RFK Jr. is performing as expected
Politics by Navy2711     March 19, 2025 10:05 am (Rating: 5.0) Last comment by: oldedude (29 comments) [389 views]

Trump Agrees To Give Back Statue Of Liberty In Exchange For All The Land In France We Liberated In WWII
Government by HatetheSwamp     March 21, 2025 9:35 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: oldedude (3 comments) [38 views]

I was wrong🤔, It's TDSrs Firebombing Teslas that are next 🤣
Politics by oldedude     March 20, 2025 10:03 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: oldedude (6 comments) [100 views]

The Trump Admin Says Dept. Of Education Should Be Dis Mantled. This Is Why Their Mistaken
Government by HatetheSwamp     March 21, 2025 7:27 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: oldedude (3 comments) [31 views]

Why is OD running from me?
Politics by Navy2711     March 20, 2025 4:35 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Navy2711 (1 comments) [38 views]

Question for Curt
Politics by Navy2711     March 18, 2025 12:22 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (15 comments) [144 views]

Stephen Miller strips CNN’s Kasie Hunt bare on national TV over district judge's order
Media by HatetheSwamp     March 19, 2025 3:23 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (30 comments) [268 views]

MAINE FOLDED!
Education by oldedude     March 20, 2025 9:35 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: oldedude (4 comments) [57 views]

San Francisco Pride is facing a $300,000 shortfall...
Gay & Lesbian by HatetheSwamp     March 19, 2025 10:23 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (4 comments) [78 views]

One group is finally accountable for damages- Antifa next?
Crime by oldedude     March 19, 2025 9:19 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: (0 comments) [46 views]

Stephen Miller strips CNN’s Kasie Hunt bare on national TV over district judge's order By HatetheSwamp March 19, 2025 3:23 am Category: Media (0.0 from 0 votes) Rules of the Post Write A New Article How To Post Here

Holy freakin friggin EFFINcow! CNN simping for the Swamp, standing up for convicted illegal alien rapists and murderers. Whada hoot! The Dems are so toast!

Comments Start Below

by oldedude on March 19, 2025 8:25 am I almost felt sorry for her. As is typical with libbings, she's been reading articles and believing other libbings who are lying. She did try with what she had. So props for that. Unfortunately, Miller was briefed well. He knew the entire speech before he was at the interview. Hard to fight that. I just wish they'd do that with Leavitt. That should help her out. The Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. In 1798, the United States stood on the brink of war with France (which was never declared). The Federalist Party, which advocated for a strong central government, believed that Democratic-Republican criticism of Federalist policies was disloyal and feared that "aliens," or non-citizens, living in the United States would sympathize with the French during a war. The "war" per se, never transpired. That's key. Neither France or the US declared war on the other country. Alien Enemies Act was not allowed to expire with the other Alien and Sedition Acts, and it remains in effect as Chapter 3, Sections 21–24 of Title 50 of the United States Code. President James Madison invoked the act against British nationals during the War of 1812. President Woodrow Wilson invoked the act against nationals of the Central Powers during World War I. In 1918, an amendment to the act struck the provision restricting the law to males. SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, The act says; That it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, whenever he may deem it necessary (for the public safety, to order to be removed out of the territory thereof, any alien who mayor shall be in prison in pursuance of this act; and to cause to be arrested and sent out of the United States such of those aliens as shall have been ordered to depart therefrom and shall not have obtained a license as aforesaid, in all cases where, in the opinion of the President, the public safety requires a speedy removal. And if any alien so removed or sent out of the United States by the President shall voluntarily return thereto, unless by permission of the President of the United States, such alien on conviction thereof, shall be imprisoned so long as, in the opinion of the President, the public safety may require. Of course I have the act cited, Referenced in the Wiki is the National Archives ecopy of the act. archives.gov en.wikipedia.org by HatetheSwamp on March 19, 2025 8:58 am "I almost felt sorry for her." OD, You are a man with a heart. I was laughing my @$$ off. Hunt, clearly, is wrapped up in the Curt's Holy Trinity's cocoon and knows nuthin beyond lame, Dem Swampcult clichés... as do Curt and Navy. Miller's right. Megyn Kelly is speculating that Trump's gang set this up so that the ACLU and a brainless District Court judge would create the easiest softball possible for the Supreme Court to know outa the park. If you listen to Miller's side of the interview, you know how baseless the Dems' case is. Bahaha. by oldedude on March 19, 2025 9:36 am Interesting, BTW, since the french excursion, there have been questions, and a few fights in congress over this, but the courts per se, have NEVER intervened, considering the act as part of foreign policy which is the executive branch's domain. Once again, the dims are showing themselves as the cult supporting rape, murder, and lawlessness. When a person who beats a woman to death and beyond recognition is held in higher esteem as the woman that is beaten, raped, and murdered by an asshole that's done it before. My bet is the Salvadorian government gave the US a list of names. You can tell during the raids, that ICE was culling the bad from the good folks, or those that are just in the wrong place at the wrong time. The apprehensions of these gangsters, rapists, murderers was very precise through the process. As is pretty usual, are there people in the house that aren't on the list? Yes. You question them and at some point cut them loose. THAT is not "arrested." Law enforcement is allowed to get ID's etc from everyone in that house. Their Probable Cause (PC)? They have a warrant to search and question everyone in the house. Nothing illegal about any of that. I'm not sure if DNA was used in this effort. That would be interesting though. I'm sure other biometrics were used that were given to us (fingerprints especially). Those are easy ways to ensure you're arresting the correct people. by HatetheSwamp on March 19, 2025 9:57 am Once again, the dims are showing themselves as the cult supporting rape, murder, and lawlessness. When a person who beats a woman to death and beyond recognition is held in higher esteem as the woman that is beaten, raped, and murdered by an asshole that's done it before. Bang on and the "dims" are being idiots standing up for rapists and murderers and human trafficelkers... and that's how moderate and independent common sense voters will see it. Trump's playing the Dims and their sheeple like a cheap violin. Bahaha. by Curt_Anderson on March 20, 2025 9:01 am HtS, Unless you have a link to a report saying the deported are "convicted illegal alien rapists and murderers", they are merely alleged gang members. In America we believe in due process and a fair legal process. Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, said on social media that “A single judge” cannot mandate the movements of a planeload of people “who were physically expelled from U.S. soil.” (In fact, U.S. courts can and do order the return of aliens who have been wrongfully deported. See link.) supreme.justia.com by HatetheSwamp on March 20, 2025 9:08 am "In America we believe in due process and a fair legal process." Well, not really. Only citizens are guaranteed due process,... unless the citizen is Mr Tangerine Man and wokesters want to keep him off the presidential ballot, eh? by Curt_Anderson on March 20, 2025 9:26 am HtS, Courts have bent over backwards in deference to Trump. Few defendants have had more appeals granted than Trump. His legal fees were paid by his cult members. The 14th Amendment case was credible based on reading of the plain language. Anyway, SCOTUS ruled in Trump's favor. So what's your complaint? by HatetheSwamp on March 20, 2025 9:29 am "Courts have bent over backwards in deference to Trump." You really need to get your TDS checked out. by Curt_Anderson on March 20, 2025 9:40 am That's what you always say when you cannot contradict the facts I present. Every court has tolerated Trump's endless delays and stalling tactics. by HatetheSwamp on March 20, 2025 9:51 am Curt, Your "facts..." baha... are an opinion piece from your Holy Trinity,... to which you are more faithful than any Christian fundamentalists are to theirs. by Curt_Anderson on March 20, 2025 11:10 am It's your opinion that Trump was treated unfairly by courts, but your opinion is unfounded and contradicted by reality and the facts. by oldedude on March 20, 2025 11:25 am Is that why they dropped charges on most of the lawfare cases? by oldedude on March 20, 2025 11:28 am And I'm not sure it was the courts per se, but the prosecution who "promised" to get him in their election. That was done through selective enforcement and changing the laws so they could go back past the normal statute of limitations. by Curt_Anderson on March 20, 2025 11:32 am Cases were dropped because Trump's legal team ran out the clock with incessant delays until Trump had presidential immunity. That's an advantage no other criminal defendant in history has had. Yet you still cling to the myth that Trump was a disadvantaged victim. by HatetheSwamp on March 20, 2025 11:53 am It's your opinion that Trump was treated unfairly by courts, but your opinion is unfounded and contradicted by reality and the facts. I think Trump was treated fairly by Judge Cannon in Florida but unfairly by Judge Chutkan. And, all of pb's Legal Goobers are unanimous in noting that he was abused by Judge Merchan in NYC. by Curt_Anderson on March 20, 2025 12:25 pm In Trump's fraud case Merchan didn't decide the verdict, a jury did. Trump's legal team made several mistakes which included a disastrous performance by Costello. newsweek.com by HatetheSwamp on March 20, 2025 12:29 pm Curt, I'm not a former Supreme Court clerk. I only have my three Legal Goobers, two of whom are Dems, who are saying that Merchan was horribly biased and certainly would have been overturned, if Trump decided to appeal. And, they ain't chopped liver. by Curt_Anderson on March 20, 2025 12:39 pm One of the alleged Dems is a former Trump lawyer who also made a case for OJ Simpson's innocence. Merchan gave Trump a "discharged" sentence aka no punishment. All of Trump's appeals were rejected including by the Supreme Court. by HatetheSwamp on March 20, 2025 12:47 pm "All of Trump's appeals were rejected including by the Supreme Court." Do tell. by Curt_Anderson on March 20, 2025 12:52 pm Just because FOX News didn't report it, doesn't mean it didn't happen. See link. google.com by HatetheSwamp on March 20, 2025 1:06 pm All inconsequential. Merchan's verdict was not appealed, nor affirmed. by oldedude on March 20, 2025 1:32 pm Cases were dropped because Trump's legal team ran out the clock with incessant delays until Trump had presidential immunity. That's bullshit. Prosecution could have asked for an extension. One of them didn't even start until the statute of limitations was over for most of the charges. Not on trumpster. Stupid prosecutor. And they couldn't fulfill a CCE or any other charges they could have extended the years. Merchan gave Trump a "discharged" sentence aka no punishment. Which is most of the trials were ended. Either prosecution just gave up (once kammy didn't win, or were subsequently vacated, dropped, or whatever they could do to squirm out of the legal battle they were going to lose. NY will trumpster will win on appeal because NY made a law specifically tailored for trumpster. That's called selective enforcement and is illegal. We've talked about this ad nauseum before. The prosecutor may lose their license to practice if they go through with it. by Curt_Anderson on March 20, 2025 6:25 pm HtS, A judge's verdict or sentence does not need to be "affirmed". OD, It is not bullshit. Prosecutors have an ethical obligation not to pursue a case that is unlikely to be successful. That Trump has presidential immunity and the likelihood he would pardon himself made prosecution pointless. And no, it is not selective prosecution. People charged or even accused of Trump's crimes are treated much more harshly than he was. A selective prosecution claim, which I don't believe was made, is not a defense on the merits of the criminal charge. by oldedude on March 20, 2025 8:25 pm Prosecutors have an ethical obligation not to pursue a case that is unlikely to be successful. What happens to your "ethical obligation" that lied to the courts about the "evidence" they had which was a violation of the fourth and sixth amendment of the constitution regarding giving knowingly giving false evidence to the court. Newly Declassified Document Indicates FBI Misled Congress on Reliability of Steele Dossier And no, it is not selective prosecution. “I will shine a light into every dark corner of his real estate dealings, and every dealing,” she said. As Law&Crime’s Ronn Blitzer reported just before the calendar turned to 2019, concerns were expressed that these comments by James were basically a template in how to create grounds for a selective prosecution case. Those fears are now being validated. Attorneys for the Donald J. Trump Foundation, which agreed to dissolve in December, are now highlighting James’ anti-Trump commentary to their advantage. The truth is NAME THE VICTIM IN THIS CASE. You can't. The bank was willful in their decisions. “Newly elected New York Attorney General Letitia James ran on an anti-Trump campaign where she expressed grave antipathy and animus toward Mr. Trump,” they said, according to CNN. “Attorney General James has referred to President Trump as an ‘illegitimate President’ […] and has vowed to ‘use every area of the law to investigate President Trump and his business transactions and that of his family as well.'” A selective prosecution claim, which I don't believe was made, is not a defense on the merits of the criminal charge. As usual, you forgot the end of that purposefully and with intent to deceive (the legal term for LYING) The U.S. Supreme Court has said that "A selective prosecution claim is not a defense on the merits to the criminal charge itself, but an independent assertion that the prosecutor has brought the charge for reasons forbidden by the Constitution." United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456 (1996). Among the discriminatory purposes, which are barred by the selective prosecution doctrine are discrimination involving the Equal Protection Clause and on the basis of race, religion, sex, gender, or political alignment. I think Donald Trump is absolutely right on the merits in the four criminal cases which have been brought against him and in the New York State civil fraud case. People charged or even accused of Trump's crimes are treated much more harshly than he was. That is absolutely a load of shit. But, testifying for the defense, managing director David Williams said the bankers viewed clients’ reports of their net worth as “subjective or subject to estimates” and took its own view of such financial statements. Above that, this is the case NY changed their statute of limitations FOR THIS ONE CRIME. THE ONE THEY KNEW (and James ran on it in her "election," so there's intent to selectively prosecute. trumpster. “I think we expect clients-provided information to be accurate. At the same time, it’s not an industry standard that these statements be audited. They’re largely reliant on the use of estimates,” Williams said, so bankers routinely “make some adjustments.” At times, the bank pegged Trump’s wealth at several billion dollars lower than he did, according to documents and testimony. In 2019, for example, Trump’s financial statement listed his net worth at $5.8 billion, which the bank adjusted down to $2.5 billion. But Williams said such differences weren’t necessarily unusual or alarming./i> And I know you'll disclaim everything because your handlers told you to. Here's a picture of you. You know, the tall skinny guy talking to the women. Telling them they'll get a shower soon? Presumption of Vindictiveness The defendant may show that the prosecutor was actually vindictive in her prosecution. The defendant may present direct evidence showing that the prosecutor was vindictive. Selective prosecution is when the prosecutor bases her decision of whether to prosecute on the basis of race, gender, ethnicity or political party. If they do this then the prosecutor may be guilty of selective prosecution. judiciary.senate.gov lawandcrime.com reason.com upload.wikimedia.org by Curt_Anderson on March 20, 2025 9:10 pm OD, I hate to be critical, but those were among the weaker arguments I have heard in Trump's defense. Just in the state of New York there have been many felony prosecutions for falsifying business records; Trump's case was hardly unique. See link. You seem ask us to NAME THE VICTIM IN THIS CASE. The answer is ALL OF US. Our economy functions on the availability of credit. The foundation of credit is trust. If we were to follow the Trump business model, our economy would implode. Furthermore, banks do not have an unlimited ability to lend money. They have to pick and choose who gets a loan. If some borrowers lie about their collateral and their ability to repay that makes borrowing harder for the honest borrowers, who are also victims of fraudsters and cheats. justsecurity.org by HatetheSwamp on March 21, 2025 3:59 am "HtS, A judge's verdict or sentence does not need to be "affirmed"." Curt, You're so full of $#!t. If a case is appealed, the court to which it is appealed has to respond in some way. by HatetheSwamp on March 21, 2025 4:15 am "OD, I hate to be critical..." Bullfernerner. Heck. You love to be critical. As far as the New York case is concerned, I'm sure I know less than you do but all the legal pundits I've come to respect over the past decades are unanimous in finding the case a travesty. Stalinesque. Believe what you want. You always do... But, in the end, no harm no foul. by meagain on March 21, 2025 8:12 am Merchan's verdict was not appealed, nor affirmed. Curt is absolutely correct. A verdict does not need to be affirmed. If it is appealed, then it will be affirmed by the new verdict. by oldedude on March 21, 2025 8:25 am Just in the state of New York there have been many felony prosecutions for falsifying business records; Trump's case was hardly unique. The biggest thing you can't/won't understand. Your "felony prosecutions for falsifying business records" is a TAX STATUTE. Not a business statute. I would agree, if you falsify your business records and turn it into the STATE REVENUE FOR TAX PURPOSES, that would be illegal. He didn't. It was a private contract between trumpster Inc and the bank. 1. Again, you need to name the victim in this case. 2. They threatened trumpster with prosecution of this during their election to prosecute him on the basis of political party. 3. THEY SPECIFICALLY CHANGED THE LAW TO SPECIFICALLY TAILORED TO ENTRAP TRUMPSTER AFTER THE NORMAL STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WAS GONE. Long story short. THEY CREATED A LAW ONLY FOR ONE PERSON BECAUSE OF POLITICAL PARTY. If a law is passed, it must be applied equally. This is not. That's the part you're avoiding. It's a series of events that show malice and forethought to evoke a law he wouldn't have otherwise been charged with. Had they not made the threats and changed the law specifically for him, the charges wouldn't have stuck. Generally speaking, these cases aren't even brought before the court unless the bank wants to file. In this case, the bank was on trumpster's side. Again, there was no victim. These weren't tax forms, and he didn't lie to a federal agent. The bank wasn't the victim. The taxpayers weren't victims because it had nothing to do with that. It was a private contract between the bank and trumpster Inc. If you're honest, you can see the government had no business meddling in the contract. Again. NO VICTIM. by HatetheSwamp on March 21, 2025 8:56 am "Merchan's verdict was not appealed, nor affirmed. Curt is absolutely correct. A verdict does not need to be affirmed." Only if it's appealed,which is what pb's been saying. Go To Top

Find old posts & articles

Show Most Recent Articles Articles by category: Politics+ Religion+ Law & Crime Military News Media History Health Sports+ Humor Entertainment Misc.

Report spam & abuse SelectSmart.com home page