That Epstein was likely a primary witness to the actions of Donald J Trump in a sexual context to various children who had not reached the age of majority and did not themselves give consent to sexual congress.
Cite?
I expect it will be out fairly soon.
So you just “feel” like it’s true?
You will choose the words that you use for your purposes; I choose the words that provide for my purposes.
In the Colorado senate race? Against Cory Gardner.
The funny thing, from social media, is that for weeks now, both Democrats and Republicans are convinced that Trump’s impeachment will propel their side to a big electoral victory next November.
*“Trump is getting impeached! Can’t wait for the American voters to ________ (deliver our side a landslide) next year!”
*
It’s like a template, and you just substitute (D) or ® in it.
Thought SNL had the best take on it, Kenan Thompson’s character in the open.
He’s still our president.
Democrats just sealed it for his win in 2020
The next Democratic president with a Republican House will be impeached and there will be a lot of firsts associated with it.
I think it’s something like, “Well, they all do it so why focus on this guy in particular?” or, alternately, “Meh, for a few days they held up some free stuff supposed to go to some shithole country, so what?”
So, bit of both?
I don’t think it would be surprising at all. Jeffrey Epstein: Trump Noted Financier Likes Women on 'Younger Side'
“I’ve known Jeff for 15 years. Terrific guy. He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it — Jeffrey enjoys his social life.”
I mean Bill Clinton flew on Epstein’s the “Lolita Express” 26 times, and not always with the Secret Service, Epstein had some weirdo painting of him in his mansion as well. But without more evidence I wouldn’t infer that Clinton committed sex crimes with Epstein.
Frankly both of them could have done such a thing and I don’t even know if it would surprise me, but I’m not going to suggest it without a little more concrete evidence.
That said, I don’t want to hijack the thread anymore, my bad.
There is talk about The House finding a way to not send the articles to The Senate (for now it’s McConnell signaling that he won’t be fair about conducting the trial), and that having an outstanding indictment is supposed to somehow cast a pall over the administration. Does this make sense to anyone? Because from what I’ve seen of Trump that just enables him to say he won. Like Saddam declared victory when the US Military left the area following the Kuwait thing. “You attacked but I’m still here. So that means I won!” Those in favor of impeachment will look like they lost, or gave up, or forgot what they were doing. HOWEVER, if they are playing the long game, then they could just put the indictments on the shelf and, if Trump gets a second term AND Dems get The Senate, they can haul them out and vote to remove him. I don’t like that idea much at all.
There simply isn’t any chance of a 2020 landslide, unless your definition of “landslide” is, like Donald Trump’s, preposterously thin. Each side has a core of 200 electoral votes they simply can’t lose.
Trump’s popularity is incredibly fixed; his approval rating is the most consistent in the history of the concept.
Right. To that public, it becomes like Clinton’s dalliances, “of course he lied rather than admit getting head in the office! I would too! You can’t convict him for THAT!”. Now it’s “of course he uses his office for personal and partisan advantage! What’s power for if not for that?” They see something that’s skeevy and distasteful but not *criminally * skeevy to the point of not putting it up to the regular election to reward or punish.
Except that (besides the question, would articles approved in the 116th Congress stand to be presented to the Senate of the 117th?), they are not going to get 67 votes for removal in the Senate, no matter what. And in this scenario the R minority is going to be holding an even harder line, with the ideal argument “the people rendered their verdict!”
I expect a good chunk of the people in this category are Democrats who want to see Trump out of office, by whatever means, but believe that impeachment will backfire and cause him to become more popular, resulting in his re-election. I don’t agree with this line of reasoning – I think there is zero evidence that the “rally around Trump” effect works on anybody who wasn’t going to vote for him anyway – but I don’t think it makes people either dumb or morally impaired.
ISTM that once Lincoln was dead, the rest of the term belonged to Johnson, no matter who was at the top of the ticket in the previous election, unless and until the Senate voted for his removal, which they didn’t.
Does anyone here seriously think that Trump has ever heard of Andrew Johnson?
Wasn’t he that colored fella who used to play basket ball? Died of AIDS or something?