Oh no! Donny is so pissed at his humiliating defeats that he’s already saying if anyone runs against his losing candidacy he will sabotage the Republicans by releasing tons of secrets he knows about them.
He’s blackmailing your party to stay relevant, and is more than willing to take it down with him.
Enjoy.

P.S. turns out Trump is also being investigated for taking many of the official “gifts” he was given by other nations, thinking they were given to HIM, not the presidency. Of course, the law is absolutely clear about that, it’s true he may keep anything they gave him, but if it’s valued over $415 he must pay the entire value of the gift to the fed. Guaranteed he didn’t pay for any of the truckloads of gifts he stole. That’s going to be criminal theft/grand larceny of government property. Like he needs more problems.

Aaaahaha. Have you seen Eric's interview yesterday trying to defend Weisselberg? He's so dumb he actually publicly admitted the company paid him under the table and gave him millions in unreported perks and salary to avoid taxes....$3.5 million in unreported salary with cars, opulent houses, tuition for his family members totalling $359,058, etc. Eric doesn't think >$3.5 million hidden from the IRS is even an infraction....that's more than the average worker makes in their lifetime....Imagine if you fraudulently reported never making a dime your entire career, imagine if a Democrat did that....what should happen to such a criminal? What should happen to the business owner who organised the secret payments?

It makes one wonder how much Eric doesn't report if $3.5 million hidden from the IRS is nothing to him. He, Don jr, and Ivanka were all top level executives during Weisselberg's time there, and all received the same off the books compensation or more, and also had oversight over all these illicit secret payments just like Daddy....prosecutors have the secret record books, Weisselberg left them for his estranged daughter to find and turn over...that's where these charges come from, their own off the books records their crooked accountant kept at home. Expect them to be next, and do you really think they won't flip on Daddy to avoid prison? LMFAHS!

Hilariously he, in efforts to minimise these massive massive financial crimes, admitted his father personally paid Weisselberg's family's tuition as a company perk with personal checks signed by Don himself, indicating there's physical evidence of daddy's personal involvement in a long term tax fraud scheme that's not just felony tax fraud but grand larceny.

And we haven't even gotten to the bank frauds Trump's already publicly admitted to, overvaluing properties on loan forms, then undervaluing them on tax forms. He calls it good business and claims everyone does it, not tax and banking fraud that are serious felonies most people wouldn't even consider. It's sure going to be a fun couple of years watching the whole group go bankrupt and to prison.

Imagine if Clinton had done this...how many congressional investigations would we have had by now? Instead, Republicans don't even want to know what happened Jan 6, probably because any investigations will show their involvement in the failed coup, that's definitely how it looks. They certainly don't want to know about Trump's tax and bank frauds because a felon can't be president and they've got no one else.

@newtboy

That's always the way with these people.

Trump's "tough on crime" really means he's tough on street-level crime and minorities. Billionaire bankers stealing from the poor are A-OK with him!

You know what the biggest type of economic crime in America is? At over double all other property crimes combined (auto crime, burglary, larceny, and robbery).

It's wage theft, where wealthy employers simply refuse to pay their employees at the level required by law or contract. The biggest proportion of wage theft is refusing to meet minimum wage standards. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_theft

And here's more info on him. It sounds like he's a really bright individual who society completely failed to position for success.

After dropping out of community college, Hahn joined the Navy, assigned to the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS Enterprise as an undesignated seaman.

Hahn had hoped to pursue a nuclear specialist career. EPA scientists believe that Hahn may have exceeded the lifetime dosage for thorium exposure, but he refused their recommendation that he be examined at the Enrico Fermi Nuclear Generating Station.

And then a sad bit:
On August 1, 2007, Hahn was arrested in Clinton Township, Michigan for larceny, in relation to a matter involving several smoke detectors, allegedly removed from the halls of his apartment building. His intention was to obtain americium, a radioactive substance, from the detectors. In his mug shot, his face is covered with sores which investigators claim are possibly from exposure to radioactive materials

Finally: fer christ's sake, son! what the hell happened to you!
http://blogs.kansascity.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/08/03/boyscout.jpg

Proving that larceny is not strictly for ferrets.

I agree that he can be irritating, but I feel like he's one of the few who speaks the truth.

>> ^deedub81:

I cannot force myself to listen to this guy. Most annoying commentator on the planet. I must be shallow.

>> ^deedub81:

I cannot force myself to listen to this guy. Most annoying commentator on the planet. I must be shallow.
I hear you can find hot blondes at Fox news, maybe you wanna look there.

Your video, Grand Bargain = Grand Larceny, Grand Lie -- TYT, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^SDGundamX:
I know it is being nitpicky, but the reason Padilla could challenge was because he was an American citizen who had been designated by the president as an enemy combatant. You're right, they don't have to try every enemy combatant. I'm trying to find the actual court decision, but I could have sworn that it wasn't just a one-off thing for Padilla--the courts decided that any American has the right to challenge being put on the list in court.
As a fellow nitpicker, I don't mind when someone picks a nit. I don't contest any of what you say here. I actually thought that it went without saying that it hinged on Padilla's citizenship, and wasn't some sort of one-off decision.
>> ^SDGundamX:
As the video notes, al-Awlaki's family was indeed in the process of challenging it when the killing took place. I think that places the President in an awkward position from a legal standpoint. It'll be interesting to see where this goes if the family pursues this (sues for wrongful death or something), though I agree with you it seems like the odds are stacked in favor of the courts supporting the Presidential powers.
I don't see how they thought they might win such a challenge. All Al-Alwaki had to do was provide aid and comfort to the enemy, and it's over. And, well, his big thing was putting Al Qaeda recruitment videos on YouTube, so I'm thinking the government just plays one of those, and the case is over.
But in any case, his status when he was killed was still that of an enemy combatant. Now that he's dead, I suspect his legal status is no longer that of an enemy combatant, so there's nothing to challenge. And I suspect there's some Latin name for this, but I don't think courts are allowed to render something a crime by retroactively changing the legal status of things.
For example, say two people are getting a divorce, and the husband takes some jointly owned property with him when he moves out. Now suppose that when the divorce gets finalized, the court awards that property to the wife. The courts can't say "and it always was hers to begin with, so now we're charging you with larceny for taking it when you moved out".
You'd need to do something like that in order to make this killing a criminal act.
A wrongful death suit might fly though. But that's a civil suit, not a criminal charge.
But seriously, all this stuff is wrong. The President shouldn't have unilateral authority to declare people combatants and non-combatants. It should be uniformed members of the military of the nation we've declared war on. Everything else should be law enforcement, including chasing after terrorists.
The courts aren't going to make all that happen by fiat. That has to be a legislative effort, or it's just going to keep on going like this.


The trouble is it doesn't quite work to lump things as either law enforcement or uniformed soldiers at war. That works only in as far as it makes sense to pursue criminals through domestic and foreign law enforcement, or to make war on foreign nations refusing to enforce the rule of law. Due to myriad political bramble bushes, there are many nations like Pakistan and Yemen who claim much broader borders than those in which their actual loyal police officers can safely operate. When criminals hide in the tribal regions of Yemen and Pakistan, even willing and co-operative governments in Pakistan and Yemen are unable to enforce the law on the criminals we want prosecuted. Do we just leave those criminals be then? Do we declare uniformed soldier on soldier war against the governments in Pakistan and Yemen? Do we demand they restart the aborted civil wars that have left their tribal regions effectively autonomous independent nations?

In my opinion the tribal regions in places like Yemen and Pakistan are effectively not sovereign parts of those nations. It's not politically expedient to declare that, but it is the way Pakistani and Yemeni governments have been handling and treating the regions all along. They are for all intents and purposes independent nations, which merely pay lip service to being a part of Pakistan or Yemen while jockeying internally for a stronger position for themselves. I see American policy as effectively stepping in and treating those tribal regions as independent nations, rather than as Yemeni or Pakistani territory. Thus America is at open war with these tribal regions for their support of Al-Qaida jihadists.

>> ^SDGundamX:

I know it is being nitpicky, but the reason Padilla could challenge was because he was an American citizen who had been designated by the president as an enemy combatant. You're right, they don't have to try every enemy combatant. I'm trying to find the actual court decision, but I could have sworn that it wasn't just a one-off thing for Padilla--the courts decided that any American has the right to challenge being put on the list in court.

As a fellow nitpicker, I don't mind when someone picks a nit. I don't contest any of what you say here. I actually thought that it went without saying that it hinged on Padilla's citizenship, and wasn't some sort of one-off decision.

>> ^SDGundamX:
As the video notes, al-Awlaki's family was indeed in the process of challenging it when the killing took place. I think that places the President in an awkward position from a legal standpoint. It'll be interesting to see where this goes if the family pursues this (sues for wrongful death or something), though I agree with you it seems like the odds are stacked in favor of the courts supporting the Presidential powers.

I don't see how they thought they might win such a challenge. All Al-Alwaki had to do was provide aid and comfort to the enemy, and it's over. And, well, his big thing was putting Al Qaeda recruitment videos on YouTube, so I'm thinking the government just plays one of those, and the case is over.

But in any case, his status when he was killed was still that of an enemy combatant. Now that he's dead, I suspect his legal status is no longer that of an enemy combatant, so there's nothing to challenge. And I suspect there's some Latin name for this, but I don't think courts are allowed to render something a crime by retroactively changing the legal status of things.

For example, say two people are getting a divorce, and the husband takes some jointly owned property with him when he moves out. Now suppose that when the divorce gets finalized, the court awards that property to the wife. The courts can't say "and it always was hers to begin with, so now we're charging you with larceny for taking it when you moved out".

You'd need to do something like that in order to make this killing a criminal act.

A wrongful death suit might fly though. But that's a civil suit, not a criminal charge.

But seriously, all this stuff is wrong. The President shouldn't have unilateral authority to declare people combatants and non-combatants. It should be uniformed members of the military of the nation we've declared war on. Everything else should be law enforcement, including chasing after terrorists.

The courts aren't going to make all that happen by fiat. That has to be a legislative effort, or it's just going to keep on going like this.

Oh, come now, @blankfist. You of all people should CHERISH the 2nd Amendment. After all, it was written expressly for the reasons you hold your personal views: to protect the people from a government saturated with power and attempting to enact complete control over its people.


Also, do you honestly believe that if we banned all guns, that criminals would no longer have them? By definition, they'd be the ONLY people to have them. Herion is illegal, but people still posses it. Larceny is illegal but people still do it. Murder is illegal but people still do it. This could go on, ad nauseum.

@shinyblurry

The most interesting thing is that the Universe sprang into existence from no prior material.

Big bang theory doesn't say the universe sprang forth from nothing, it says the universe rapidly expanded from the singularity. All the matter of today's universe existed, in some form, in the singularity. Any proposals about the state of the universe prior to the Planck epoch are pure speculation. The rest of your argument is all based on this false presupposition so I won't bother refuting it.

How do you respond to the argument that, if we're simply biological machines then all of our thoughts are nothing but chemical reactions which therefore cannot be trusted?

I say that's a wonderful validation for agnosticism. I just explained this to you the other day. We cannot know anything for sure because we only have our flawed senses and limited mental capacity to rely on. That's agnosticism.

Well, how would you explain the uniformity of morality that we see in all cultures, past and present. It would have to be something explained by biology, except there is no biological imperative except selfishness.

Humans were social creatures long before they invented/discovered Yahweh. We lived in tribes. Hunters cooperated to bring home meat for everyone while gatherers collected fruits/vegetables to also share. Children were raised by the tribe as a whole. The tribe had safety in numbers. Members who were found to be stealing or cheating would find others were no longer willing to cooperate with them, possibly they would face exile. Tell me, would you be more likely to survive, especially in the wild, if you worked in harmony with the others or if you had to do everything for yourself? Similar traits are common in many mammals and birds. Warm-blooded creatures are generally too high-maintenance to be entirely self-sufficient. We can't crank out hundreds of offspring every mating season and walk away. We need to cooperate to survive. None of those non-human mammals have heard God's Word, either, and they seem to be doing pretty well.

In regards to whether thoughts can be harmful..well, consider for example the commandment not to covet. It's a thought crime because it leads to breaking all of the other commandments. Coveting leads to envy, envy to desire, desire to larceny, murder, lying, stealing and adultry. It's entirely rational, nipping problems in the bud before they even begins.

Coveting might lead to theft, murder, etc, or it might lead to nothing. Someone on my block drives a nice Audi A6. I see it now and then and think, "Man, I wish I had an A6" and then I go on with my day. I do not envy them, steal from them, assault them, or murder them. The line is drawn at which point I cause another person harm. Wishing I had an A6 doesn't hurt anyone.

Lacking an objective standard for morality, what makes it wrong? Why is it bad to have sex with animals, hurt people, rape people..if it's just your feelings. If that's the case, some people feel that raping people is just great..doesn't that make them morally justified in your world view?

I do not lack an objective standard for morality. Harmfulness is pretty damn objective. It's not my feelings, it's theirs. It's not ok to rape people because people don't like being raped, ergo rape is not morally justified in my world view. Is it justified in some peoples' world view? Yes, unfortunately it is, but they are a very small minority of the total population (though I'd be very happy for them to be even smaller).

@xxovercastxx

I don't know if there are multiple universes. It's a fun idea, but at this point it's just an idea with no supporting evidence. At least, I'm not aware of any. It's not a topic I keep up on. I lack a belief in multiple universes at this point. Immaterialism falls into the same boat.

Apparently, if the other Universes had different physics, it would be impossible to detect them anyway. So to me it's a fairly useless supposition. So, just one Universe and nothing but the material.

I subscribe to the big bang theory, fully aware that it leaves plenty of questions to be answered. There are always more questions. Anything prior to singularity is a total mystery and I imagine it will be that way for a very long time.

Time and space had a beginning at the big bang, so really it would always be impossible to measure it. The most interesting thing is that the Universe sprang into existence from no prior material. It's creation ex nihilo..IE, creation from nothing. Which funnily enough happens to uniquely support the judeo-christian belief.

How does something from from nothing? Only nothing can come from nothing..So therefore, if time and space had a beginning, there must be something outside of time and space which created it. These have always been identified as Gods attributes, of existing outside of time and space in an eternal continuim with no beginning or end. Isn't a transcendent creator necessitated here?

I do not feel consciousness is as fancy or magical as many people do. We seem to be getting along just fine with the model that it's all just physical processes in the brain. There's still room for a surprise, sure, but until that surprise comes I'm ok with a physical model.

How do you respond to the argument that, if we're simply biological machines then all of our thoughts are nothing but chemical reactions which therefore cannot be trusted? Without an independent existence from the body, IE the soul, this seems to be the conclusion you're left with.

Morality is interesting. In practice, it really comes down to consensus and I feel it's largely based on emotions. It's fortunate that the vast majority of people have very similar feelings about what is or isn't moral, at least when it comes to the big ones (murder, theft, honesty, slavery, etc). I don't think anything that doesn't harm other people is immoral, which is where you and I part ways on the subject.

Well, how would you explain the uniformity of morality that we see in all cultures, past and present. It would have to be something explained by biology, except there is no biological imperative except selfishness. In regards to whether thoughts can be harmful..well, consider for example the commandment not to covet. It's a thought crime because it leads to breaking all of the other commandments. Coveting leads to envy, envy to desire, desire to larceny, murder, lying, stealing and adultry. It's entirely rational, nipping problems in the bud before they even begins.

Homosexuality, for example, poses no moral dilemmas for me because what people do to themselves and/or to other willing participants doesn't harm anyone else.

Bestiality, on the other hand, harms animals and it's also really fucking weird. This is not acceptable behavior to me. Mind you, it's the act that crosses the line. I don't think people who find themselves sexually attracted to animals are immoral so long as they don't act on it. All of us has some strange shit on our minds from time to time and I'm not ok with prosecuting thought crimes with either earthly or celestial judges.

Lacking an objective standard for morality, what makes it wrong? Why is it bad to have sex with animals, hurt people, rape people..if it's just your feelings. If that's the case, some people feel that raping people is just great..doesn't that make them morally justified in your world view?

Putting aside, for a moment, your apparent war on etymology, what if you believe the universe is a simulation running on a computer? What if you believe it was created by an advanced alien race? According to you, these people would be theists.

Well, you could say the Universe started 5 seconds ago and all of your memories are false. And if the Universe was simulated, the question is meaningless..but point taken..the better question is..Was the Universe deliberately Created by supreme being?

Video description from YT for the curious:

SUMMERVILLE, SC (WCSC) -

Dash cam video released Thursday from a stolen Summerville, South Carolina police cruiser shows a suspect fighting a police officer then crashing the stolen car into a landscaping truck at a high rate of speed.

According to police, the incident started last Friday when 38-year-old Arthur Lee Thompson attempted to steal a computer from a Summerville Wal-mart. When confronted, Thompson allegedly punched the store's loss prevention officer in the mouth. Authorities then put out an alert for Thompson's green Jeep.

Officers were able to spot the vehicle and made a traffic stop on Cedar Street near 9th Avenue. Dash cam video from the stolen police cruiser shows Thompson exiting his Jeep, disobeying the officer's commands and then attacking an officer.

According to the incident report, the officer tased the suspect twice, first when Thompson started fighting him and again once he was in the police cruiser, attempting to steal it.

Thompson wasn't affected by the taser and video shows him pulling out the stun-gun barbs and then continuing to fight with the officer. Thompson then drove off in the stolen car at speeds of over 100 mph.

The dash cam video shows Thompson weaving in and out of traffic, running through several red lights and making erratic maneuvers. The high-speed chase ended when Thompson crashed the cruiser into a landscaping truck attempting to make a left hand turn. The video shows the cruiser slam directly into the truck on North Maple Street near Elks Lodge Lane, three miles from the original traffic stop.

Thompson is then heard and seen trying to escape from the wrecked police cruiser. He shattered a window in the car in an attempt to escape, but failed, and was arrested. The victim in the landscaping truck was taken to a hospital. Thompson was transported to MUSC for treatment. Neither had serious injuries.

A toxicology report shows that Thompson tested positive for cocaine base. While at MUSC, Thompson became extremely violent, a police report states. Thomspon allegedly yelled "You are all racist," as people walked by him, and "If you don't get these (restraints) off me, I'm gonna hurt myself and turn this bed over."

Thompson then began violently throwing himself around on the bed in an attempt to overturn the bed. An officer then tried to secure his right hand when Thompson spit in his direction.

According to the incident report, Thompson admitted to police that he had "smoked crack" earlier that morning and was very high. Thompson then asked police if he "made the news."

Later, while being processed at the Summerville Police Department, police say he looked at every officer in the booking area and made derogatory comments to all of them. Thompson then allegedly bragged about stealing the police car saying, "You should've seen how big the officer was that I worked. He was like 280 pounds."

Thompson repeatedly looked down at his fists and said "I need to retire these things," the report states.

Authorities charged Thompson with strong armed robbery, failure to stop for blue lights, assault on a police officer while resisting arrest, grand larceny, possession of a firearm by a person convicted of a crime of violence and throwing bodily fluids on a law enforcement officer. Police say Thompson has an extensive criminal history.

Thompson was also charged by the South Carolina Highway Patrol with reckless driving in the collision. Authorities are continuing the investigation.