I guess we missed his meaning - we thought he meant to drain the EXISTING swamp when it turns out the swamp is entirely one of HIS making.

His cabinet secretary Acosta is the 9th cabinet official to leave the Trump administration. There are only 15 cabinet positions.

For context: During the Obama Administration, there was no turnover in cabinet agencies, two and a half years into his first term. During the Bush Administration, one cabinet secretary had left office as of June 2003.

Some swamp! Some draining!

He was lying like he always does. The key words are ALWAYS, and LYING!

The thing is that we just go from lie to lie, scandal to scandal, every freaking day. What's wrong with that picture. This stinking mess though may be just starting.

If someone like Acosta is bounced ,that is a good thing . I think it is worth a try ...But I think the case against Epstein in NY Southern District will go nowhere because of the Constitutional 5th amendment protection against double jeopardy . Acosta (with a hat tip by Robert Mueller ) completely blew the 1st case .

Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't Epstein convicted in Florida at the state level? If so NY has a legit case depending on the SOL in NY. That's why the feds can bring a case since they didn't before.

The deal Epstein made with Acosta was a Federal deal . Acosta was US attorney for the Southern Florida District .

Acosta agreed to spare Epstein from federal prosecution if he pled guilty to state prostitution charges ;which he did . The new charges are Federal Charges filed in NY Southern District Federal Court . SDNY carefully crafted the language of their indictment which tells me they are very concerned about the plea deal .Maybe they will get away with it . But Epstein can muster up a bunch of all star lawyers like he did last time to make a credible double jeopardy case .

Quote:

---

Acosta agreed to spare Epstein from federal prosecution if he pled guilty to state prostitution charges ;which he did .

---

No federal charges, no prosecution, no double jeopardy on the federal level, or from another state that has a case.

I wish his lawyers luck (Not Much) and glad he can afford the best defense money can buy. He will need it. I hope they deny him bail though.

I hope you are right .

If prosecutors really believed that there was no double jeopardy problem, they’d throw everything the FBI ever had at this sociopath. They skated around with the language trying to skirt any DJ issues. I note that Acosta tweeted that he was happy that Epstein was being prosecuted on NEW Evidence . He was careful to say it was new evidence . But new evidence for a crime already adjudicated would still be DJ . It is not enough to have new evidence . They need to prosecute a new crime .

I suspect that the NEW evidence remark was just Acosta covering his own arse since his contention for the deal was not enough evidence to prosecute. The only thing stopping the feds from using that evidence would be SOL, and for the crimes he is likely to be charged with that doesn't apply.

Checking but I'm rather busy with a few urgent matters concerning saving my own arse since my opponent didn't want to wait for tonight to put me away! 8(

maybe if you had that 20th starter . I've been chasing the Tx Redlegs all season, I have one more match up with him and hope to catch or pass him then.

back to point of OP . Most President's coming into office have a huge network of supporting staff /advisors / so called experts / and swamp critters to tap into for appointments . Trump had none except for his close circle of family ,and whatever references he got from the RNC swamp critters .So he staffed up with them for the 1st year and did some on the job training . It comes as no surprise that he did not see eye to eye with them . So the initial turnover was always going to be higher than the norm.
That doesn't go to say that his White House isn't on the chaotic side and that he is a micro-manager who trusts his own advice over those of his advisors .So the turnover rate would've been higher for that reason alone. Given the 2 factors alone ,I could see that it would be on historic levels. That doesn't even take into account the inherent hostility between Trump and the swamp and the swamp enablers in the press. Working in the White House is an intense experience on it's own from what I hear. The best of them change jobs or leave in about a 2 year cycle .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

back to point of OP. ....... That doesn't even take into account the inherent hostility between Trump and the swamp and the swamp enablers in the press.

---

There is no inherent hostility between Trump and the swamp. Trump IS the swamp!

You can't excuse his picks because of his inexperience. The ones he DID pick were and are riddled with graft, scandal, incompetence and anti-whatever agency Trump appointed them to - purposely, I might add.

On another somewhat related subject, Epstein deserves anything he gets. However, I have never understood why double jeopardy doesn't apply from state courts to federal courts. It's true that they are both "sovereign entities" but the feds are more sovereign that the states. Government, with all its powers, should never have two bites at the apple.

Quote:

---

However, I have never understood why double jeopardy doesn't apply from state courts to federal courts. It's true that they are both "sovereign entities" but the feds are more sovereign that the states. Government, with all its powers, should never have two bites at the apple.

---

completely agree . The Federal Government is a leviathan .There is no aspect of state laws where there isn't a Federal Law in duplicate .

As for Trump ,some of his picks are good ,some bad ,just like every other President .And if I was picking them ,I too would pick them to streamline the vast bureaucracy with the goal of consolidation and elimination of executive depts. .

No equivalence between Trump and "every other president". His are routinely disastrous. Even his secretary of state called him an "effin' moron". Besides needing a moral bath, he needs to go back to Queens where he belongs and play racist landlord.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Athos

No equivalence between Trump and "every other president". His are routinely disastrous. Even his secretary of state called him an "effin' moron". Besides needing a moral bath, he needs to go back to Queens where he belongs and play racist landlord.

---

A racist landlord? does that mean he doesn't allow Blacks in his buildings? or is there something else? As to the moron, there doesn't seem to be evidence of a high IQ, just a high ego, but then when you have always had money arrogance is a given.

Look we know Trump is a misogynist so loud mouthed women of any ethnicity are a target, doesn't make him racist just unable to address any issue but him

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

A racist landlord? does that mean he doesn't allow Blacks in his buildings?

---

That's exactly what it means.

In 1973, the Federal Government sued Trump for racial discrimination in his apartment buildings in Queens. African-American applicants were told no vacancy, while later, white applicants were told the same apartments in question were available. Applications from blacks were marked with a large "C" for "colored".

Trump counter sued for $100,000,000 (his usual strategy) and lost when the court dismissed his suit. To settle the Federal charges, Trump agreed to several conditions including placing full page ads in newspapers saying they welcomed black applicants. The building managers had been specifically told by Trump not to rent to blacks.

Trump's answer to these facts on record has always been to say "we never admitted guilt" - never that the charges were false. After the typical Trump legal tactic of stretching it out and delaying for two years, Trump was forced to drop the lawsuit.

I had assumed this was well-known. Maybe not. It is common for people who support Trump's policies while criticizing his Tweet and WH lawn behavior, to be completely unaware of the shady, often criminal, dealings that Trump has been engaged in for his entire career.

Yes it seems almost a must for politicians to have some criminal background or at least undesirable behaviour

I know it's hard but don't judge America by the example of the dufus. He or none of his ilk could have taken over the dem party as he has repubs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

I know it's hard but don't judge America by the example of the dufus. He or none of his ilk could have taken over the dem party as he has repubs.

---

Please spare me the B/S, who do you really think HC is. A candidate elected by faceless men, not a democratically elected candidate. Yes you can tell me about the electoral support but it really existed in a few populous states. The Democrats are not into democracy unless it suits them. Trump has shown remarkable fortitude despite all his faults. If America be judged it is because it chose Trump at grass roots, he was chosen by people who think as he does, so there are a lot of them and think about that profile for a while

Trust me I have and electing the dufus despite his glaring flaws is cringe worthy. I think I've said we are still fighting the civil war, but without the guns, and the other side obviously won that battle but the war is hardly over by any means.

American has always been in a state of Civil War. More than half the conflict in the Revolution was between loyalists and revolutionaries . When the war was over there was a rather large ethnic cleaning . Loyalists left for Canada or England . Dr Michael Vlahos has been speaking of it for years .

https://theimaginativeconservative.o...el-vlahos.html

Interesting article from a conservative slant, but no less accurate. I think though the silence of moderate repubs, and the interest groups that benefit from the policies of the current climate are a bigger factor in this time of cultural conflicts, but leave it to humans to ratchet up any perceived advantage they can. Is hate and fear driving lawmakers to play the games they do with the rules? Or is it plain greed? Probably both.

What drives me nuts is the dufus behind a podium at the WH spouting hate and division like he is at a campaign rally dispensing red meat to his base. I don't think he ever came out of campaign mode, and with him on the ballot this time, it's on steroids. His jacked up rhetoric and LIES are what divides us, and not enough cool heads on either side to balance his circus.

Can't give him personally all the blame because obviously past events have been headed down the path that makes such a fellow not just possible but inevitable.

takes 2 to tangle . Out west Antifa is beating on people;using pepper spray on them and hitting them with milkshakes laced with quick dry cement . Reminds me of Weimar Germany where left and right wing socialists battled in the streets . Vlahos is a professor at John Hopkins and the Naval War College . His main thesis is that every nation has a sacred narrative . Ours according the Vlahos is civil conflict. We were born out of those rare times of national unity. He is correct in saying we just projected out identity to external enemies . He says it ended in the 1970s .But I would argue that the fractures began to manifest in the 1950s ;and that by the mid 60s the battle lines were being drawn.

I do agree with that even through the unpopular Nam war, hippies, free love, sex drugs and rock and roll, it was always cops knocking heads, on campuses and in the inner city. Through it all though, for MANY, it's been that way for generations even while others were celebrating, buying homes, and building suburbia. That's the part the good scholar leaves out. Your good old days was not so good, just more of the same, and in sneakier ways, with the same battlelines we have had since the civil war. Darn near by the same people, places, and things.

The struggle continues.