Bob Helm Photography wrote:
The article states that she was the official White House Photographer. That means that she was a government employee and all the photos belong to the US Government and every photo she took  under the Presidential Records Act could not be deleted.

He was IMO off base asking for a cut of her book but had every right to use her photos as well as those of another member of the White House photo staff. Normally official government photos are not credited to the photographer.

So does the US Goverment own the photographs, or does former President Trump own the photographs? Now that he is no longer in Office does he have sole copyright that makes it okay for him to use these photographs for personal profit?

Bob Helm Photography wrote:
The article states that she was the official White House Photographer. That means that she was a government employee and all the photos belong to the US Government and every photo she took  under the Presidential Records Act could not be deleted..

LOL. Too bad mango Mussolini tore up, flushed, and deleted unknown quantities of Government property, huh? And OF COURSE the malignant narcissist couldn't keep his little hands off a trove of photos of his royal dumbass self.

Shot By Adam wrote:
Yeah, that's not a highly biased article or anything LOL.

Yet the underlaying facts are accurately reported. Or do you have a problem with verifiable facts?

LightDreams wrote:
It's not a question of legalities.  It's just yet another reflection of the man, "The President" and how he views, and deals, with those around him.

So just to be clear, trump did NOT offer to write the forward in return for dirt on Hunter Biden?

Shot By Adam wrote:
Yeah, that's not a highly biased article or anything LOL.

It's not about bias. If the the article is correct, then trump screwed over the photographer which would be nothing new, Trump screws over everything he touches.
Feel free to find the same article from your favorite fake news agency and post it for balance.
John

Bob Helm Photography wrote:
The article states that she was the official White House Photographer. That means that she was a government employee and all the photos belong to the US Government and every photo she took  under the Presidential Records Act could not be deleted.

He was IMO off base asking for a cut of her book but had every right to use her photos as well as those of another member of the White House photo staff. Normally official government photos are not credited to the photographer.

I don't know who owns the photos but it seems that for at least the last 4 or 5 official photographers have definitely owned the copyright to every photo taken by them. In which case photo credit should be disclosed. Also as far as I know every photographer that I've read about owned their own gear, unlike on some jobs where they are issued an official camera to record the official records and the photographers also carry their private cameras and record their own photos as well.
Either way, nothing is owned by Trump himself. But this is how Trampo operates and she will probably have to sue him for which he has collect millions in private donations to use to fight all these law suites. If she does not sue she may possibly lose her copywrites by not defending them?
John

Focuspuller wrote:

So just to be clear, trump did NOT offer to write the forward in return for dirt on Hunter Biden?

Trump does not have to write the forward in exchange for dirt. Didn't he just yesterday ask Putin for the Biden's dirt? We assume a quid pro quo in exchange for lifting sanctions if elected again which isn't gonna happen.
John
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congre … -rcna22479

Hunter  GWPB wrote:
In contrast, Ted Polumbaum's daughter has released a collection of her father's work without interference from her father's previous employers.

https://www.npr.org/sections/picturesho … hammad-ali

"He's been dead 20 years, and we are still conversing." So writes Judy Polumbaum in All Available Light, a new book showcasing her father's robust photography career.

He was a freelance photographer working on various assignments. You understand the difference, right?

John Silva Photography wrote:
I don't know who owns the photos but it seems that for at least the last 4 or 5 official photographers have definitely owned the copyright to every photo taken by them. ... Also as far as I know every photographer that I've read about owned their own gear, unlike on some jobs where they are issued an official camera to record the official records and the photographers also carry their private cameras and record their own photos as well.

John

Prove that they owned copyright!

Who owned the camera is not relevant and there is no such thing as have your "personal" camera on the job along with your work camera when you are getting paid to photograph something and your access is based on the employment.
In his book "Shooter" David Hume Kennerly, President Ford's Chief Photographer a photojournalist who had worked for for newspapers and UPI ( Saigon Bureau Chief at age 24) before becoming the Presents personal photographer at age 27. I doubt he owned the copyright for any of his photos ( other than any freelance work) because of Work for Hire Of the 50 photos ins book only one is credited and that is to another photographer of David with the President . All are identified by time and the text identifies who he was working for. Text not with photo

President Obama's photographer was the subject of a great documentary ( PBS I think) that described the job, the office he ran and the number of photographers he supervised where he detailed how every frame was kept and property of the Government .

BTW since there are a number of photographers on the staff it would be wrong to assume that all the photos inTrumps book were taken by the same photographer.

Remember the copyright on the book is not a copyright on the individual photos

Dan Howell wrote:
He was a freelance photographer working on various assignments. You understand the difference, right?

Yes, I understand.  Is your comment, without explanation, somehow meant to dispute the assertion and contrast?

Hunter  GWPB wrote:

Yes, I understand.  Is your comment, without explanation, somehow meant to dispute the assertion and contrast?

Because your mention of 'his previous employers' is irrelevant to this discussion.

John Silva Photography wrote:
Bob Helm said....
"Who owned the camera is not relevant and there is no such thing as have your "personal" camera on the job along with your work camera when you are getting paid to photograph something and your access is based on the employment".

"(Haeberle took the pictures not with his Army-issued Leica camera, but with his own camera, a Nikon; this meant they were not subject to the same oversight.)"

I made the statement about shooting with a non-official issue camera having different restrictions based of statements made by Ron Haeberle when he was shooting and publishing photos of the My Lai massacre, some taken with his government issue Leica, of which the film was turned over to the military versus the film taken with his second and personal camera for which the film was not turned over to the military.

I'm sure laws change all the time but I do know that the Obama presidential images can be used by the general public as they were published by Flickr but they MUST give credit to Pete Souza.
The following shows that there are more than one way to own the rights to the presidential images...

"Not all work that appears on US Government Websites is considered to be a US Government work. Check with the content curator to see whether the work is a US Government Work. Works prepared for the United States Government by independent contractors may be protected by copyright, which may be owned by the independent contractor or by the United States Government"

Which means it depends on how the photographers are hired and how their contracts read.

Lets not lose sight of the fact that Trump will SCREW anyone with the ability to bend over or he can steal a dollar from, that's not partisan, it's a FACT!!! Which of course right before he screws then, he first tramples their integrity and talent.
John

I was speaking of copyright, who owns the camera is immaterial. Not familiar with the rules governing military photographers so he may be correct, he may be wrong.  There may (should) be a difference between the oversight of official Army photos taken by military photographers of military operations and that of ordinary soldiers taking private photos while in the field. I know in WWII ALL photos take in a combat area were subject to military censorship . Yes photos on websites may be taken by government photographers or freelancers but the subject of this thread was of the official photographer , a government employee so any reference to freelancers is not relevant.

Trump's overall ethics is also not relevant to this conversation . He is a businessman and following a contract may seem like screwing someone but may not be in fact if they did not honor the contract and with 500+ companies who knows what decisions he made personally or was even aware of. He rarely gets the benefit of the doubt.

Bob Helm Photography wrote:
...
Trump's overall ethics is also not relevant to this conversation. He is a businessman and following a contract may seem like screwing someone but may not be in fact if they did not honor the contract and with 500+ companies who knows what decisions he made personally or was even aware of. He rarely gets the benefit of the doubt.

Personally, I thought that his personal ethics, as demonstrated by the decisions that he personally made (with his initial demands for a cut, followed up by his badmouthing of her, and his decision to rush out his own book to beat her to the market / making sure that he enriched himself at her expense) WAS the point.

But let's just "agree to disagree" on that...

As far as "He rarely gets the benefit of the doubt" goes, I'd agree that has now become the "norm".  But, I suspect that we have very different explanations as to WHY that is.

I would suggest that this is a pointless argument.  As we've all discovered over the last few years, if people won't accept the same basic set of facts, having any kind of "Useful and Productive" argument over what it all means, becomes a truly impossible task.

Dan Howell wrote:
Because your mention of 'his previous employers' is irrelevant to this discussion.

Why?  With all due respect, “because your mention of 'his previous employers' is irrelevant to this discussion,” is only rephrasing the contention in your previous comment.  It is not supporting the assertion.

Polumbaum had many people and organizations give him assignments. 400 from LIFE, alone.  Did he ever have a work for hire situation among his business relationships?  Did all of his prior relationships consist of situations where the grantor of an assignment did not have the right to publish any of the related works at will?  With Polumbaum, he had on going relationships with multiple clients/employers over the span of a career and no one screwed him like trump screwed Craighead. 

I understand that my analogy can be interpreted to be strained because there is not an exact point of compatibility, i.e. Polumbaum was not a white House photographer, laboring under the current rules of the office or under the laws/rules regarding the work product of the Official White House Photographer.  But, Polumbaum did shoot famous people along the way, creating an incentive for others to profit from his work where the contract terms would allow or where images fell into the public domain through the deficiencies under the previous copyright the law. 

Since the copyright law was revised in 1976 (and became effective in 1978), many years of Polumbaum's career were under the 1909 laws.  In that period, works without proper copyright notice could fall into the public domain.  The 1978 law revisions did not apply retroactively to previous creations.  Consequently, anyone with knowledge of the efforts of Polumbaum's daughter and access to a portion of Polumbaum's work, could have undercut her the way trump did with Craighead- but, no one did.  So, I fail to see how Polumbaum’s employers are irrelevant.

Craighead is a photographer with freelance experience and past credentials as a staff and a hired photographer for several political figures including Dick Cheney, Laura and Jenna Bush, and Marco Rubio.  With consideration to Craighead’s previous experience and her work under other Republicans and the family of another President, most likely with some of the work falling under the same standards as what she did for trump, i.e., the official photographer to First Lady Laura Bush and with her duties to Cheney, she still had this one notable gig for four years, serving one unethical President- and he was the only one who screwed her.  If my previous sarcastic comment comparing Polumbaum to Craighead was tenuous, then certainly this exchange establishing Craighead’s experience with other Republican politicians, and the fact that no other Presidents have treated their official photographers with the contempt that trump hoisted upon Craighead, then the comparisons within Craighead's own career serves to further highlight trump’s action as exceptionally deplorable.   

Other people, like Richard Prince, commandeering the photos of other people and selling the alterations as $100,000 prints are similar anomalies.  The specific instance of trump screwing Craighead stands out like what Prince did.

I will also point out that trump’ poorly named book is ”being published by Winning Team Publishing*, an imprint co-founded by Donald Trump Jr. and Sergio Gor, who worked for Mr. Trump’s re-election campaign in 2020. It’s unclear if Mr. Trump shopped the book around to traditional publishers, but several industry executives said they hadn’t heard about the book.”(1)  Which means that if there was any possibility of a publisher informing the trump scum of ethical concerns, they had already created a situation allowing them to disregard and bypass any ethical standards that might have been imposed by an ethical publisher.

*The “winning team” being 1-2 with a loss being the most recent result,  Considering the events where he just dipped his toe into the pool, are also losses in that he capitulated early in the seasons

(1)  https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/19/book … ether.html

Bob Helm Photography wrote:
Trump's overall ethics is also not relevant to this conversation . He is a businessman and following a contract may seem like screwing someone but may not be in fact if they did not honor the contract and with 500+ companies who knows what decisions he made personally or was even aware of. He rarely gets the benefit of the doubt.

Rubbish.  The lack of morality and ethics of trump absolutely would have been an issue if he was a Democrat.  Every time a Republican mentions the name of Hunter Biden, it is proof enough of the double standard.  Future Associate Justice Jackson is another example, one which required willful misinterpretations and distorted facts which they were trying to hold her accountable for.

At best, tump is an amoral man.  His history indicates he is an immoral man. His bankruptcies; his reputation for refusing to pay his subcontractors; his multiple affairs; his violations of law in hiring immigrants legally unable to work in this country; his screwing over his brother, sister, niece; his constant and never ending lies-  all of it- has not been "one off" aberrations.  It is his lifestyle.  It is who he is and he showed us who he is every step of the way.  He showed us who he is with every lie and anti-American comment he has made without regard to the harm he causes to our country.

The only people that would dismiss his record prior to this, and consider this act in isolation, are the ones that follow his hate filled agenda and self-serving policies because they don't care how the game is played, but only in getting the desired result, no matter the long term consequences.

Deflecting his moral responsibility by alluding to a contract that doesn't exist is a grotesque copout. No company or person is constrained from doing the "right thing," which is based on morality or ethics, because they embrace the text of a contract that could be negotiated away.  Why would a moral man enter into a contract with immoral clauses?  If a contract existed between Craighead and trump, he could have simply said to Craighead that the terms toward her were unfair and should be rewritten.  There was no requirement for him to scuttle her publication.  His history of not paying subs and stiffing banks are good indications that trump doesn't abide by contracts.  trump university and his illegal misuse of funds in trump charities are indications that law and ethics are inconveniences to be tossed aside by him. 

trump, being a control freak, means there is little chance of him not being involved in the nitty gritty of the immoral acts attributed to him.  He was involved with the phone call to Zelenskyy in Ukraine and the phone calls to Raffensperger in Georgia.  His underlings did not misrepresent the values of his holdings and assets without his knowledge.  Not paying taxes, by his own admission, makes him think he is smart, where as it makes me think he is immoral, especially in light of his refusal to allow his taxes to be reviewed and his constant fight to keep documents private and to not testify.  By his own words, the people that plead the fifth are guilty gangsters and he has certainly shown he himself feels that has a lot to hide.

Some people may willingly enter into contracts with people who have reputations for being unscrupulous.  May they have good luck with that, but, most likely, they will get what they deserve- to be screwed over by crooked people like trump, who give ample warning of their duplicity.

Hunter  GWPB wrote:

Rubbish.  The lack of morality and ethics of trump absolutely would have been an issue if he was a Democrat.  Every time a Republican mentions the name of Hunter Biden, it is proof enough of the double standard.  Future Associate Justice Jackson is another example, one which required willful misinterpretations and distorted facts which they were trying to hold her accountable for.

At best, tump is an amoral man.  His history indicates he is an immoral man. His bankruptcies; his reputation for refusing to pay his subcontractors; his multiple affairs; his violations of law in hiring immigrants legally unable to work in this country; his screwing over his brother, sister, niece; his constant and never ending lies-  all of it- has not been "one off" aberrations.  It is his lifestyle.  It is who he is and he showed us who he is every step of the way.  He showed us who he is with every lie and anti-American comment he has made without regard to the harm he causes to our country.

The only people that would dismiss his record prior to this, and consider this act in isolation, are the ones that follow his hate filled agenda and self-serving policies because they don't care how the game is played, but only in getting the desired result, no matter the long term consequences.

Deflecting his moral responsibility by alluding to a contract that doesn't exist is a grotesque copout. No company or person is constrained from doing the "right thing," which is based on morality or ethics, because they embrace the text of a contract that could be negotiated away.  Why would a moral man enter into a contract with immoral clauses?  If a contract existed between Craighead and trump, he could have simply said to Craighead that the terms toward her were unfair and should be rewritten.  There was no requirement for him to scuttle her publication.  His history of not paying subs and stiffing banks are good indications that trump doesn't abide by contracts.  trump university and his illegal misuse of funds in trump charities are indications that law and ethics are inconveniences to be tossed aside by him. 

trump, being a control freak, means there is little chance of him not being involved in the nitty gritty of the immoral acts attributed to him.  He was involved with the phone call to Zelenskyy in Ukraine and the phone calls to Raffensperger in Georgia.  His underlings did not misrepresent the values of his holdings and assets without his knowledge.  Not paying taxes, by his own admission, makes him think he is smart, where as it makes me think he is immoral, especially in light of his refusal to allow his taxes to be reviewed and his constant fight to keep documents private and to not testify.  By his own words, the people that plead the fifth are guilty gangsters and he has certainly shown he himself feels that has a lot to hide.

Some people may willingly enter into contracts with people who have reputations for being unscrupulous.  May they have good luck with that, but, most likely, they will get what they deserve- to be screwed over by crooked people like trump, who give ample warning of their duplicity.

Hunter  GWPB wrote:
Rubbish.  The lack of morality and ethics of trump absolutely would have been an issue if he was a Democrat.  Every time a Republican mentions the name of Hunter Biden, it is proof enough of the double standard.  Future Associate Justice Jackson is another example, one which required willful misinterpretations and distorted facts which they were trying to hold her accountable for.

At best, tump is an amoral man. 

Deflecting his moral responsibility by alluding to a contract that doesn't exist is a grotesque copout. No company or person is constrained from doing the "right thing," which is based on morality or ethics, because they embrace the text of a contract that could be negotiated away.  Why would a moral man enter into a contract with immoral clause.

You may have noticed that I rarely, if ever reply to your lengthy comments. That is intentional for several reasons. First I limit the time I spend on social media, especially MM and that usually precludes reading your replies which I find usually to be rambling receptions of the top reasons you hate Trump with careful repetition of the misinformation the MSM prints.

Many moral people have bankruptcies , both personal and business and with something like 500 businesses it would be rare if he didn't have several in his past. Many moral people have had multiple marriages and committed adultery. None have any bearing on his performance as a leader.

You speak of contracts as if they are bound by morals, I suggest you discuss that with a lawyer (many of whom are immoral) and waiver of part of a contract for a "moral"reason may invalidated other parts of the agreement.

You frequently mention Tump thinks Putin is smart . Do you think someone can get to be a COL in the KGB without being smart? Do you think a COL in the KGB can get to be president of a country like Russia without being smart. There are a lot of words I can think of to describe Putin and smart is one of them, so is evil, ruthless, dishonest and many more. I think you are smart, lacking logic but smart.

Yes there is a double standard in politics and if you think the current SCOTUS nominee was treated poorly by the Republicans I suggest that you review the treatment of the last THREE Republican nominees by Democrats. Hunter?Seriously? Twitter and FB blocked ANY discussion on him, the NYT ignored it and the three major TV networks ignored it after the NYT validated the laptop. Is there any interest in the media ( other than FNC) who the "BIG" guy is?

BTW you are not the only one on this forum whose main argument is based on Trump hatred. BTW one dose not have to like, agree with or think a President moral to think them a good President. JFK was IMO a good man( with multiple infidelities) but IMO a weak President. LBJ was IMO a racist and ruthless politician but a good President . Clinton was someone I seldom agreed with, not a very moral man but a smart and good President, perhaps the  smartest in my lifetime.

Shot By Adam wrote:
So it's safe to assume that political conversations are now allowed in these forums again? I notice the moderators are very much absent in bringing down the hammer on many of the posts in this thread.

https://www.modelmayhem.com/forums/post … st19919255

Well, sometimes the rules here are murky.  Do politics belong in general Industry?  It is up to the mods.  This may be one of those thread that skirt the line because because trump screwed over his photographer in a business decision after he left office but by using his former office's assets.

The same problem existed with my post.  trump brought his corrupt business practices into government and then he either worsened his behavior or just put a microscope on his behavior to reveal all the dirty and underhanded and criminal things he dd in private life, like cheat banks and governments by altering his valuations on his properties.  We wouldn't have known about that had he not been president.  We probably wouldn't have cared.  It is probably some of both options, he got worse and what he did became more visible.

I think that there is validity to your complaint

Bob Helm Photography wrote:
You may have noticed that I rarely, if ever reply to your lengthy comments. That is intentional for several reasons. First I limit the time I spend on social media, especially MM and that usually precludes reading your replies which I find usually to be rambling receptions of the top reasons you hate Trump with careful repetition of the misinformation the MSM prints.

Many moral people have bankruptcies , both personal and business and with something like 500 businesses it would be rare if he didn't have several in his past. Many moral people have had multiple marriages and committed adultery. None have any bearing on his performance as a leader.

You speak of contracts as if they are bound by morals, I suggest you discuss that with a lawyer (many of whom are immoral) and waiver of part of a contract for a "moral"reason may invalidated other parts of the agreement.

You frequently mention Tump thinks Putin is smart . Do you think someone can get to be a COL in the KGB without being smart? Do you think a COL in the KGB can get to be president of a country like Russia without being smart. There are a lot of words I can think of to describe Putin and smart is one of them, so is evil, ruthless, dishonest and many more. I think you are smart, lacking logic but smart.

Yes there is a double standard in politics and if you think the current SCOTUS nominee was treated poorly by the Republicans I suggest that you review the treatment of the last THREE Republican nominees by Democrats. Hunter?Seriously? Twitter and FB blocked ANY discussion on him, the NYT ignored it and the three major TV networks ignored it after the NYT validated the laptop. Is there any interest in the media ( other than FNC) who the "BIG" guy is?

BTW you are not the only one on this forum whose main argument is based on Trump hatred. BTW one dose not have to like, agree with or think a President moral to think them a good President. JFK was IMO a good man( with multiple infidelities) but IMO a weak President. LBJ was IMO a racist and ruthless politician but a good President . Clinton was someone I seldom agreed with, not a very moral man but a smart and good President, perhaps the  smartest in my lifetime.

This is quite the piece of absurdity you have written.  For the moment, all I am going to say here is it that it is you that promotes biased and false information that is regurgitate from the fake news media that the right wing propagandist put out and if you think my logic is poor- then, oh well.    Your opinion means nothing to me, because, in your writings, you employ logical fallacies and your posts are informed from the biased and false information that is regurgitate from the fake news media and the propagandist's manifesto.

That said, I am not done with this garbage you spewed.  Your falsehoods need to be addressed, if for no other reason, cerebral exercise and a reading opportunity for those that don't have short attention spans.  (Really, you complain about five minutes worth of reading being lengthy?)  But I am going to take for truth that the mods intended politics to stay in the OT forum.  Though the discussion will continue to involve trump's crooked business dealings, it will also involve his crooked political propensities.  So, you can look for my answer in the politics thread.  You won't want to miss it.  It will be fun!   

Bob Helm Photography wrote:
You may have noticed that I rarely, if ever reply to your lengthy comments. That is intentional for several reasons. First I limit the time I spend on social media, especially MM and that usually precludes reading your replies which I find usually to be rambling receptions of the top reasons you hate Trump with careful repetition of the misinformation the MSM prints.

Many moral people have bankruptcies , both personal and business and with something like 500 businesses it would be rare if he didn't have several in his past. Many moral people have had multiple marriages and committed adultery. None have any bearing on his performance as a leader.

You speak of contracts as if they are bound by morals, I suggest you discuss that with a lawyer (many of whom are immoral) and waiver of part of a contract for a "moral"reason may invalidated other parts of the agreement.

You frequently mention Tump thinks Putin is smart . Do you think someone can get to be a COL in the KGB without being smart? Do you think a COL in the KGB can get to be president of a country like Russia without being smart. There are a lot of words I can think of to describe Putin and smart is one of them, so is evil, ruthless, dishonest and many more. I think you are smart, lacking logic but smart.

Yes there is a double standard in politics and if you think the current SCOTUS nominee was treated poorly by the Republicans I suggest that you review the treatment of the last THREE Republican nominees by Democrats. Hunter?Seriously? Twitter and FB blocked ANY discussion on him, the NYT ignored it and the three major TV networks ignored it after the NYT validated the laptop. Is there any interest in the media ( other than FNC) who the "BIG" guy is?

BTW you are not the only one on this forum whose main argument is based on Trump hatred. BTW one dose not have to like, agree with or think a President moral to think them a good President. JFK was IMO a good man( with multiple infidelities) but IMO a weak President. LBJ was IMO a racist and ruthless politician but a good President . Clinton was someone I seldom agreed with, not a very moral man but a smart and good President, perhaps the  smartest in my lifetime.

'... repetition of the misinformation the MSM prints."

Let's look at YOUR misinformation, shall we?

"Many moral people have bankruptcies..."

trump has had FOUR, all used to shift losses, due to incompetence and run amok greed, to his investors and employees. Moral?

"Many moral people have had multiple marriages and committed adultery."

As a trump apologist, not surprising you find adulterers "moral people."

"None have any bearing on his performance as a leader."

Really? I guess having potential exposure to blackmail would not have affected trump's "performance as a leader." In YOUR moral universe, that is.

" Do you think someone can get to be a COL in the KGB without being smart? "

Yes. Just ruthless and conspiratorial, and with all that, Putin's KGB career was VERY mediocre.

"...review the treatment of the last THREE Republican nominees by Democrats."

All three had confirmation hearings and were confirmed. What's your point?

"Hunter?... the NYT ignored it and the three major TV networks ignored it after the NYT validated the laptop..."

Already debunked the LIE about the NYT (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/22/us/p … Position=1). And the existence of the laptop was never an issue, just the contents of the hard drive, which so far has revealed NO incriminating material.

" JFK was IMO a good man( with multiple infidelities) but IMO a weak President. LBJ was IMO a racist and ruthless politician but a good President . Clinton was someone I seldom agreed with, not a very moral man but a smart and good President, perhaps the  smartest in my lifetime"

Nice try, but FAIL. Throw in Richard Nixon and the combined faults of ALL of them dont move the needle an iota in comparison to the human monstrosity that is trump. Neither moral, smart, nor a "good" man OR president.

As a trump apologist, you may call it "HATRED". Frankly, Scarlett, I dont give a damn.

Focuspuller wrote:
"...review the treatment of the last THREE Republican nominees by Democrats."

All three had confirmation hearings and were confirmed. What's your point?

The fact that you're sitting here spewing a bunch of verbal gymnastics to try claim that there are security issues with Trump and his ex-wives while dodging the fact that our current President's corrupt dealings with foreign nations via his crack-smoking son is beyond laughable. Then you attempt to dismiss the SCOTUS hearings under Brett Kavanaugh as "all were confirmed, what's your point" is even worse.

To quote our dementia-ridden leader, "Come on, man!". You have our current Affirmative Action nominee of Ketanji Jackson (a person who is incapable of defining what a "woman" is) being swooned at left and right by her leftist counterparts and Brett Kavanaugh, who the Democrats and mainstream media (but I repeat myself) dredged up a bunch of women who made completely false accusations of rape against so they wouldn't get him appointed. So if you think the two are even remotely comparable, I don't know what to say.

Shot By Adam wrote:
The fact that you're sitting here spewing a bunch of verbal gymnastics to try claim that there are security issues with Trump and his ex-wives while dodging the fact that our current President's corrupt dealings with foreign nations via his crack-smoking son is beyond laughable. Then you attempt to dismiss the SCOTUS hearings under Brett Kavanaugh as "all were confirmed, what's your point" is even worse.

To quote our dementia-ridden leader, "Come on, man!". You have our current Affirmative Action nominee of Ketanji Jackson (a person who is incapable of defining what a "woman" is) being swooned at left and right by her leftist counterparts and Brett Kavanaugh, who the Democrats and mainstream media (but I repeat myself) dredged up a bunch of women who made completely false accusations of rape against so they wouldn't get him appointed. So if you think the two are even remotely comparable, I don't know what to say.

An "Affirmative Action nominee?"  Are you fucking kidding?  Yes, every black person that accomplished anything did it because of affirmative action.

What has affirmative action done except to give SOME people a more level playing field?  Successful black people still have to accomplish things to advance.

Was affirmative action unnecessary?  Did you not benefit by your parent's position in society?  Their ability to get a good job when they were raising you?  I note that I was the first in my family to get a degree, which was a direct result of my father's good job.  His good job was a result of his father's good job because my father could finish high school instead of getting a job, unlike my favorite uncle who went to Europe to fight and never earned a diploma- not having a diploma severely impacted the rest of his life, and therefore, the lives of his daughters.

Did you ever have to deal with Jim Crow laws? Being belittled because of your race?  Were members of your family denied opportunity because of their race?

Regarding  Kavanaugh and him having assaulted women when he was young.  It wasn't right, but it was the way it was at the time and it shouldn't have been a disqualifying problem, especially if he been decent about during the hearing.  A simple segment of contrition, not necessarily an admission or an apology- but, "I drank too much as a kid, could be a jerk, but I don't remember assaulting anyone, and our laws should protect women and girls when boys are being boys."  Or that sort of thing. 

That it was and is a common thing for obnoxious boys to go to far with girls and the accusations were he says, she says, doesn't mean it shouldn't have been heard.  I can accept that BK couldn't remember because he was a shit face drunk as a kid.  I do have a problem with his behavior in the hearings.  As for the accusations, maybe he should have been vetted better and the women certainly had A RIGHT (unlike Jackson's parents who couldn't eat at the white's lunch counter) to voice therir concerns and tell their stories.

What would you have expected to happen if Dr. Ford voiced her complaint to Senate Republicans?  Do you think it would have ever been heard? Or would they have handled it the like faux investigation that paused the hearings, and that Republicans used to scam us to show their concern, while they didn't. do am meaningful investigation.  As a result, the cloud remains over BK's head.

Regardless of any problems with Hunter Biden, that doesn't excuse trump or justify trump whatsoever.  If you want to use the kids of presidents to establish merit, rather than the president themselves, then you must also look a Beau Biden.  A son who is representative of everything trump's sons are not.  I will give gcredit to trump's oldest daughter for being smart and not being the sociopath her father and bothers are.

GD

Shot By Adam wrote:
The fact that you're sitting here spewing a bunch of verbal gymnastics to try claim that there are security issues with Trump and his ex-wives while dodging the fact that our current President's corrupt dealings with foreign nations via his crack-smoking son is beyond laughable. Then you attempt to dismiss the SCOTUS hearings under Brett Kavanaugh as "all were confirmed, what's your point" is even worse.

To quote our dementia-ridden leader, "Come on, man!". You have our current Affirmative Action nominee of Ketanji Jackson (a person who is incapable of defining what a "woman" is) being swooned at left and right by her leftist counterparts and Brett Kavanaugh, who the Democrats and mainstream media (but I repeat myself) dredged up a bunch of women who made completely false accusations of rape against so they wouldn't get him appointed. So if you think the two are even remotely comparable, I don't know what to say.

The POINT, which apparently sailed over your head, is that all three HAD HEARINGS, which is more respect than the cultist party was willing to give Garland in the last YEAR of the Obama administration, and which then required the McConnell Doctrine to be shamelessly jettisoned for purely political reasons in the last WEEK before the 2020 election, but blatant in your face hypocrisy is a cultist trademark. Such as:

“ dodging the fact that our current President's corrupt dealings with foreign nations via his crack-smoking son is beyond laughable.”

What is “laughable” is you actually want to talk about a son’s “ corrupt dealings with foreign nations.”

SERIOUSLY? 😂😂😂

As to your other cultist talking points, “dementia-ridden”, “false accusations of rape”, “defining what a woman is”;  in order: unproven,  credible, and irrelevant.

Focuspuller wrote:
As to your other cultist talking points, “dementia-ridden”, “false accusations of rape”, “defining what a woman is”;  in order: unproven,  credible, and irrelevant.

Reality:

Dementia-ridden: Obvious to anyone with an ounce of common sense.

Accusations of rape: Not one of the accusers was even remotely credible. The mere fact that you even think they were is beyond hilarious and shows you obvious bias. Hell, even Ford's own attorney came out and said she was full of shit. Not one other accuser was shown to have an ounce of credibility which is why each and every one of their testimonies was tossed out.

And it's funny how someone can claim that a marital infidelity is grounds for bribery yet can't understand how it could be with a crack-smoking, corrupt son is, again, just laughable.

Hunter  GWPB wrote:
An "Affirmative Action nominee?"  Are you fucking kidding?  Yes, every black person that accomplished anything did it because of affirmative action.

GD

I'm not even going to read your bloated, long-winded diatribe past this sentence. I did want to point out to you that Joe Brandon HIMSELF even said that she was -LITERALLY- an affirmative action nominee. Not only that, he said it FREQUENTLY, that the #1 reason wasn't because she was a great judge, but because she was a black woman. HE SAID THIS. He even said over and over again that he was only interested in finding a judge with a certain race and skin color and that was his primary means of choosing a candidate. It's the literal definition of sexism and racism.

Shot By Adam wrote:
The fact that you're sitting here spewing a bunch of verbal gymnastics to try claim that there are security issues with Trump and his ex-wives while dodging the fact that our current President's corrupt dealings with foreign nations via his crack-smoking son is beyond laughable.

You are awfully worried about the unproven misdeeds of Hunter Biden--- yet you dont seem to care one bit that Donald Trump's son-in-law got a CONFIRMED  TWO BILLION DOLLARS for his brand new unproven "investment firm"----
No double standards from you eh?....
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Before Giving Billions to Jared Kushner, Saudi Investment Fund Had Big Doubts

Before committing $2 billion to Mr. Kushner’s fledgling firm, officials at a fund led by the Saudi crown prince questioned taking such a big risk.

----  https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/10/us/j … -fund.html


"Six months after leaving the White House, Jared Kushner secured a $2 billion investment from a fund led by the Saudi crown prince, a close ally during the Trump administration, despite objections from the fund’s advisers about the merits of the deal.

A panel that screens investments for the main Saudi sovereign wealth fund cited concerns about the proposed deal with Mr. Kushner’s newly formed private equity firm, Affinity Partners, previously undisclosed documents show.

Those objections included: “the inexperience of the Affinity Fund management”; the possibility that the kingdom would be responsible for “the bulk of the investment and risk”; due diligence on the fledgling firm’s operations that found them “unsatisfactory in all aspects”; a proposed asset management fee that “seems excessive”; and “public relations risks” from Mr. Kushner’s prior role as a senior adviser to his father-in-law, former President Donald J. Trump, according to minutes of the panel’s meeting last June 30.

But days later the full board of the $620 billion Public Investment Fund — led by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, Saudi Arabia’s de facto ruler and a beneficiary of Mr. Kushner’s support when he worked as a White House adviser — overruled the panel.

Ethics experts say that such a deal creates the appearance of potential payback for Mr. Kushner’s actions in the White House — or of a bid for future favor if Mr. Trump seeks and wins another presidential term in 2024."

Shot By Adam wrote:

Reality:

Dementia-ridden: Obvious to anyone with an ounce of common sense.

Accusations of rape: Not one of the accusers was even remotely credible. The mere fact that you even think they were is beyond hilarious and shows you obvious bias. Hell, even Ford's own attorney came out and said she was full of shit. Not one other accuser was shown to have an ounce of credibility which is why each and every one of their testimonies was tossed out.
And it's funny how someone can claim that a marital infidelity is grounds for bribery yet can't understand how it could be with a crack-smoking, corrupt son is, again, just laughable.

"Dementia-ridden: Obvious to anyone with an ounce of common sense."

Garbage. My mother had dementia the last 10 years of her life. I KNOW what dementia looks like. YOU DO NOT.

" ...even Ford's own attorney came out and said she was full of shit...Not one other accuser was shown to have an ounce of credibility which is why each and every one of their testimonies was tossed out. "

Lies. Attorney never said that. Motivation "in part" political, but nevertheless TRUE, a concept maybe alien to cultists, who LIE for political reasons. And other accusations "tossed out" by whom? The cult Senators of the Judiciary Committee? Talk about "laughable".

"And it's funny how someone can claim that a marital infidelity is grounds for bribery yet can't understand how it could be with a crack-smoking, corrupt son is, again, just laughable"

Ignorance. Not "a marital infidelity"; SERIAL sexual offenses. Not bribery. BLACKMAIL. The kind Putin's old KGB liked to cultivate assets with. And while cultists might consider a "crack smoking son" something other than a family tragedy, and not a moral offense,  ADULTERY IS a moral offense, but not surprised that cultists would excuse it, considering the cult leader's history.

Laughable indeed.