Mojo Hand

It sounds like he won't let them leave without going on record that they are withdrawing because they cannot ethically support the arguments the administration is now going to make.

What would be my standing to sue? I'm not his victim.

Trump has been credibly accused of actual rape at least twice, including a few weeks ago.

For those who were wondering yesterday, here is a link with Epstein's actual 2008 plea agreement, along with some discussion: https://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2019/07/09/jeffrey-epstein-prosecution-1402265

The left does have the high moral ground, starting with the rapist currently in the White House and his child-kidnapping administration. And your version of "engaging in an argument" is calling reality "fake news!" and treating anything Trump says as reality. No thanks.

Great point. And not just the political strategy you mention — he also ran the government poorly from an organizational standpoint (under normal standards, not the new Trump standard of epic fail). Most notably, the failure of the ACA portal website on launch, even though half of Silicon Valley would have built him an amazing site for free (and pretty much did, to rescue the site). He washed his hands of all details in running government. Turned out the campaign was all David Plouffe. The question then is, which candidate is for real, or will at least continue to rely on the key people?

I agree on most of that, but the right strategic move was to get it all out of the way early so that it's old news by the time you need to sustain upward momentum. It's what Warren did with all the Native American stuff shortly before launching her campaign. Everyone said the DNA test and the apologies were an awful move, and I argued that it's better to burn out that issue to the max early on. It'll always be an attack on her, but now she's building her momentum with the NA stuff baked in to the support. Kamala should have done that too. The only counterargument would be if Kamala were dodging while building up a huge war chest, but she didn't do that either.

You're projecting. The actual word is "fetus," and you're the one using linguistics to create an alternative reality for partisan political purposes.

That was definitely a great individual strategic move, but I have to disagree with any suggestion that she's running a good campaign outside of that one moment. IMO her campaign has otherwise been extremely lackluster, which is why her Q2 fundraising was last by far among the top 5, even though she should have been a natural at this and does big donor fundraising like Pete and Biden. The sputtering of her campaign before the debate was actually one of the most puzzling aspects of the primary for me so far. Maybe she's in the process of turning it around, but she's already had to backtrack on a couple of things since the debate and has continued to looked shaky to me. The Biden thing is what I'd expect from a quality prosecutor, and she's shown that same skill in the Kavanaugh hearings and other situations in which she essentially gets to cross-examine people. But I haven't seen "good organizer" from her yet, or even that her strategic thinking has more broader applicability. The only two who have run impressive campaigns, in my mind, are Warren and Pete. Everyone else is either coasting off the past or struggling, with the exception of Kamala's post-Biden bounce. If she sustains it, though, she'll certainly make that list too.

Trump is gonna try to pin this on Jim Acosta, isn't he.

Doesn't he mean "alleged" crimes? Or is he talking about the two counts of soliciting a minor to which Epstein pled guilty many years ago and for which he received minimal punishment because of Acosta himself?

Haha, Trump was watching FoxNews when the "Fuck Trump!" chant broke out on live TV: "While it was not clear what Trump was specifically responding to, he was particularly annoyed by Fox correspondent Greg Palkot’s live report from a sports bar in France, where patrons erupted in a “F--- Trump” chant, according to two advisers not authorized to speak publicly about private discussions." https://apnews.com/7cd0c552a20d4a62a7efcba5699638a1

Love it

No it hasn't. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Epstein "In September 2002, Epstein flew Bill Clinton, Kevin Spacey, and Chris Tucker to Africa in his private jet. According to flight records, Bill Clinton flew on Epstein's plane 26 times. He flew without Secret Sevice at least 5 times." Are you familiar with how Wikipedia works?

I guess the wording of the agreement is in question. The thread you link says "You can expect Epstein's attorneys to argue that the prior deal precludes this indictment. If the prior deal was really only with the Southern District of Florida, I expect that argument to fail, but the specific words of the agreement matter." I had seen elsewhere that the agreement precluded prosecution for crimes committed in the Southern District of Florida, for example:

"I did not have sexual relations with those minors."

Different crimes. The plea deal covered crimes he committed in South Florida, but he's now being charged with crimes he committed in New York. And obviously crimes committed after the plea deal wouldn't be covered wherever they happened.

She's cut down the burn rate. What a well-run campaign so far.

I think this one might go viral.

Dude. Yes. Finally, someone from the guitar thread is in. We have much to discuss.

More detail That is awesome