Release All Files! - Part 2

[Maxmars]

If we are to presume that a person cannot be legally guilty without due process...
and due process involves litigation...

He may also stand as the most frequently accused...

But it means that allegation which have no evidence are only hearsay until evidence corroborates the claim.

But, and I've said this before so be prepared to yawn... numerous repeated allegations of a similar nature demand investigation in any sane legal system.

But if you wish to line up allegations... no one is safe... not even the accusers... every failure to convict is a tacit flaw of the prosecutor... but don't worry... they'll never say that.

[Knows]

Trump is a liar. He is one of the most litigious and litigated against people in America, with involvement in over 4,000 legal cases over his career. This began well before he showed any political intent, so his suggestion that litigation against him is 'politically motivated' is obvious BS.

Trump is a racist, a sexual predator, a sadist and a malignant narcissist. All of which were said of him before he entered politics.

Get help LOL
Off-the-chart TDS!

[FlyersFan]

No, a real conviction, in a real court of law, with a jury, and with substantial hard evidence as proof that he actually did it.

A fabricated case ... and even with the fake conviction he had no jail time and it doesn't cause him to lose his job.   And since this thread is about the EPSTEIN files .... he has had no conviction on that as well.    No jail time and no loss of job unless he has a conviction on that.   He has the same right of 'innocent until proven guilty' in a court as everyone else.

[FlyersFan]

Trump is a liar. He is one of the most litigious and litigated against people in America, with involvement in over 4,000 legal cases over his career. This began well before he showed any political intent, so his suggestion that litigation against him is 'politically motivated' is obvious BS.

  The fact that Trump has sued people is IRRELEVANT when talking about lawfare and the bullshit case the Democrats waged against him in New York.  The two are two different things and have nothing to do with each other.   It was obviously politically motivated.   Your bias is showing.

[Kurokage]

But it does bear mentioning that the particular DOJ of which you speak, actively worked against their President.

This is known as fact... reported, verified in documentation, and testified in court.

How is this "in service of THAT President?"

It's practically an admission that they were participating in political intrigue, rather than justice...
the inquiry is sound, the execution of the investigation is automatically suspect from that DOJ.

I have no sympathy for the perpetrators of this kind of abuse (and most others) ...
Were he a participant in all this human-destroying entertainment... let him face the law.

The one-note "la-la-la" of anti-trump fixated journalism lost it's persuasiveness... by their own hands.

But those stuck in 20th century populism and marketing simply won't accept that they are in fact the "stupid people" in this equation.  Politicians yak and antic, sponsors dump money into 'telling the people how 'we all' feel." 

It's tired, old, and transparent.

The DOJ shouldn't be a politized or politically driven department who ever is in charge, and it shouldn't be used to target political opponents of the white house because their opinions differs form those in control.

It would of been nice if you posted a link to facts that confirm your statements about the DOJ working against Trump during this period. As I said, It still appears like a cover up as to what was happening at Zorro ranch.

[Kwaka]

For a dive into Zorro ranch:

[putnam6]

For a dive into Zorro ranch:

[Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWKu0g1-NYw]

If this goes into New Mexico that implicates Bill Richardson who was tight with the Clintons

[chr0naut]

  The fact that Trump has sued people is IRRELEVANT when talking about lawfare and the bullshit case the Democrats waged against him in New York.  The two are two different things and have nothing to do with each other.   It was obviously politically motivated.   Your bias is showing.

It was a conviction for things he did prior to his first Presidency.

The POTUS should be someone of impeccable character. Entirely above suspicion and 'clean'. A person of their word. Compassionate, caring and a capable negotiator, a statesman, not a didact.

[Waterglass]

It was a conviction for things he did prior to his first Presidency.

The POTUS should be someone of impeccable character. Entirely above suspicion and 'clean'. A person of their word. Compassionate, caring and a capable negotiator, a statesman, not a didact.

That New York case was BS. He overstated value? What a load of sheet as look at what people sell stuff for anywhere. He can toss out any number that he feels the property is worth. So can I sitting here in my home. On ebay, Realtor.com  and others anyone can exagerate the price and its up to the bank to do due diligence. 

The POTUS should be someone of impeccable character. Entirely above suspicion and 'clean'. A person of their word.

The last one may have been Eisenhower

[FlyersFan]

The POTUS should be someone of impeccable character. Entirely above suspicion and 'clean'. A person of their word. Compassionate, caring and a capable negotiator, a statesman, not a didact.

You are a foreigner.
You don't get to decide what our POTUS is and what he/she is not.
Our law says Trump can be POTUS.   The AMERICAN people elected him.
The end.