law school, class of 78 (and I passed the bar exam on my first try). For another, I actually have been living in Canada for over the past 30 years and what you describe of it must be a fever dream. This country is not remotely a fascist state, as you describe, and actually sounds far more like your country under the current president. The recent rankings among countries with regard to both freedom and democracy by those organizations that measure such things seem to contradict your bizarre statement. Since you make a claim without any evidence to back it up, I will help you with that. Freedom House, which is non-partisan, and highly regarded, presented their findings for which countries are considered most free as evaluated by several metrics. Canada, this so-called fascist country as you proclaim, came out the FIFTH HIGHEST on the list out of 208 jurisdictions with high marks in political rights and civil liberties. The US has been rapidly declining in the past decade. "Freedom House classified the United States as 'Free' but highlighted significant declines in political rights and civil liberties, noting it had one of the largest declines among "Free" rated countries.
So, in summation, counsel, you don't appear to have learned much during your heralded law career as you make any and all assumptions, not only about the issues I brought forth, but about me (all of which has been far off the mark), I would have thought that you would have learned the pitfalls of making assumptions, rather than presenting facts, but as the old adage about the law says: ""If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts; if you have the law on your side, pound the law; if you have neither the facts nor the law, pound the table". I rest my case.
I am sorry, there is nothing admirable about Donald Trump.
Perhaps not, at least in many person’s minds, but the office he holds deserve respect and the fact he achieved it through a national election deserves admiration.
I agree that the office he holds merits respect, but that fact also requires the person holding it also treats it with respect, which he clearly does not as evidenced by his actions on a daily basis. While I could write a book on what those actions are, I will just provide a short list which includes his war on Iran (including not following proper protocol before taking action), his brutal utilization of ICE and interfering with attempts to investigate the 2 murders in Minneapolis by that state, the illegal actions/bombings of boats from Venezuela, the inflammatory comments and actions against the press nearly daily, etc. while ironically attending an event on Saturday that was intending to celebrate the freedom of the press.
By all means write your book, hopefully with some research and less biased opinions, for example: he acted under legislated war powers, as did other presidents in recent history, to enforce a policy which every American politician of note had insisted upon in the last 30-40 years; protocol is meaningless when your Congressional opposition treasonously leaks what you brief them in hopes of hurting you; ICE “murdered” no one in Minneapolis; and make the anti-drug boat destruction case to American families devasted by illegal fentanyl smuggling from Venezuela. Be sure to include a chapter on “inflammatory comments and actions” covering
No, your president acted unilaterally when deciding to bomb Iran which is, in fact, usurping their powers, though the Republicans have willingly ceded such powers to him apparently. Your statement of "treasonously" is quite inflammatory and begs for facts to back that up. What exactly are you talking about and please support that statement with FACTS, if you would. The only well publicized leak I am aware of is when Hegseth included the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic on a Signal app group (an app that is not normally allowed for such high security discussions) when discussing classified information regarding imminent military strikes. While that would have been an offense that any other Sec of Defense would have been fired for, apparently the President was fine with that.
As far as ICE is concerned, while no formal charges have been filed against any of them as of yet, shooting someone in the back that presented no threat to you (his possession of a gun was legal, as per the Second Amendment, and was holstered) as he was attempting to help a woman up after an ICE officer pushed her the ground, as was made quite clear by numerous camera views of the incident, certainly would merit further investigation under normal circumstances. For some reason, the president's Dept of Justice does not agree and prevented the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension from even studying the crime scene in their own state . However, my current understanding is that the Attorney General of Minnesota is intending to remedy that soon.
Finally, with regard to Venezuela, since the people on the boat were never apprehended, or any cargo on the boat for that matter, difficult to make any claim of fentanyl on the boat. In fact, there was never any claim by the president that there was fentanyl on the boat. They claimed there was cocaine on the boat. Further, Venezuela is not known by anyone as a country that either makes it or traffics fentanyl. It is primarily manufactured in China and then sent to Mexico. Nowhere in this chain is Venezuela included.
However, you are entirely missing the bigger point, and that is that it is the actions of the US on those boats were arguably a violation of international law and potentially a war crime. The US was not attacked by Venezuela or by the members in those boats. The US attacked without provocation. The usual protocol in a situation where you may suspect that a boat may be hauling and trafficking drugs is to use the act of interdiction which would include stopping the boat while stating the reasons for such and then proceed from there, including confiscation and/or arrest. No proof has ever been provided for the US's actions and the member on board those boats were never provided an opportunity to state why they were there or what they had on board (because they were killed), and thus not provided due process which constitutes extrajudicial killings. At no time did they fire upon the US. The actions of the US were also a violation of the UN charter and with no authorization by the UN Security Council. The "double taps" that were proudly proclaimed by Hegseth (there's that name again) are also prohibited during armed conflict, and are considered by many experts to constitute war crimes.
So, you asked for a book; however, what I have written is only in response to your latest comments. My comments ARE based on FACTS while I can clearly see that yours are not. You do not seem to have even the most basic understanding of international law and also appear to lack even the most basic facts of these actions. Just because you do not agree with the facts does not make me biased. It just makes you appear ignorant, as in preferring to not know the facts so you can cling to the idea of "admiring" your president. I prefer to "admire" those who earned the admiration by their actions/statements. Winning an election does not suffice. It's what they do while in office that matters.
Good start on the book, it will sell well to half the country, the other half prefers a chief executive who defends America’s interests and its citizens…. When you take a gun to a protest, bad things can (and did) happen…. I’ll take back the “inflammatory” word when Adam Schiff publicly apologizes for his lies, Jimmy Kimmel admits his commentaries are tasteless, Hakeem Jeffries recants his “Total War Everywhere” exhortation, and other Members of Congress cease calling for the Chief Executive’s “elimination”.
Thank you.
One attendee of the Correspondents' Dinner claims that the bullet that hit a vest worn by a security person was fired by another security person, not by Allen. Can you confirm?
Interesting about the presidential succession. I firmly believe that cabinet members should not be a part of it as they are not elected. I think it should be Speaker of the House then Senate Majority Leader then the heads of various committees in the House and Senate. I also wonder about the Vice President. Is there a separate succession plan for him/her?
Interesting that there are still all of the cabinet members and the VP standing behind T***p as he spoke after the event. It seems as though we should have learned not to have all of those people in the same room at the same time!
Especially after what we, ourselves, did in Iran!