Trump trial proves to be political after all

[blü 2]

Like I said, juries often get it wrong.

So, you say, Trump can never be found guilty, whether by a judge or a jury, on any charge based on whatever evidence, for the one reason, namely, he's Donald Trump.

I guess you didn't personally know any of the people who were killed, or their relatives, when Trump's mob stormed the Capitol, and I guess you don't give a toss anyway.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But he wasn't convicted of rape.

Civil suits are not hard to win.

I mean really. A woman won a $2.8 million lawsuit against McDonald's for stupidly putting hot coffee between her legs.

If he is guilty of rape, why no criminal charges and trial?

The statute of limitations had passed so he could not be charged with rape. And he was adjudicated by a jury of nine men and women to have sexually assaulted E. Jean Carroll. In New York State they could not call it "rape" because they were not sure if Trump stuck his fingers inside of her or some other body part, but in almost any other state of the union that is called rape. As you know it has been historically very difficult for women to make a rape case since it is usually a "he said/she said" matter. But in this case there was enough corroborating evidence that Trump was found to be guilty. He partially sunk himself when he insulted her looks and claimed that she was not his type and then misidentified her as his ex-wife Ivanka. With a rather wistful sound to his voice when he did so.

At any rate people can claim that he is a rapist without fear of being sued for defamation of character.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Like I said, juries often get it wrong.

"Often"? I would say sometimes. But in the cases that have occurred with Trump the evidence is there for all to see and it is rather clear that Trump is guilty. In his tax fraud case he kept claiming that the judge grossly undervalued his Mar a Lago golf course. That was a lie. The judge was not the one that put the value on the golf course that Trump claimed to be ridiculously low. Trump put that value on it. He made a deal with the city of Palm Beach. He signed away his rights to ever develop it and that agreement continue on to the next owners. It cannot be taken away by Trump. That lowered its value as a property. And when the first evaluation came in at tax time he said it was still too high of a valuation and the city of Palm Beach agreed with him and lowered it. He would not use those low values of his property when applying for loans. He would compare it to nearby developments and lied and said that it could be worth a lot more when developed. That was clear fraud. And that is just one example.

 

[Stonetree]

Yes, we remember it well.......Apr. 23, 2020
POLITICS

It’s been exactly one year since Trump suggested injecting bleach. We’ve never been the same. nb.....(Apr. 23, 2021)​

 

[Stonetree]

POLITICS......2020
In the early days of what would turn out to be a pandemic, the president repeatedly minimized the threat posed by the novel coronavirus.

Jan. 20: The first confirmed coronavirus case is reported in the United States.

Jan. 22: “We have it totally under control. It’s one person coming in from China. We have it under control. It’s going to be just fine.” — Trump in a CNBC interview.

President Trump lied to the American people. Trump had already been aware of the serious killer pandemic.

​

 

[John53]

POLITICS......2020
In the early days of what would turn out to be a pandemic, the president repeatedly minimized the threat posed by the novel coronavirus.

Jan. 20: The first confirmed coronavirus case is reported in the United States.

Jan. 22: “We have it totally under control. It’s one person coming in from China. We have it under control. It’s going to be just fine.” — Trump in a CNBC interview.

​

Wow, 4 years ago, seems like yesterday.

 

[Stonetree]

The New Yorker.com......(Sheelah Kolhatfar)

Does the President Have Control Over Inflation?

These unending negative associations have made inflation an irresistible political weapon. Recently, blaming Biden for causing inflation has been a favorite strategy of the political right. “Biden’s Inflation Quickly Making Americans Poorer,” a headline on the Heritage Foundation’s Web site last fall read. In January, the newly appointed Republican House Ways and Means Committee chair Jason Smith, of Missouri, released a statement titled, “Congress Must Confront Joe Biden’s Inflation Mess.” In reality, though, inflation and its causes are more nuanced than their use in politics would suggest, and whether inflation is increasing or on the decline, it’s unclear how much influence a particular Administration has over it. Biden likely doesn’t deserve the blame for inflation’s rise; he also can’t credibly claim to be responsible when it goes back down.

 

[Stonetree]

Robert De Niro headlines bizarre Biden campaign presser outside Trump trial: ‘You’re a f–king idiot’

Oscar-winning actor Robert De Niro became the face of the Biden campaign Tuesday, fronting a tumultuous press conference outside the Manhattan courthouse where former President Donald Trump’s…

nypost.com

Nothing says, "This is political" like the president of the United States sending a democrat activist to Trump's court trial (along with a few exploited Capitol cops) just as the jury is hearing closing arguments.

Your OP erroneously states Pres. Biden made a criminal prosecution political. More than any other cause for making this trial political was a clown-like parade of politicians who appeared in court to intimidate the jury. I missed the clowns exiting the Volkswagen Beetle but that didn't happen because they were too busy 'Kissing the Ring' of the losing defendant in a criminal case, Trump '34'.

 

[Laniakea]

So, you say, Trump can never be found guilty, whether by a judge or a jury, on any charge based on whatever evidence, for the one reason, namely, he's Donald Trump.

I guess you didn't personally know any of the people who were killed, or their relatives, when Trump's mob stormed the Capitol, and I guess you don't give a toss anyway.

Ashli Babbit.
So, looks like you guessed wrong.

 

[Laniakea]

POLITICS......2020
In the early days of what would turn out to be a pandemic, the president repeatedly minimized the threat posed by the novel coronavirus.

Jan. 20: The first confirmed coronavirus case is reported in the United States.

Jan. 22: “We have it totally under control. It’s one person coming in from China. We have it under control. It’s going to be just fine.” — Trump in a CNBC interview.

President Trump lied to the American people. Trump had already been aware of the serious killer pandemic.

​

At the time, it was only in China. Trump wanted to restrict travel from China to the United States, but democrats said that's racist and sued to allow the Covid Chinese to spread their disease here so they could blame Trump for the result. And blame they did (and still do, falsely).
But what's a couple hundred thousand lives when it means being able to falsely accuse Trump of something?

 

[Laniakea]

The Conversation.com

In late March and early April, President Trump repeatedly proclaimed that hydroxychloroquine could prevent or treat COVID-19. Within days, the number of prescriptions for the drug skyrocketed even though evidence it could safely prevent or treat the disease was at the time very weak.

Since then, the MSM has finally admitted Trump to be correct, and so has Biden's regime: Hydroxychloroquine is effective, and consistently so when provided early, for COVID-19: a systematic review

 

[Laniakea]

Your OP erroneously states Pres. Biden made a criminal prosecution political. More than any other cause for making this trial political was a clown-like parade of politicians who appeared in court to intimidate the jury. I missed the clowns exiting the Volkswagen Beetle but that didn't happen because they were too busy 'Kissing the Ring' of the losing defendant in a criminal case, Trump '34'.

Thanks for bringing attention to the fact that Biden's minions also tried to intimidate the jury.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

At the time, it was only in China. Trump wanted to restrict travel from China to the United States, but democrats said that's racist and sued to allow the Covid Chinese to spread their disease here so they could blame Trump for the result. And blame they did (and still do, falsely).
But what's a couple hundred thousand lives when it means being able to falsely accuse Trump of something?

Time to re-read your history. Trump chose to trust his "friend" President Ji, and believe the Chinese were keeping it under control, so no need to restrict travel.

From the Washington Post

During the first presidential debate, President Trump hailed his efforts to restrict travelers from China as evidence of his administration’s effective response to the covid-19 pandemic, saying the “early” decision “saved thousands of lives.” He went on to claim that his opponent, Democratic nominee Joe Biden, would have opted to close the country late, resulting in 2 million deaths — a tenfold increase in lost American lives.

The president is incorrect. The United States did not implement its travel restriction early. Nor did it “close” the country to arrivals from China. In addition, there is little evidence that travel restrictions alone saved millions of lives — in this country or any other. On the contrary: Unless the United States and other nations act, the widespread use of travel bans in this pandemic have made Americans and citizens of other countries more vulnerable to future pandemic threats.

Forty-five nations imposed travel restrictions on China before the United States did. The earliest of those restrictions went into effect Jan. 24, nine days before the U.S. travel ban went into effect on Feb. 2. The U.S. travel restriction came a month after China first announced its outbreak and at a point when the United States and more than 20 other countries had already reported coronavirus cases. Several of those countries, including Germany and the United States, were already reporting local transmission of cases. Between the first official report of an outbreak in China and the announcement of U.S. travel restrictions, more than 40,000 travelers from China were estimated to have entered the United States. Scientists believe the virus likely emerged and began circulating a month or more before it was first recognized in China, which may have allowed it to spread beyond the countries where cases were initially recognized.

The measure that the Trump administration implemented could not be described as a “ban” that “closed the country”: It only prohibited U.S. entry to foreign nationals who had visited China in the last 14 days. Americans and U.S. permanent residents returning from Hubei Province were still allowed, subject to a 14-day quarantine. After these policies were enacted, hundreds of thousands of travelers continued to arrive in the United States via direct flights from China. Until Feb. 27, no other travelers to the United States faced such travel restrictions and quarantine requirements — even if they were arriving from other nations that were reporting coronavirus cases.

 

[Laniakea]

Time to re-read your history. Trump chose to trust his "friend" President Ji, and believe the Chinese were keeping it under control, so no need to restrict travel.

From the Washington Post

During the first presidential debate, President Trump hailed his efforts to restrict travelers from China as evidence of his administration’s effective response to the covid-19 pandemic, saying the “early” decision “saved thousands of lives.” He went on to claim that his opponent, Democratic nominee Joe Biden, would have opted to close the country late, resulting in 2 million deaths — a tenfold increase in lost American lives.

The president is incorrect. The United States did not implement its travel restriction early. Nor did it “close” the country to arrivals from China. In addition, there is little evidence that travel restrictions alone saved millions of lives — in this country or any other. On the contrary: Unless the United States and other nations act, the widespread use of travel bans in this pandemic have made Americans and citizens of other countries more vulnerable to future pandemic threats.

Forty-five nations imposed travel restrictions on China before the United States did. The earliest of those restrictions went into effect Jan. 24, nine days before the U.S. travel ban went into effect on Feb. 2. The U.S. travel restriction came a month after China first announced its outbreak and at a point when the United States and more than 20 other countries had already reported coronavirus cases. Several of those countries, including Germany and the United States, were already reporting local transmission of cases. Between the first official report of an outbreak in China and the announcement of U.S. travel restrictions, more than 40,000 travelers from China were estimated to have entered the United States. Scientists believe the virus likely emerged and began circulating a month or more before it was first recognized in China, which may have allowed it to spread beyond the countries where cases were initially recognized.

The measure that the Trump administration implemented could not be described as a “ban” that “closed the country”: It only prohibited U.S. entry to foreign nationals who had visited China in the last 14 days. Americans and U.S. permanent residents returning from Hubei Province were still allowed, subject to a 14-day quarantine. After these policies were enacted, hundreds of thousands of travelers continued to arrive in the United States via direct flights from China. Until Feb. 27, no other travelers to the United States faced such travel restrictions and quarantine requirements — even if they were arriving from other nations that were reporting coronavirus cases.

Another Leftist source.
Got anything from a credible source?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Since then, the MSM has finally admitted Trump to be correct, and so has Biden's regime: Hydroxychloroquine is effective, and consistently so when provided early, for COVID-19: a systematic review

The mainstream media doesn't regulate medicine and this is bogus.

"Medicine that doesn't treat or prevent COVID-19​

Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, no treatments for COVID-19 existed. Researchers tested medicines based in the idea that the drugs could treat or prevent COVID-19.

As research has grown, health agencies such as the FDA have authorized or approved the medicines that work and are safe. Researchers also have found out which medicines don't work to treat or prevent COVID-19.

Some medicines stop working because the virus that causes COVID-19 changes.

Examples are bebtelovimab and the combination tixagevimab-cilgavimab (Evusheld). These medicines were based on proteins the body naturally creates to block the COVID-19 virus. But when the virus changed over time, the proteins in the medicine no longer matched up to the virus and stopped working.

Another example is an HIV medicine. It's a combination of two drugs, lopinavir and ritonavir, tested in clinical trials to treat COVID-19. But the trials failed to show a benefit, and the combination is no longer an option to treat COVID-19.

Other examples are ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine.

Claims that ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine can treat COVID-19 are false. These medicines are still useful for treating other illness. But only medicines approved or authorized by the FDA to treat COVID-19 are useful for that illness."

COVID-19 drugs: Are there any that work?

Medicine can help people who are at risk of, diagnosed with, or have symptoms of COVID-19.

www.mayoclinic.org

"Conclusions and relevance
Our meta-analysis of 10 RCTs investigating the safety and efficacy of HCQ as pre-exposure prophylaxis in HCWs found that compared with placebo, HCQ does not significantly reduce the risk of confirmed or clinically suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection, while HCQ significantly increases adverse events."

Original research: Safety and efficacy of hydroxychloroquine as prophylactic against COVID-19 in healthcare workers: a meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials

We studied the safety and efficacy of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) as pre-exposure prophylaxis for COVID-19 in healthcare workers (HCWs), using a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs).PubMed and EMBASE databases were searched to identify randomised ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

• "Hydroxychloroquine was prescribed in hospitalised patients with Covid-19 despite of the low-level evidence.•Subsequently, HCQ use was associated with an 11% increase in the mortality rate in a meta-analysis of randomized trials.
• •
  The number of hydroxychloroquine related deaths in hospitalised patients is estimated at 16,990 in six countries.
• •
  These findings illustrate the hazard of drug repurposing with low-level evidence for the management of future pandemics."

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S075333222301853X

 

[Laniakea]

The mainstream media doesn't regulate medicine and this is bogus.

"Medicine that doesn't treat or prevent COVID-19​

Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, no treatments for COVID-19 existed. Researchers tested medicines based in the idea that the drugs could treat or prevent COVID-19.

As research has grown, health agencies such as the FDA have authorized or approved the medicines that work and are safe. Researchers also have found out which medicines don't work to treat or prevent COVID-19.

Some medicines stop working because the virus that causes COVID-19 changes.

Examples are bebtelovimab and the combination tixagevimab-cilgavimab (Evusheld). These medicines were based on proteins the body naturally creates to block the COVID-19 virus. But when the virus changed over time, the proteins in the medicine no longer matched up to the virus and stopped working.

Another example is an HIV medicine. It's a combination of two drugs, lopinavir and ritonavir, tested in clinical trials to treat COVID-19. But the trials failed to show a benefit, and the combination is no longer an option to treat COVID-19.

Other examples are ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine.

Claims that ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine can treat COVID-19 are false. These medicines are still useful for treating other illness. But only medicines approved or authorized by the FDA to treat COVID-19 are useful for that illness."

COVID-19 drugs: Are there any that work?

Medicine can help people who are at risk of, diagnosed with, or have symptoms of COVID-19.

www.mayoclinic.org

"Conclusions and relevance
Our meta-analysis of 10 RCTs investigating the safety and efficacy of HCQ as pre-exposure prophylaxis in HCWs found that compared with placebo, HCQ does not significantly reduce the risk of confirmed or clinically suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection, while HCQ significantly increases adverse events."

Original research: Safety and efficacy of hydroxychloroquine as prophylactic against COVID-19 in healthcare workers: a meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials

We studied the safety and efficacy of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) as pre-exposure prophylaxis for COVID-19 in healthcare workers (HCWs), using a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs).PubMed and EMBASE databases were searched to identify randomised ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

• "Hydroxychloroquine was prescribed in hospitalised patients with Covid-19 despite of the low-level evidence.•Subsequently, HCQ use was associated with an 11% increase in the mortality rate in a meta-analysis of randomized trials.
• •
  The number of hydroxychloroquine related deaths in hospitalised patients is estimated at 16,990 in six countries.
• •
  These findings illustrate the hazard of drug repurposing with low-level evidence for the management of future pandemics."

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S075333222301853X

Nobody said it regulated medicine.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Another Leftist source.
Got anything from a credible source?

Tell you what -- I'll help out the members who would like to see less politics, especially of this nature -- by ignoring you.

Staff, you're welcome.

 

[Laniakea]

Tell you what -- I'll help out the members who would like to see less politics, especially of this nature -- by ignoring you.

Staff, you're welcome.

Funny that you'd want to see less politics in the Political Debates forum.
But whatever.

 

[Stonetree]

Since then, the MSM has finally admitted Trump to be correct, and so has Biden's regime: Hydroxychloroquine is effective, and consistently so when provided early, for COVID-19: a systematic review

I have deleted the article I posted that referenced Hydroxychloroquine.

Conclusions.......(NIH___National Center for Biotechnology Information)​

HCQ has been shown to have consistent clinical efficacy for COVID-19 when it is provided early in the outpatient setting; in general, it appears to work better the earlier it is provided. Overall, HCQ is effective against COVID-19. There is no credible evidence that HCQ results in worsening of COVID-19. HCQ has also been shown to be safe for the treatment of COVID-19 when responsibly used.
Go to:

 

[SkepticThinker]

Nobody said it regulated medicine.

Address the point and your error.
TIA.