US Politics and the campaign for moral equivalence


Trump hasn’t a leg to stand on legally.

Bannon is specifically protected by the first amendment and opinion is not defamatory under US law.

Basically, Trump can either say nothing about this, like any politician with a brain, oops too late on that one, or he try and fail to halt publication of the book, and make himself look even more like a dictator than he does now - it’s beginning to look a bit late on that one too.

Of course you think the latter is the way to go - figures - you’ve brainwashed yourself into your role as the forum’s chief Trump cultist with such effectiveness that you’re now completely unable to remove yourself from character.


It’s actually a very simple concept.


Or the court of tfk


Incorrect. The US judicial court system has nothing to do with the concept of innocence (as in did not commit the crime). It only concerns ifself with whether the prosecution can convince a jury beyond reasonable doubt of your guilt. Completely different concepts, study the US constitution.

Yes, if you are found not guilty by a jury you are legally “assumed” innocent, that says nothing about whether you are innocent of committing the crime or not.


Thanks. The “expert” has spoken. We were correct, @Fagan_ODowd.


Trump appointed a man who registered as a foreign agent as his his National Security Adviser.

He appointed to the National Security Council a man who went blabbing for a book.

He personally leaked classified intelligence to the Russian Foreign Minister and Russian Ambassador to the US in the Oval Office, which is thought to have at the very least endangered the life of an Israeli intelligence agent working inside ISIS.

I’m sensing a pattern here.



Correct. It’s called the presumption of innocence. I believe that exists in the USA as well because I once saw a movie called Presumed Innocent with Harrison Ford.


Is Harrison Ford a snowflake Democrat? We need to know this.


Correct. However, the claim that was made was that Not Guilty = Innocent, which is incorrect, at least in the US. The jury based court system does not concern itself at all with the idea of innocence, and a jury is not asked to prove (nor can it prove) innocence. It concerns itself only with the strength of the evidence presented by the prosecution. A not guilty verdict means the jury did not find the evidence presented strong enough to overcome the “reasonable doubt” hurdle, which of course is subjective in many cases. For example, the jury might believe the defendant committed the crime based on the evidence, but as long as a majority of them have some doubt in their minds, acquittal is entirely possible.

The US legal system favors the defendant, which is the way things should work legally.


It’s the same here. In the eyes of the law not guilty means innocent hence the presumption of innocence, a very important bulwark against tyranny.


Does he talk to chairs?


Donald is gone all Howard Hughes and addressed the press briefing in the Whitehouse via videolink from…the Whitehouse


Ah here. He pretty much fessed to it in his account of how he “hypothetically” might have done it.


The Michael Wolff book’s release has been moved forward from next week to tomorrow.

Another great achievement for Trump.

So much whining.


I see Fox News genuinely called Trump “Jesus” yesterday. And Steve Bannon is John the Baptist, apparently.


Some funny shit in here even if some of it is clearly rubbish.


Lots of rubbish there alright, such as the empty styrofoam cheesburger boxes, chip cartons and cans of Coke strewn all over Trump’s bedroom.


It always comes back to penises for the Trump regime.


Pot. Kettle. Sidney.