Politics & News

Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

On the day we learned that Trump charged SS 5X the govt rate to stay at his properties, here's video proof from I'm Eric lying about the grift

Eric Trump: "We only charged $50 a night for Secret Service to stay at our properties when the potus travels"

Reality: $1,185 a night is not $50.

https://twitter.com/champnella/status/1582191425759780864?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1582191425759780864%7Ctwgr%5Eb6f5379115b092f74581d39a0d36b940d4bcf0a9%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.newsweek.com%2Feric-trump-donald-trump-secret-service-protection-hotel-viral-video-latest-1753236

Top | Newest First | Oldest First

ElwoodBlues · M

Wow, ripping off the very law enforcement agency that's trying to protect him - I didn't think even Trump would sink that low!!

P.S. So is THAT what they mean by "stop the steal"??

View 50 more replies »

This comment is hidden. Show Comment

marke · 70-79, M

@ElwoodBlues

But, just to be safe, just in case this quid pro quo might be impeachable, Republican senators refused to let either Vindman or Hill or Sondland testify in the Senate trial. If you want to vindicate Trump, you show how the witnesses against him are wrong. If you CAN"T vindicate him, you prevent the witnesses from testifying, like in this republican orchestrated miscarriage of justice.

Democrats refused to allow Trump's defense lawyers to call witnesses in the House and democrats stupidly claim the Senate was wrong not to do things the stupid illegal House democrat way in the Senate. Go figger.

marke · 70-79, M

@ElwoodBlues

Even Trump's legal team says he sought a quid pro quo; they just claim it's unimpeachable.

What good was Trump's quid pro quo then, even if he had asked for it when Zelensky never took it to be a quid pro quo request and there was never any enforcement of the provisions democrats claim were implied in the quid pro quo even though Zelensky never met the requirements?

Vivaci

It’s high time we stop paying to that fraud family.

View 2 more replies »

Vivaci

A grift of trumps? 😆 love it….@ElwoodBlues

SomeMichGuy · M

@ElwoodBlues @Vivaci The PERFECT collective noun...

Vivaci

@SomeMichGuy 🤣 They certainly are a specimen of the worst kind of humans.

marke · 70-79, M

When it comes to raking in the politically-connected cash Trump is an amateur compared to the Clintons.

https://www.whatitcosts.com/stay-lincoln-bedroom-prices-cost/
What It Costs

Cost Benefit Analysis of Everything in Life
Stay in the Lincoln Bedroom – Prices & Cost
Ballpark Estimate: $100,000

Although many former presidents had undoubtedly allowed some of their guests that signal honor, the outrage was particularly dramatic this time because it clearly pointed out the extremes the administration had resorted to in their fund-raising improprieties. Spokesmen for the Clinton White House have repeatedly denied any connection between campaign contributions and the Clinton guests in the Lincoln bedroom.
What was the “cost” for those overnighters? There is no way to know exactly, but a ballpark estimate is approximately $100,000.

View 52 more replies »

OggggO · 36-40, M

@marke Trump was impeached twice, but neither of them was for deficits or even anything resembling such a claim.

marke · 70-79, M

@OggggO

Trump was impeached twice, but neither of them was for deficits or even anything resembling such a claim.

Trump was impeached twice by democrats only in the democrat House only for offenses against the public approval of the democrat party.

OggggO · 36-40, M

@marke I'm sure that made sense in your mind.

ElwoodBlues · M

@marke says

Vindman was a lackey.

Hmmm. Here's what Army Times says:

Vindman commissioned into the Army in January 1999 after graduating with a bachelor’s degree from Binghamton University, in New York, according to personnel information provided to Army Times by service officials.

He originally joined the infantry branch, serving in South Korea and Germany before deploying to Iraq in September 2004 through September 2005. He was wounded by an improvised explosive device while there in October 2004, but served out the rest of the deployment.

In 2008, Vindman became a foreign area officer for the Army. He served in this role at U.S. embassies in Kiev, Ukraine and Moscow. He also earned a graduate degree from Harvard University around this time.

. . .

The Army confirmed that prior to his current duties, he served on the Joint Staff at the Pentagon from September 2015 to July 2018.

In the summer of 2018, he moved to the National Security Council in the White House.

Vindman has earned the Ranger Tab, the Combat Infantryman Badge, the Expert Infantryman Badge and the Parachutist Badge.

In addition to the Purple Heart, Vindman’s awards include two Defense Meritorious Service Medals; four Army Commendation Medals; three Army Achievement Medals; four Overseas Service Ribbons; a Valorous Unit Award; the National Intelligence Meritorious Unit Citation, the Republic of Korea Presidential Unit Citation; the Presidential Service Badge; the Joint Chiefs of Staff identification Badge and a Navy Unit Commendation.

@marke Lackey, huh?

View 4 more replies »

This comment is hidden. Show Comment

marke · 70-79, M

@ElwoodBlues

Vindman said he does not “know” who the whistleblower is, but it is possible he suspects the whistleblower is the person he talked to. Another possibility is that he is just generally avoiding naming members of the intelligence community, since it’s well-known that the whistleblower is one.

@marke Don't you EVER get tired of making sh!t up and being proven wrong???

According to unfolding facts, Vindman either lied when he said he was not the whistleblower or he is lying now for claiming he was the whistleblower.

. https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/08/lied-vindman-reveals-memoir-whistleblower-trump-sham-impeachment-testified-oath-wasnt-whisteblower/

HE LIED: Vindman Reveals in Memoir That He Was the Whistleblower in Trump Sham Impeachment — After He Testified Under Oath That He Wasn’t the Whisteblower
By Jim Hoft
Published August 3, 2021 at 9:13pm

In November 2019 NSC leaker Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman testified on day 3 of the Adam Schiff Show Trial.
Ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee Devin Nunes (R-CA) straight up asked Vindman if he discussed the July 25 Trump-Zelensky phone call with anyone outside of the White House.
Vindman testified that he spoke to two people about Trump’s call to Zelensky — George Kent, a State Department employee and ‘someone in the intelligence community’ about Trump’s phone call — Vindman would not name the second person.

House Intel Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) quickly interjected when Nunes began to drill down to find out which agency this second anonymous person worked for.
Schiff said he wanted to “protect the whistleblower” and wouldn’t let Vindman answer.
Nunes then pointed out that Vindman previously testified in a closed-door deposition that he DID NOT know the identity of the whistleblower and if that were true then how would he know to keep the second person’s name private?

But during his public testimony, Vindman admitted to being the primary source of the leak to the whistleblower (Eric Ciaramella).
It was later discovered that Vindman also lied about the contents of the call. Trump did not offer the Ukrainian official a quid pro quo. Joe Biden did.

In his upcoming memoir, Vindman now describes himself as the whistleblower in Trump’s sham impeachment trial.
So, once again Vindman discredits himself and admits he lied under oath to Congress.

ElwoodBlues · M

@marke asks

Where's the outrage over Biden's quid pro quo?

So your best defense is whataboutism??

Funny thing: Republicans were FOR the ouster of Ukraine prosecutor Shokin before they were against it, LOL!!!
https://www.portman.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/portman-durbin-shaheen-and-senate-ukraine-caucus-reaffirm-commitment-help

A 2016 letter sent by Republican members of the Senate Ukraine Caucus echoes calls for reforms to Ukraine’s prosecutor general’s office and judiciary that were made by then-Vice President Joe Biden. The letter, signed by Republican senators Rob Portman, Mark Kirk, and Ron Johnson, as well as several Democrats, urged the former Ukrainian president to reform the country’s government to address longstanding corruption, including the removal of Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin. “Succeeding in these reforms will show Russian President Vladimir Putin that an independent, transparent and democratic Ukraine can and will succeed,” reads the letter. “It also offers a stark alternative to the authoritarianism and oligarchic cronyism prevalent in Russia...We similarly urge you to press ahead with urgent reforms to the Prosecutor General's Office and judiciary.”

So was the international community!!
Republicans were FOR the ouster of Ukraine prosecutor Shokin before they were against it!</p><p><a href="https://www.portman.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/portman-durbin-shaheen-and-senate-ukraine-caucus-reaffirm-commitment-help

But regardless of international and republican opinion at the time, if Trump's 112,000 person DoJ thought Biden had done anything wrong, they had FOUR FULL YEARS to prosecute.

LOL!!! Is now the time you whip out another GiAnTt CoNsPiRaCy ThEoRy???

View 9 more replies »

marke · 70-79, M

@ElwoodBlues

Trials are about establishing FACTS. Attempting to attack a messenger doesn't change that. The only witnesses against Trump were first person witnesses Vindman, Hill, & Sondland.

Trials that convict a defendant on the basis of the hearsay evidence of an anonymous witness are democrat trials, not fair and just trials.

ElwoodBlues · M

@marke says

The hearsay evidence of an anonymous witness is invalid in court. Whatever the whistleblower claimed Trump allegedly did was immaterial because his testimony is inadmissible.

Did anyone try to introduce anonymous testimony in any of Trump's impeachment hearings?? NOPE! The only witnesses were first person witnesses Vindman, Hill, & Sondland. Got any other irrelevant points to raise??

marke · 70-79, M

@ElwoodBlues

Every witness Schiff allowed to testify was a Trump-hating, Hillary-loving, radical, democrat, leftist partisan. Witnesses for Trump's defense were not allowed in Schiff's kangaroo court because defense witnesses would have contradicted the biased testimony of the false witnesses chosen by Schiff to dominate his clown show.

Virgo79 · 61-69, M

That's not a first, when the Obma's left the whitehouse Marian Robinson got a $160,000 per year pension for watching her grandchildren.
Tax payer dollars of course.

View 5 more replies »

marke · 70-79, M

@CorvusBlackthorne

What is an Obma? Is that a sort of red herring?

'Obma' is Kenyan for "God figure among barbarian Muslims."

CorvusBlackthorne · 100+, M

@Virgo79 I support him because you misspelled his name, then denied it?

Virgo79 · 61-69, M

@CorvusBlackthorne oh shit!
I made a mistake, not mispelled but a typing mistake.....
But we already know you're the only one thats perfect. Now,
What about the subject of my reply, you always seem to mess that part up?

TheOneyouwerewarnedabout · 46-50, MVIP

We got him this time lads..
The walls are closing in..

Lolz 👍🤓

I guess he wasn’t going to sell nuclear secrets and needed to be raided after all ..

The fbi and doj raids MAL.. and the best the get is a subpoena from the J6 scammers.. lolz
Obstruction.. YUUUUUUGE 😁

View 2 more replies »

marke · 70-79, M

@TheOneyouwerewarnedabout

We got him this time lads..
The walls are closing in..

The lawless democrat lynch mob has its innocent victim in its ungodly sights. Shades of democrat lynch mobs of days gone by.

Vin53 · M

Conservatives: Where every accusation is a confession.
@marke

Ryderbike

@marke

Nanoose · 61-69, M

Crazy part is well they were being charged 5X more they might of been staying in rooms that were invested with bedbugs. Trump has been successfully sued a few times by guests that were attracted by bedbugs at Trump properties. Cheers!

Pitchblue

That was just the rooms. They had to rent golf carts to follow him around on the golf course. Jared and Ivanka wouldn't let S S use the washroom in their house so they had to rent a house. They got extended S S protection gor at least 6 months. Dotard, Megalomania, and Barron get protection for life. We pay for S S to fly from one golf course to the next.

ElwoodBlues · M

@marke posts

Vindman Reveals in Memoir That He Was the Whistleblower in Trump Sham Impeachment — After He Testified Under Oath That He Wasn’t the Whisteblower
By Jim Hoft
Published August 3, 2021 at 9:13pm

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/08/lied-vindman-reveals-memoir-whistleblower-trump-sham-impeachment-testified-oath-wasnt-whisteblower/

DUUUDE!!!
Why are you guys pretending the whistleblower protection statutes don't exist?? Vindman is ALLOWED to protect his whistleblower status. In fact, it is a crime to TRY to unmask a whistleblower!!

According to statute 18 USC § 1513(e), “whoever knowingly, with the intent to retaliate, takes any action harmful to any person, including interference with the lawful employment or livelihood of any person, for providing to a law enforcement officer any truthful information relating to the commission or possible commission of any Federal offense, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.”

And people have been punished for trying to out whistleblowers:

May 11, 2018: Barclays CEO fined $1.5 million for trying to unmask whistleblower

marke · 70-79, M

@ElwoodBlues DUUUDE!!!

Why are you guys pretending the whistleblower protection statutes don't exist?? Vindman is ALLOWED to protect his whistleblower status. In fact, it is a crime to TRY to unmask a whistleblower!!

Don't be fooled by democrat lies. Hearsay evidence of an anonymous witness is never legally acceptable in a criminal trial.

https://www.aronlawfirm.com/understanding-your-constitutional-right-to-confront-your-accuser/ Blog
Understanding Your Constitutional Right to Confront Your Accuser

Posted by William Aron | Mar 5, 2021

If you’re a criminal defendant who has been accused of a crime, you may face witness testimony as an element of evidence against you. This means that those who witnessed activities or heard information related to your case may take the stand and be asked to offer information that might be used to prove that you committed the crime in question. If this evidence is presented in a way that’s generally consistent with the court’s evidentiary rules, it is typically permitted in a criminal case.

However, as the criminal defendant, you have the right to question these witnesses when they present their information to determine whether they are credible and truthful. This is generally called the “confrontation clause” and is outlined in the Sixth Amendment.
What Is the Confrontation Clause?

The Sixth Amendment provides rights for those accused of a crime. These privileges include the right of the accused “to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” This part of the amendment effectively means that someone accused of a crime may cross-examine any of the witnesses who testify at trial and applies to statements made in court and statements made outside of court that are offered as evidence during the trial.

For some time, this provision only applied to federal cases, as state governments didn’t have to abide by the Sixth Amendment’s restrictions. That all changed after the Fourteenth Amendment was passed in 1866, which subsequently made the right to confrontation applicable to both state and federal courts.

The right to be confronted by witness provides the accused with three specific protections:
• The right of confrontation: This right allows the witnesses to face the accused and appear before them in court.
• The right of cross-examination: This is often considered the most significant of the three protections and allows the accused to dispute the witness’s testimony during direct examination.
• The right for testimony to be protected under perjury sanctions: This privilege assures legal sanctions if the witnesses’ accusations are false.

The confrontation clause is an important tool that criminal defendants may use to protect themselves from damaging witness testimony. However, it’s also an often complicated provision that requires defendants to carefully evaluate the possibility of future witness testimony and consider what out-of-court statements might be used against them at trial.

In-Court Testimony

After a witness presents their initial testimony on behalf of the prosecution, the defendant’s attorney may then ask questions to elicit other testimony from the witness. In addition, the attorney may cross-examine the witness to shed doubt on their testimony. However, the cross-examining attorney is usually only allowed to ask questions relevant to the facts alleged in the case or similar in scope to what the prosecution asked.

Out-of-Court Testimony

Hearsay is considered testimony from a witness under oath who is reciting a statement from outside the court. Generally, The Federal Rules of Evidence prohibit introducing hearsay statements during applicable federal court proceedings unless certain circumstances apply. Other out-of-court statements, which are not hearsay, are more easily admissible.
In any case, if the person making the statements doesn’t appear in court to testify, using such statements may constitute a confrontation clause violation

ElwoodBlues · M

@marke DUUUDE!!! No one introduced hearsay evidence. The only evidence introduced against Trump was from first person witnesses like Vindman, Hill, and Sondland. Got any other irrelevant points you want to raise???

marke · 70-79, M

@ElwoodBlues

DUUUDE!!! No one introduced hearsay evidence. The only evidence introduced against Trump was from first person witnesses like Vindman, Hill, and Sondland. Got any other irrelevant points you want to raise???

Hill and Vindman were biased witnesses whose claims were clearly not compelling.

SomeMichGuy · M

How sad that inveterate lying has been passed down.

melbeacher · 61-69, M

Just another con man and lier.

CorvusBlackthorne · 100+, M

Dear me. Do you mean to say that a greedy, narcissistic capitalist took full advantage of a situation wherein he could profit?

View 3 more replies »

SW-User

@marke

Pitchblue

@marke Hahahahahahaa

CorvusBlackthorne · 100+, M

@marke I must say, I am most impressed by your post. The majority of users do not take nearly so many words to make imbeciles of themselves.

This comment is hidden. Show Comment

marke · 70-79, M

@LvChris It's like a blizzard here and practically all I see is white hot hatred of God and good.

Add a comment...