He has claimed he can prove all the cash came from 30 years of savings out of his personal salary that he kept in cash because he feared seizure and confiscation like his family has suffered in Cuba.
Time will tell, but if true, the charges will fall flat.
Trump and family cannot say the same about any of the dozens of bribery charges with payments totaling near $3 billion from hostile foreign governments while they were negotiating with Trump…pure bribery.

Again, here’s the case the Republican Supreme Court decided in favor of protecting a Republican governor and to make it harder to prosecute bribery cases (which benefited Trump directly) and got Menendez’s previous case dismissed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_v._United_States
“ The ruling narrowed the legal definition of public corruption and made it harder for prosecutors to prove that a political official engaged in bribery.”

The Obama administration indicted him, Trump administration dropped the charges and Trump personally had a “private” congratulatory phone call telling Menendez how proud he was of him for getting off on the bribery charges and saying how his bribery charges were totally unfair to begin with…but in fact he was talking to stuttering John from the Howard Stern show on air. 😂

Let me drop a few quotes from teh report here

"1. Potential Coordination: Conspiracy and Collusion

As an initial matter, this Office evaluated potentially criminal conduct that involved the collective action of multiple individuals not under the rubric of “collusion,” but through the lens of conspiracy law. In so doing, the Office recognized that the word “collud[e]” appears in the Acting Attorney General’s August 2, 2017 memorandum; it has frequently been invoked in public reporting; and it is sometimes referenced in antitrust law, see, e.g., Brooke Group v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 509 U.S. 209, 227 (1993). But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the U.S. Code; nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. To the contrary, even as defined in legal dictionaries, collusion is largely synonymous with conspiracy as that crime is set forth in the general federal conspiracy statute"

Or, like i have to keep reminding my dad, yes they didn't find "collusion" because there's no legal definition for it and they were never looking for it. They were looking for conspiracy and obstruction of justice.

I've known many 14 year olds, male and female, that had not reached full puberty, I was one. Some had not even started it. I admit, he did say he thought the law had set the 'line' at the right place, but went on to say that many 14 year olds and even younger were fully prepared for sex with adults and at least implied that it would not be immoral to have sex with them, just illegal. He didn't say how one would determine which were ready and which weren't that I heard....I guess trial and error.

Language is alive, and the meanings of words change, like it or not. When the common usage is so common that the actual definition is almost never what's meant when using the word, it's time to amend the definition. That's different from one generation who misuses language constantly out of laziness in their thought processes...most educated people at least know what literally means, even if they accidentally misuse the word more and more often.
Common usage today of "pedophile" is not limited to pre-pubescent, it includes mid-pubescent...in fact Merriam Webster's primary definition uses the word "children" as does the medical definition lower on their page.
The top googled legal definition is listed as...
Pedophile Definition: A medical condition causing a sexual preference for young children. ... A person afflicted with a serious mental disorder, a mental abnormality known as pedophilia, a sexual perversion in which children are preferred as sexual partner.

I think any of those definitions would/should include many if not all 14 year olds in most people's minds.

...but I don't mean to say that you aren't technically correct, the best kind of correct. ;-)

I'm all for treatment and prevention, both for this and other disorders that can become antisocial. Even psychopathy is a likely caused by a distinct physical difference in the brain.

Though your comment made me think of how the legal definition of insanity makes it hard for us to have a rational, consistent and humane approach to criminal justice. The idea is that the insane are not responsible for their actions, and so they should not be subject to punishment, but treatment. But none of us are responsible for our own thoughts or actions. The more understanding and empathetic standard of treatment that we apply to the "insane" should be how we treat everyone.

I am not 'calling' it anything. By legal definition some of his crimes are considered violent crimes and he would have been charged/will be charged as such when he appears before a court.

Robbing a store with a finger in your pocket is the same as robbing it with a gun or piece of metal per the eyes of the law.

Setting fire to an OCCUPIED structure is a violent crime. Committing Arson even on an empty structure can be considered a violent crime depending on who could be hurt if the fire spreads or explosions occur from the contents of the building.

Burglary (also called breaking and entering and sometimes housebreaking) is a crime, the essence of which is illegal entry into a building for the purposes of committing an offence. Usually that offence will be theft, but most jurisdictions specify others which fall within the ambit of burglary. Trespassing is typically entering a section of land that has been marked.

Motor vehicle theft (sometimes referred to as grand theft auto by the media and police departments in the US) is the criminal act of stealing or attempting to steal a car. This can happen in many ways, but they all fall under this description.

As far as the gun theft, still falls under the definition of burglary. He stole a weapon and tussled with the store employees to escape. I personally would call it a violent crime, but I don't know for sure if it legally is considered one or if it would be relegated more to shoplifting.

Yeah, I am taking the word of the police that he pointed the gun at them. Maybe I shouldn't because out of the thousands of arrests and incidents that happen daily across the country, we have a few videos that show spurious methods used by a few officers. I mean, I get that right now the public trust in officers is at an all time low for good reason, but given the sheer number of things that this guy already did that day, I have to assume that they might not be lying in this case.

As far as the officer, like I said, maybe he overreacted. But I would rather we risk the death of a clearly severely mentally ill person than read about the 11 year old he shot because he was crazy and had a gun.

In the end, you have the right to see and feel about the incident any way you see fit. You don't have to agree with a single thing I say. But I posted what I posted because I felt that just the video alone is not a clear picture of what was going on in this situation. I merely shared some of the facts that were printed by a major media outlet so that people could have the additional information to make up their minds about the video.

Can be, yeah, although apparently it's still a legal definition under English law.

But even if it wasn't, it still strikes me as odd to tag a video of a crime with the ethnicity of the person committing it.

Imagine the (justifiable) outrage if someone tagged a video "black" just because there was a black guy getting arrested in it?

In a legal sense you are correct. I don't agree with the legal definition, to me morally this should be defined as murder. It was an overwhelming forceful attack which ended in the death of a man, that is not surprising in the least.

Oops! I posted to the wrong profile. Sorry about that! Glad we were able to continue our dialogue.

My comments/responses interspersed:

> "economics has never been my strong suit."

I know, my friend, I know. As soon as I hear some defense of "socialism," I know.

> "but i AM quite literate in history and government and of
> course politics."

Yes, my dear friend, but history is tied to economics, and these days, unfortunately, politics too.

> "while you are correct that a socialist state can become a
> fascist one,so too can a democracy."

Again, we agree! Yes, in fact, fascism is the offspring of democracy. And while not strictly a fascist, was not Hitler elected?
Is there here some assumption that I regard "Democracy" as some sort of "holy cow?" On the contrary, "democracy" is a type of "soft" socialism.
At least as practiced and typically defined.
Not market democracy, however, which is the same as the free market, and not problematic. But pandering political democracy is something else.

> "it is really the forces of ideology"

Yes, in fact the book I am now reading makes this point throughout. So did Mises. But I will say that Mises was not altogether correct in dismissing Marx' assertion that systems and structures influence ideology and not the other way around. Mises was mostly correct, ideology creates systems and structures and institutions, but Marx was a little bit correct, there is also some influence in the other direction.

> "i do apologize for my oftentimes rambling.maybe because i
> am a little out of my comfort zone when it comes to
> economics"

Do not worry my friend, this is the case with most people who have strong political/economic opinions. It has been called afterall the "dismal science." If people knew about economics, we'd have a totally different system of government or no government at all.

> "your last post really cleared so many misconceptions i was
> having during this conversation."

Glad to hear. Some of my other "debaters" get very little out of our debate so it is a refreshing situation.

> "i knew we were more in agreement than disagreement.
> and we are."

I think most people are actually in agreement about goals, they just disagree about means, mostly because of lack of economic education. But once that is cleared, the agreements become more evident.

> "the banks need to held accountable."

1. yes banks need to be held accountable for fraud, like any other business or person.

> "which by inference means the governments role should be
> as fraud detector and protector of the consumer."

2. if you still want a government, meaning you still want a monopolist to do this. But a monopoly is inefficient (this is one of those "economics" laws, but one I think is almost self-evident). So asking a monopoly run by kleptocrats to do this is like asking the wolves to look over the sheep.

> "you didnt mention it but i hope you agree the corporate
> charter needs to be rewritten in a way where they are NOT a
> person and therefore shall be removed from the political
> landscape."

3. Since I don't think government (monopolist) are necessary, I don't think it should be inventing legal entities and forcing those on everyone else. Corporations are the creation of the state. Without a state monopoly, they would look much different than they do at present. In actuality, regardless of legal definitions, a corporation is a group of persons, like a union or social club or a partnership.

> "this will (or should) re-balance our political system (which is
> diseased at the moment)."

4. Corporations are a symptom, not the cause of all our social ills. Lack of economic calculation is much more problematic on all levels. In short, government is not a solution, but the major contributor to the problem. And we still have not gone into the whole issue of how the government is not "we" or "the people" in any meaningful way and how having coercive rulers is a problem.

> "which will return this country to a more level playing field and
> equate to=more liberty."

5. I don't know that we agree here. Corporations are not the cause of lack of liberties. Government is. Corporations won't throw you in jail for not obeying the rulers; government will. Corporations will not garnish your wages. Government will.

> "this will open innovation,progress and advancements in ALL
> fields AND due to competitive forces ,will lower prices."

6. Things like getting rid of IP laws will do so. So will getting rid of most/all taxation and arbitrary regulation.

> "how am i doing so far?"

Doing great!

> "what is governments role"?

I heartily accept the motto,—“That government is best which governs least;” and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which I also believe,—“That government is best which governs not at all;” and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have."
I don't want government to do anything for me, and I don't want it to force me at gunpoint to do anything at all.
A monopoly cannot do anything good that a free competitive market cannot do better.

> "the anarchist finds it perfectly acceptable to tear down that
> government to build a new one."

If you want someone to rule over you by force, you are not an anarchist. What kind of government would you consider "anarchy?"

> "if something aint working the way it was meant to,get rid of
> it and try another."

What if I don't want you or anyone else imposing rulers on me? What if I believe I have a right to self-ownership and voluntary interactions and property?
What if I don't want your form of "government?' Then what? You still want to impose it on me?
I thought you were my friend.

> "well in an unrestricted market and pesky government out of
> the way what do YOU think is going to happen to a system
> driven by self interest and profit?"

Everything will improve. But government had to be totally out of the way. btw, where do you get that government is not driven itself by self-interest and profit?

> "and i am ok with that."

Well, the difference between what you want and what I want is that what I want is not to be imposed on you but what you want is to be forcefully imposed on me, violently too, if I don't comply.

> "illegal to have an employee owned business."

Like I said, government is a problem.

> "i dont know why it was illegal in this area and i dont see how
> employee owned companies would threaten a free market."

In a free market anyone can own any business they want or else it is not a free market.

> "but as you figured out.
> economics is not my strong suit."

Just because there is a law prohibiting co-op ownership of a bar, it does not mean that it is there for some reason that makes economic sense. It actually makes no economic sense so it must be there for some political reason or because someone somewhere profits from this restriction, as is always the case with regulations.

> "and my man,cant tell ya how grateful i am to have had this
> conversation with you.i learned tons,about you and your
> views and even some about free markets."

Remember, a free market means free, not "semi" free. Not privilege for some, like regulations tend to do.
Always a pleasure.

Hrm, interesting since I am drunk... But you said, "Also too," which makes all that you wrote moot! Ha, also can mean "too!" I win!

All jokes aside...the constitution, as I said, is understood backwards by Paul. If it isn't wrote, the government has the ability to do (At least the State.)

Universal healthcare is legal, not because of the commerce clause...but because it is.

>> ^NetRunner:

@heropsycho ahh, but you do need to be careful with the whole "enumerated powers" malarkey. After all, there's nothing in Article I, Section 8 about Congress being able to create an Air Force -- just an Army and a Navy. The Air Force is unconstitutional.
Also too, it doesn't say the government is allowed to build roads, just "Post roads" for the post office's use! Don't even get us started on things like power lines or telephone cable.
According to the likes of Ron Paul, the Constitution isn't open to even a little bit of reinterpretation, but instead that it's a straightjacket that should constrain the Federal government from doing anything that isn't explicitly listed in Section 8.
Hell, he's even implied that since the Constitution uses the verb "coin" to describe Congress's authority to create money, that paper currency (backed by gold or otherwise) is also unconstitutional.
IMO, I'd be fine with that interpretation, as long as people stopped pretending that the constitution was some holy scripture filled with infinite wisdom passed down to us by messiahs. We should be rewriting and re-ratifying the Constitution to fit with our modern ideals of how things should function.
For example, there should be something in the constitution about the nexus of money and politics, but there isn't.
There should be something more about the legal definition of "people" -- do fetuses or corporations count?
There should be something in there about the Air Force, and the Marines too, for good measure.
Do we have a right to privacy, or don't we?
Right now we mostly let the Supreme Court decide these things by letting them "interpret" a 200 year-old document based on their supposed ability to divine the mental state of the long-dead authors of the sections they feel are relevant.
Why shouldn't those questions be put to a vote?

For the record, I'm not a strict constructionist. However, I do recognize the danger of looser interpretations, even though I'm politically moderate person. I don't have a good answer for example about the Civil Rights Act of 1964, because that law was sorely needed, but it sure does open Pandora's box about what the gov't can and can't regulate. Regulation of interstate commerce allowed for things like environmental regulation, the formation of the EPA, etc. But it sure can cause the gov't to regulate things it shouldn't, too.

The formation of an Air Force though is an easier argument constitutionally, and it's a useful thing to review because it illustrates the thought process of the Supreme Court. When something isn't outright said in Article I, Section 8, those powers in combination with interpretting other sections such as the Preamble ("provide for the common defense..."), or sometimes other documents the forefathers wrote such as the Federalist Papers, the Declaration of Independence, etc., provide ideas about their intent. It's clearly implied that since they could form an Army and Navy for defense, once flight was possible, it's implied we need an Air Force.

As to the things below you're saying should be put to a vote, they are, but not directly by the people. That's how the Amendment process works. Should it be a direct vote by the people? In my opinion, that would be a horrible idea. The people simply for the most part do not understand the ramifications of amending the Constitution.

>> ^NetRunner:

@heropsycho ahh, but you do need to be careful with the whole "enumerated powers" malarkey. After all, there's nothing in Article I, Section 8 about Congress being able to create an Air Force -- just an Army and a Navy. The Air Force is unconstitutional.
Also too, it doesn't say the government is allowed to build roads, just "Post roads" for the post office's use! Don't even get us started on things like power lines or telephone cable.
According to the likes of Ron Paul, the Constitution isn't open to even a little bit of reinterpretation, but instead that it's a straightjacket that should constrain the Federal government from doing anything that isn't explicitly listed in Section 8.
Hell, he's even implied that since the Constitution uses the verb "coin" to describe Congress's authority to create money, that paper currency (backed by gold or otherwise) is also unconstitutional.
IMO, I'd be fine with that interpretation, as long as people stopped pretending that the constitution was some holy scripture filled with infinite wisdom passed down to us by messiahs. We should be rewriting and re-ratifying the Constitution to fit with our modern ideals of how things should function.
For example, there should be something in the constitution about the nexus of money and politics, but there isn't.
There should be something more about the legal definition of "people" -- do fetuses or corporations count?
There should be something in there about the Air Force, and the Marines too, for good measure.
Do we have a right to privacy, or don't we?
Right now we mostly let the Supreme Court decide these things by letting them "interpret" a 200 year-old document based on their supposed ability to divine the mental state of the long-dead authors of the sections they feel are relevant.
Why shouldn't those questions be put to a vote?

@heropsycho ahh, but you do need to be careful with the whole "enumerated powers" malarkey. After all, there's nothing in Article I, Section 8 about Congress being able to create an Air Force -- just an Army and a Navy. The Air Force is unconstitutional.

Also too, it doesn't say the government is allowed to build roads, just "Post roads" for the post office's use! Don't even get us started on things like power lines or telephone cable.

According to the likes of Ron Paul, the Constitution isn't open to even a little bit of reinterpretation, but instead that it's a straightjacket that should constrain the Federal government from doing anything that isn't explicitly listed in Section 8.

Hell, he's even implied that since the Constitution uses the verb "coin" to describe Congress's authority to create money, that paper currency (backed by gold or otherwise) is also unconstitutional.

IMO, I'd be fine with that interpretation, as long as people stopped pretending that the constitution was some holy scripture filled with infinite wisdom passed down to us by messiahs. We should be rewriting and re-ratifying the Constitution to fit with our modern ideals of how things should function.

For example, there should be something in the constitution about the nexus of money and politics, but there isn't.

There should be something more about the legal definition of "people" -- do fetuses or corporations count?

There should be something in there about the Air Force, and the Marines too, for good measure.

Do we have a right to privacy, or don't we?

Right now we mostly let the Supreme Court decide these things by letting them "interpret" a 200 year-old document based on their supposed ability to divine the mental state of the long-dead authors of the sections they feel are relevant.

Why shouldn't those questions be put to a vote?

>> ^MarineGunrock:

Actually, the FDA did not make the changes. >> ^blankfist:
>> ^MarineGunrock:
From Wikipedia:
In 2007, the Chocolate Manufacturers Association in the United States, whose members include Hershey, Nestlé, and Archer Daniels Midland, lobbied the Food and Drug Administration to change the legal definition of chocolate to let them substitute partially hydrogenated vegetable oils for cocoa butter in addition to using artificial sweeteners and milk substitutes.[8] Currently, the FDA does not allow a product to be referred to as "chocolate" if the product contains any of these ingredients.[9][10]

Oh snap! Thanks wonderful FDA for helping corporate douchebags to make American chocolate the worst in the world. We the people thank you.



Well then thanks American corporations for single-handedly making American chocolate the worst in the world. Hershey's blows.

Actually, the FDA did not make the changes. >> ^blankfist:

>> ^MarineGunrock:
From Wikipedia:
In 2007, the Chocolate Manufacturers Association in the United States, whose members include Hershey, Nestlé, and Archer Daniels Midland, lobbied the Food and Drug Administration to change the legal definition of chocolate to let them substitute partially hydrogenated vegetable oils for cocoa butter in addition to using artificial sweeteners and milk substitutes.[8] Currently, the FDA does not allow a product to be referred to as "chocolate" if the product contains any of these ingredients.[9][10]

Oh snap! Thanks wonderful FDA for helping corporate douchebags to make American chocolate the worst in the world. We the people thank you.

>> ^MarineGunrock:

From Wikipedia:
In 2007, the Chocolate Manufacturers Association in the United States, whose members include Hershey, Nestlé, and Archer Daniels Midland, lobbied the Food and Drug Administration to change the legal definition of chocolate to let them substitute partially hydrogenated vegetable oils for cocoa butter in addition to using artificial sweeteners and milk substitutes.[8] Currently, the FDA does not allow a product to be referred to as "chocolate" if the product contains any of these ingredients.[9][10]


Oh snap! Thanks wonderful FDA for helping corporate douchebags to make American chocolate the worst in the world. We the people thank you.

From Wikipedia:
In 2007, the Chocolate Manufacturers Association in the United States, whose members include Hershey, Nestlé, and Archer Daniels Midland, lobbied the Food and Drug Administration to change the legal definition of chocolate to let them substitute partially hydrogenated vegetable oils for cocoa butter in addition to using artificial sweeteners and milk substitutes.[8] Currently, the FDA does not allow a product to be referred to as "chocolate" if the product contains any of these ingredients.[9][10]