[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;556160]Oh, wait, he ran as the "law-and-order" candidate in the [i]last[/i] election. Well, I guess one term isn't enough for him to deliver. We'd better give him a second term. And if that isn't enough, let's just throw the Constitution away and start planning the coronation.[/QUOTE]

As has been said before, watching this "from away" is just mind-blowing! :sad:

The US of A is fundamentally based on code. Law.

No one could have predicted during the initial coding session (and then the ongoing debugging) the speed of technological advancement, nor that you'd have someone come into such a system with absolutely no morals.

And I'm not just talking about Trump here. I lump Zuckerberg et al into that set as well.

The Canadians here will get this reference... [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Orjbwv8H9zM"]I'm pulling for you. We're all in this together[/URL]... :smile:

[QUOTE=chalsall;556176]As has been said before, watching this "from away" is just mind-blowing! :sad:

The US of A is fundamentally based on code. Law.

No one could have predicted during the initial coding session (and then the ongoing debugging) the speed of technological advancement, nor that you'd have someone come into such a system with absolutely no morals.[/quote]
Oh, I don't know about that. Before the founding of the Republic, there was a rather talented military commander, who was extremely self-centered, and thus became so incensed at being passed over for a promotion he felt he deserved, he decided to exact retribution by handing West Point over to the British. His name was Benedict Arnold. (He escaped to England, but his intermediary, Major Andre, was caught and hanged.)

Then there was this character who ran for President in 1800 by the name of Aaron Burr. He was widely considered to be unscrupulous at the time. The result of this election led to some of the debugging you mention (the Twelfth Amendment).

The way Presidential elections worked then, the candidate with the most electoral votes would be President, the one with the second-most would be Vice-President. Unless, of course, the top two candidates wound up in a tie. If that happened -- and it did happen in the 1800 election -- the election went to the US House of Representatives. And the House vote [i]also[/i] wound up a tie on the first ballot. And the second. And (over a period of five days) the third, fourth, ... thirty-fifth ballot.

Finally, Alexander Hamilton, despite being a vehement political adversary of Jefferson, felt that Jefferson was of good character, but that Aaron Burr was not, so decided to throw his support behind Jefferson. Jefferson became President, and Aaron Burr became Vice-President.

Three years later, Burr challenged Hamilton to a duel. Burr lived, Hamilton died. Legend has it that Hamilton first fired in the air, and that Burr then drew a bead on him and shot him dead.[quote]And I'm not just talking about Trump here. I lump Zuckerberg et al into that set as well.[/QUOTE]
Agree on Zuckerberg being without morals.

[i]Il Duce[/i] talking about the "rule of law" will add a scene to the movie, [i]Hypocrisy Now[/i].

L'état, c'est moi
 

[url=https://apnews.com/01d363af809beb6cf32a92598313d2a5]DOJ asks to defend Trump in rape accuser's defamation suit[/url][quote]NEW YORK (AP) — The Justice Department is asking to take over President Donald Trump's defense in a defamation lawsuit from a writer who accused him of rape, and federal lawyers asked a court Tuesday to allow a move that could put the American people on the hook for any money she might be awarded.

After New York state courts turned down Trump's request to delay E. Jean Carroll's suit, Justice Department lawyers filed court papers aiming to shift the case into federal court and to substitute the U.S. for Trump as the defendant. That means the federal government, rather than Trump himself, might have to pay damages if any are awarded.[/quote]I will consider myself fortunate if this doesn't give me a fatal case of the dry heaves.

[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;556543][url=https://apnews.com/01d363af809beb6cf32a92598313d2a5]DOJ asks to defend Trump in rape accuser's defamation suit[/url][/QUOTE]I'm fairly sure that a conviction of rape involves more than just monetary rewards for the victim. The perp usually also gets some quality time with Chad in the local lock-up.

So if found guilty the U.S. goes to prison? That would interesting to see!

[QUOTE=retina;556544]I'm fairly sure that a conviction of rape involves more than just monetary rewards for the victim. The perp usually also gets some quality time with Chad in the local lock-up.

So if found guilty the U.S. goes to prison? That would interesting to see![/QUOTE]
This is a defamation lawsuit, not a criminal case.

I don't know the details about the rape allegation, but I can think of two possible reasons for there being no criminal case. One is, there simply might not be enough evidence to bring a criminal case to court. The other is, the time interval for bringing a case specified by the statute of limitations might have already elapsed.

The defamation suit arises because the president called the rape accusation a lie, and so his accuser a liar.

The standard of proof in a civil action is lower than for a criminal conviction. If the Plaintiff wants to obtain the president's DNA to compare with something in her possession, however, the latest legal maneuver would, if successful, make that more difficult. If the motion is (as I expect) denied, it will no doubt be appealed, delaying the lawsuit further.

If [URL="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/09/27/us/donald-trump-taxes.html"]this NYT article[/URL] is true, that would make Trump the "con man"der-in-chief of the US .

[QUOTE=rogue;558159]If [URL="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/09/27/us/donald-trump-taxes.html"]this NYT article[/URL] is true, that would make Trump the "con man"der-in-chief of the US .[/QUOTE]Tax [i]avoidance[/i] isn't a crime, though it may illustrate the maxim that the real scandal is what's legal. Tax [i]evasion[/i] (e.g. knowingly failing to report income) [i]is[/i] a crime. It's what put Al Capone in prison.

But -- how the heck do you run up $70,000.00 in hairstyling expenses in one year? And were those expenses really a deductible "business expense?"

If the $70,000.00 figure were bogus, that would be tax fraud, which is also a crime. And one, IIRC, with no statute of limitations.

As was pointed out during the 2016 campaign, "I can't publish my tax returns because I'm being audited" is a lie -- a completely bogus excuse. Nixon published his returns while being audited. Everybody knew it, very few people cared.

It is unusual for an IRS audit to take more than three years, to go back more than three years, or for someone to be audited year after year. When any of those things happen, it generally means the IRS is finding substantial errors and/or fraud, which lets them dig deeper.

America's once and future "con-man"der-in-chief has got to be the man best known as Victor Lustig. Yes, he finally ended up in prison. But before he was finally caught, he had an illustrious career in crime, culminating in being a con man who was able to sell the Eiffel Tower -- [i]more than once[/i]. He also collaborated on making very nearly perfect counterfeit bank notes ("Lustig-Watts notes") including counterfeit $100 bills which could fool bank tellers, and had the potential of wreaking havoc on the financial system. And it is likely that nobody will ever know his true identity.

I had read that Trump has paid more money to his lawyers to fight the audits than he would have paid to cover the fines that the IRS has levied against him.

What should concern Americans is the $400m in loans he has to pay off within the next four years. To whom does he owe money? With his power as President, what will he do to either avoid paying those loans, push the payment to American citizens, etc?

I work for an international company and just yesterday was required to take an on-line course about bribery and corruption, specifically how to identify and how to avoid. After I was done with the course, I can see clearly now how Trump using properties that he (or the Trump Org) owns would set the stage for corruption. It doesn't matter if there is any corruption, the appearance of corruption is dangerous enough for any business. As I thought further about it, I'm surprised that foreign countries would accept an offer to do political business at one of his properties.

Going one step further, Trump has talked for years about the "deep state" and trying to root it out and the corruption within it. The benefit of Trump is that corruption is now clearly visible at the surface and many of his supporters willfully ignore it.

And finally regarding the SCOTUS nominee, if put on the Supreme Court, will she recuse herself of all court cases that could decide the winner of the election make it to the court? If not, it would look a lot like [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quid_pro_quo"]"quid pro quo"[/URL] and that should concern all Americans. Again, it doesn't matter if she would make a decision for or against Trump or the Republican party. The appearance of corruption would be significant. It might push the country "over the edge" in terms of war.

[QUOTE=rogue;558221]I had read that Trump has paid more money to his lawyers to fight the audits than he would have paid to cover the fines that the IRS has levied against him.[/quote]So far, anyhow. Wait -- he actually [i]paid his lawyers?[/i]

[quote]What should concern Americans is the $400m in loans he has to pay off within the next four years. To whom does he owe money?[/quote]I vaguely recall reading/hearing some time ago that he owed hundreds of millions to Deutsche Bank. And that Deutsche Bank was about the only bank left that would do business with him, due to his habit of not paying his debts.

There's an old saying: If you owe a hundred thousand dollars to the bank, it's your problem. If you owe a hundred [i]million[/i] dollars to the bank, it's the [i]bank's[/i] problem.

[quote]Going one step further, Trump has talked for years about the "deep state" and trying to root it out and the corruption within it. The benefit of Trump is that corruption is now clearly visible at the surface and many of his supporters willfully ignore it.[/quote]
Sort of like the benefit of not having a sense of smell, if there's a major sewer backup or a failed septic system in the neighborhood.

[QUOTE=rogue;558221]I had read that Trump has paid more money to his lawyers to fight the audits than he would have paid to cover the fines that the IRS has levied against him.




[/QUOTE]

What worries the bloated cheeto is not the fines but the jail time. I have read several analyses that explain the possibility of serious jail time for him and his daughter is very real.

[QUOTE=tServo;558290]What worries the bloated cheeto is not the fines but the jail time. I have read several analyses that explain the possibility of serious jail time for him and his daughter is very real.[/QUOTE]Why would he be worried about jail time? Federal income tax evasion and tax fraud are "Offenses against the United States," for which he has the power of pardon. He just issues blanket pardons all 'round, including to himself. Nobody goes to prison.

If he's facing criminal charges for offenses against a [i]State[/i], of course, he can't pardon himself out of those. I believe the State of New York has some legal proceedings underway.

As to his debts -- if worst came to worst, he has tangible assets he could liquidate to cover them if his creditors decided to turn the screws.