Ive always supported that. There is too much voting in this country.
The irony of the “smoke filled rooms” cliche is that they tend to produce better decisions than more democracy. Especially wrt political candidates.
Nope. The statute pertains to Epstein crimes, not Trump crimes. If Trump behaved criminally, that is not imputed to Epstein. Epstein may have committed a crime by making the introduction and that is included.
That's patently incorrect. The statute requires the release of all files pertaining to the prosecution. It is not limited only to those parts of the files that deal specifically with allegations against Epstein.
@co-hoosier Dude, you're wrong. Read the statute.Nope. The statute pertains to Epstein crimes, not Trump crimes. If Trump behaved criminally, that is not imputed to Epstein. Epstein may have committed a crime by making the introduction and that is included.
My father-in-law had dementia starting in the late 70s and my father seems to be in the early stages (not diagnosed yet, but he is forgetting a lot of things) and he's 84. My mother-in-law had Alzheimer's and it started in her 70s. These things are certainly related to age. So is physical deterioration, which I'm actually starting to experience as well, and was obvious with Biden and is obvious with Trump as well. Age comes for us all. We cannot win the race.Biden‘s dementia was likely the result of two invasive brain surgeries. Quit tying everything to age.
Being old is not a disability. A disability arises from conditions accompanying old age. Some of those conditions are inevitable, some are self imposed. I am well aware of both.
Coincidentally, I just returned from my favorite bike shop. I’m taking a hard look at a recumbent trike. In talking with the owner, he told me of a customer who rode the same bike I’m considering past his 101st birthday. He died a few months ago from falling in his own home and hitting his head.
@shooter. What kind of recumbent do you have? I’m looking at a Sun Seeker X3 AX.
Seme question; which part of 2(a) do you contend covers a separate Trump crime?
You're asking the wrong question, but several subsections might apply to the particular documentation in question here, particularly:
"Individuals, including government officials, named or referenced in connection with Epstein’s criminal activities, civil settlements, immunity or plea agreements, or investigatory proceedings."
That subsection has been met. That’s how we know of Trumps connection. You are asking for material about a Trump crime which is beyond the scope of that section.
Which subsection of 2(a) would cover a separate Trump crime?
@co-hoosier The controlling language in the intro to Sec 2 is "that relate to." The woman who named Trump in her abuse allegation claims that, when she was about 13 years-old, Epstein introduced her to Trump who subsequently assaulted her. As I said earlier, this falls squarely within the purview of the statute.
The FBI interviewed this Epstein and Trump accuser four times. Documents pertaining to the four interviews were indexed and assigned serial numbers in connection with the EFTA. Only the first interview, which doesn't mention Trump, is in the public database. The others have been withheld with no justification, to my knowledge, provided by the Justice Department as required by the statute.
Sec 2(a) 1, 4 and 7 apply.
And one final thought, @co-hoosier . You keep mentioning a "separate" Trump crime. That term doesn't appear in the statute and, in any event, is irrelevant in this context. We're not talking about E. Jean Carroll or one of the several other accusers who Trump met independently of Epstein. The allegations of this woman clearly relate to Epstein and Trump's association with Epstein. If this doesn't fall within the purview of the statute then nothing does.
As I said, Epstein arranging the meet-up is an Epstein crime and we not only know about the meet, we also know the name of the “John”. All fair game. What happened later is not imputed to Epstein and is not covered by the statute.
If this doesn't fall within the purview of the statute then nothing does.
This makes no sense. We know Trumps name because of the statute.
As I said, Epstein arranging the meet-up is an Epstein crime and we not only know about the meet, we also know the name of the “John”. All fair game. What happened later is not imputed to Epstein and is not covered by the statute.
The language couldn't be clearer. It is manifestly apparent that the statute applies to this woman's allegations, the investigation and the related documents. The burden is on Justice to justify the withholding and they haven't satisfied that. And they sure as hell haven't made the argument you're making.
Your tortuous interpretation of the statute is nonsensical and, at this point, it appears you just want to argue for the sake of arguing. I'm out.