Donald WHO?
link.
SCREWED YOU!
link.
Via Bob:
No, both parties aren't even remotely similar.
No, both parties aren't even remotely similar.
Borrowed from Mike Miller and Dalma Grandjean.
"I made a comment recently where I claimed that Republican administrations had been much more criminally corrupt over the last 50 plus years than the Democrats. I was challenged (dared actually) to prove it. So I did a bit of research and when I say a bit I mean it didn't take long and there is no comparison. When comparing criminal indictments of those serving in the executive branch of presidential administrations it's so lopsided as to be ridiculous. Yet all I ever hear is how corrupt the Democrats are. So why don't we break it down by president and the numbers.
Obama - 8yrs in office. zero criminal indictments, zero convictions and zero prison sentences. so the next time somebody describes the Obama administration as "scandal free" they aren't speaking wishfully, they're simply telling the truth.
Bush, George W. - 8yrs in office. 16 criminal indictments. 16 convictions. 9 prison sentences.
Clinton - 8yrs in office. 2 criminal indictments. one conviction. one prison sentence. that's right nearly 8yrs of investigations. tens of millions spent and 30yrs of claiming them the most corrupt ever and there was exactly one person convicted of a crime.
Bush, George H. W. - 4yrs in office. one indictment. one conviction. one prison sentence.
Reagan - 8yrs in office. 26 criminal indictments. 16 convictions. 8 prison sentences.
Carter - 4yrs in office. one indictment. zero convictions and zero prison sentences.
Ford - 2 1/2 yrs in office. one indictment and one conviction. one prison sentence.
Nixon - 6yrs in office. 76 criminal indictments. 55 convictions. 15 prison sentences.
Johnson - 5yrs in office. zero indictments. zero convictions. zero prison sentences.
So, let’s see where that leaves us. in the last 53 years Democrats have been in office for 25 of those years while Republicans held it for 28. in their 25yrs in office Democrats had a total of three executive branch officials indicted with one conviction and one prison sentence. that's one whole executive branch official convicted of a crime in two and a half decades of Democrat leadership.
In the 28yrs that Republicans have held office over the last 53yrs they have had a total of(a drum roll would be more than appropriate), 120 criminal indictments of executive branch officials. 89 criminal convictions and 34 prison sentences handed down. That's more prison sentences than years in office since 1968 for Republicans. If you want to count articles of impeachment as indictments (they aren't really but we can count them as an action), both sides get one more. However, Clinton wasn't found guilty while Nixon resigned and was pardoned by Ford. so those only serve to make Republicans look even worse.
With everything going on with Trump and his people right now, it's a safe bet Republicans are gonna be padding their numbers a bit real soon. So let's just go over the numbers one more time shall we. 120 indictments for Republicans. 89 convictions and 34 prison sentences.
Those aren't "feelings" or "alternate facts" those are simply the stats by the numbers. Republicans are, and have been for my entire lifetime, the most criminally corrupt party to hold the office of the presidency."
Feel free to copy and paste so others can learn "non-alternative facts", i.e. the Truth.
Former President Barack Obama’s ethics attorney, Norm Eisen, has said that Donald Trump’s admission to not possessing tapes of conversations with former FBI Director James Comey amounts to witness intimidation.
“This lie increases Trump’s legal exposure for obstruction and witness intimidation—more evidence of corrupt intent @Susan_Hennessey,” Eisen wrote on Twitter, copying Susan Hennessey, the managing editor of the Lawfare blog.
This lie increases Trump's legal exposure for obstruction and witness intimidation--more evidence of corrupt intent@Susan_Hennessey twitter.com/bpolitics/stat…
Trump, after firing Comey in May, said the former bureau director “better hope” there were not any “tapes” of their conversations.
“James Comey better hope that there are no ‘tapes’ of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press!” Trump tweeted.
The May 12 tweet came after reports in the press cited former and current FBI officials challenging Trump’s account of a meeting with Comey.
After weeks of speculation over whether or not the tapes existed, Trump finally said today he never made any recordings and maintained he does not know if any exist.
“With all of the recently reported electronic surveillance, intercepts, unmasking and illegal leaking of information, I have no idea……whether there are ‘tapes’ or recordings of my conversations with James Comey, but I did not make, and do not have, any such recordings,” the president said.
link.
When a trial judge approved a $25 million settlement for fraud claims against Trump University, Trump must have felt some relief. If the case went to court, he would have had to testify under oath and provide documentation. Too bad for Trump, the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, the same court banning Trump’s travel ban every time it comes up, might overturn the settlement.
The plaintiff, Sheri Simpson, claims that she was unlawfully prevented from opposing the settlement when it went before the trial judge for approval. Trial judges regularly consider settlement objections. When there is a denial of the objector’s claim, there is often grounds for an appeal. But in this case, U.S. District Court Judge Gonzalo Curiel refused to consider Simpson’s objections that the settlement wasn’t fair to the people represented, and force them and Simpson to be bound by the agreement.
Simpson doesn’t want that. She wants to take Trump to court for fraud. This would force Trump to testify under oath. And she’s already won a small victory. Instead of having to post $146,888, which Trump’s attorneys requested for Simpson’s appeal to go forward, the trial judge required her to post only $500.
And she’s not alone. A dozen law professors filed supportive briefs, defending Simpson’s right to refuse the settlement. If Simpson wins, Trump will have to face her lawyers in pre-trial discovery.
If Trump isn’t impeached for obstruction of justice, he might still be fired for fraud.
https://www.leftscoop.com/2017/06/donald-trump-might-forced-testify-oath-trump-university/?source=right-rail-recent
WOW!
No comments:
Post a Comment