President Donald Trump
I assume it's still acceptable to have a Trump thread in a Politics forum?
So this is an obvious lie - basically aimed at
I must have missed something.
What law enforcement agency charged President Trump of illegally seizing an oil tanker?
Thanks.
Shut the **** up.
I must have missed something.
What law enforcement agency charged President Trump of illegally seizing an oil tanker?
Thanks.
So do you think it's ok for any country to seize another country's oil tanker? Or just US seizing Venezuelan oil tankers?
So do you think it's ok for any country to seize another country's oil tanker? Or just US seizing Venezuelan oil tankers?
Horrible actions and should be condemned
I must have missed something.
What law enforcement agency charged President Trump of illegally seizing an oil tanker?
Thanks.
Are you suggesting that a person has to be charged with acting illegally in order for it to be appropriate to describe that person's conduct as illegal? That's a wild take. If I shot out my neighbor's windows for no reason, and someone claimed that I acted illegally, would you have the same objection?
It's lozen, so the presumptive answer to this question is "probably nothing."
It's just bizarre that he chose to quote my post, then write a lengthy reply that had the square root of **** all to do with anything in that post, even tangentially, as far as I can tell.
It's just bizarre that he chose to quote my post, then write a lengthy reply that had the square root of **** all to do with anything in that post, even tangentially, as far as I can tell.
When you asked the question have you ever been to Germany or England I interpreted it wrong. My apologies I should have quoted Thebigeasy
Keep digging mong
From Google
The lawsuit filed by a woman using the pseudonym "Katie Johnson" against Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein was ultimately dropped.
Here is a summary of the case:
* **Initial Filing (April 2016): A woman, initially using the name "Katie Johnson" and later the pseudonym "Jane Doe," filed a lawsuit in federal court in California accusing Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein of raping and assaulting her when she was 13 years old in 1994. This initial lawsuit was dismissed by a federal judge on technical grounds.
* Second Filing (June 2016): The woman, now using the name "Jane Doe," filed a similar federal lawsuit in New York against both Trump and Epstein.
* Lawsuit Dropped (November 2016): The plaintiff's attorney filed a voluntary dismissal of the New York lawsuit on November 4, 2016, just days before the presidential election. Her attorney at the time, Lisa Bloom, cited "numerous threats" against her client as the reason for canceling a planned public press conference and withdrawing the suit.
Donald Trump's legal team vehemently denied the allegations, calling them a "complete fabrication" and "politically motivated." Because the lawsuit was voluntarily withdrawn, the allegations were never tested or adjudicated in court.
From Google The lawsuit filed by a woman using the pseudonym "Katie Johnson" against Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein was ultimately dropped.Here is a summary of the case: * **Initial Filing (April 2016): A woman, initially using the name "Katie Johnson" and later the pseudonym "Jane Doe," filed a lawsuit in federal court in California accusing Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein
I always assumed that she received a settlement that restricted her ability to ever talk about what happened again. Kind of similar to what happened with Stormy Daniels except Stormy was going to the press (either to make money or become the center of attention) not a court to file charges.
It seems vanishingly unlikely that this accusation is actually true, but I wouldn’t doubt that she got some kind of settlement to go away.
Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
I feel blessed that we have a leader who is kicking the criminals out of this country and keeping them out. We were getting closer and closer to becoming another UK or Germany. We need to be very selective as to who gets to live in this country. European countries are finding out the hard way.
That is because you clearly are both an idiot and an *******.
I always assumed that she received a settlement that restricted her ability to ever talk about what happened again. Kind of similar to what happened with Stormy Daniels except Stormy was going to the press (either to make money or become the center of attention) not a court to file charges.
That is the MO of Trump and other wealthy, predatory men who cannot get women to be drawn to them organically; assault them and then pay them enough to stfu about it.
The saga of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia continues. A federal juge ordered Abrego Garcia released from immigration custody. (He still faces criminal charges in Tennessee.) As is often the case when you read a court opinion related to the Trump administration, you can't help but be astounded by the weird combination of prevarication and incompetence.
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcgl...
Second, and equally troubling, the circumstances of Abrego Garcia’s detention since he was released from criminal custody cannot be squared with the “basic purpose” of holding him to effectuate removal. Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 697. That is, even if Abrego Garcia could have been lawfully removed to a third country, Respondents do not appear to have held him to fulfill that purpose. For if they had wished to remove him, they certainly could have as early as August 21, 2025, to Costa Rica. And even if the Court accords Respondents a measure of deference in exercising their discretion to favor another country, “discretion” cannot explain what happened next. Cf. Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 696 (recognizing propriety of “habeas court’s efforts to determine the likelihood of repatriation, if handled with appropriate sensitivity . . . .”😉.
Respondents serially “notified” Abrego Garcia—while he sat in ICE custody—of his expulsion to Uganda, then Eswatini, then Ghana; but none of these countries were ever viable options, and at least two had not even been asked to take Abrego Garcia before Respondents claimed supposed removal to each. See ECF No. 52 at 28:10–13 (Schultz confirming the “United States has not had a discussion with Eswatini regarding Abrego Garcia”😉. See also ECF No. 52 at 32:18–19 (Schultz stating the notice of removal identifying Ghana was “prematurely sent” to Abrego Garcia).
At the same time, Respondents did not take any steps to remove Abrego Garcia to the country which had offered to take him, Costa Rica. This inexplicable reluctance seemed at odds with continued detention for purposes of third-country removal. So the Court asked repeatedly during oral arguments to address the disconnect. ECF No. 48 at 37:24–38:17; ECF No. 52 at 205:11–207:13; ECF No. 107 at 124:1–125:12; and twice compelled testimony to that effect, ECF Nos. 47 & 90. These orders were ignored without justification.
Respondents instead found a fourth African country, Liberia. This time, when the Court sought information about Liberia and Costa Rica so to fairly assess the validity of Abrego Garcia’s claims, Respondents did not just stonewall. They affirmatively misled the tribunal. They announced that Liberia is the only viable removal option because Costa Rica “does not wish to receive him,” ECF No. 85 at 9, and that Costa Rica will no longer “accept the transfer” of him, ECF No. 75-6 ¶ 5; ECF No. 85 at 14.
But Costa Rica had never wavered in its commitment to receive Abrego Garcia, just as Abrego Garcia never wavered in his commitment to resettle there. See ECF No. 108 at 1; Maria Sacchetti, Costa Rica says it would accept Kilmar Abrego García, contradicting U.S., WASH. POST (Nov. 21, 2025), https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigrati.... See also Laura Romero, Costa Rican official says country willing to accept Abrego Garcia, contradicting Trump administration officials, ABC NEWS (Nov. 21, 2025),
. This evidently remained an inconvenient truth for Respondents. But more to the point, Respondents’ persistent refusal to acknowledge Costa Rica as a viable removal option, their threats to send Abrego Garcia to African countries that never agreed to take him, and their misrepresentation to the Court that Liberia is now the only country available to Abrego Garcia, all reflect that whatever purpose was behind his detention, it was not for the “basic purpose” of timely third-country removal. Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 697.
It seems vanishingly unlikely that this accusation is actually true, but I wouldn’t doubt that she got some kind of settlement to go away.
I actually would be surprised if she received if she received a settlement. Civil settlements of course are not admissions of guilt, but it would be hard for Donald Trump to settle that sort of case without it reading as an admission of guilt in the view of the public if the settlement ever became public. You can purport to solve that problem with confidentiality provisions in the settlement agreement if you are Donald Trump, but those provisions aren't necessarily worth much if the counterparty has blown through the settlement money and is effectively judgment proof because she is broke.
If you are Donald Trump, that very well may be a risk you are willing to take if you are accused of harassing or assaulting an adult. I see no evidence that Trump's supporters care at all about how he has treated adult women. But it may not be a risk you are willing to take if the accusation is that you raped a 13 year old.
The AbregoGarcia situation is totally bonkers.
They’ve probably spent a million dollars plus on this totally random dude that got picked up and shipped out without even checking to make sure the right paperwork was on file.
Could have literally said “my bad”, gotten him back, then re-deported him for like 1/100th of the time and money.
What, with universal healthcare, a parliamentary system, the head of state's powers being exercised through the parliament and its ministers, reasonably sane gun laws, limits on election advertising and funding, and all that kind of thing? Were you really?
Are you suggesting that a person has to be charged with acting illegally in order for it to be appropriate to describe that person's conduct as illegal? That's a wild take. If I shot out my neighbor's windows for no reason, and someone claimed that I acted illegally, would you have the same objection?
In this specific case, I don't know if it's certain (yet) that seizing the tanker was illegal.
After it is established that you shot your neighbor's windows 'for no reason', then the act is clearly illegal.
If there isn't a really, really, really great reason to do so, it is always wrong to seize another country's stuff.
How about Venezuela has the largest oil reserves in the world and Trump wants to get his paws on it? Like that really, really, really great reason?
