47

[Crusades]

https://www.reuters.com/graphics/USA-ELECTION/RESULTS/zjpqnemxwvx/

Welcome back. 

[toomuchbaloney]

Tweety said:

I didn't miss the story and in fact mentioned the settlement in my response.  So yes, your description confused me.

Settlements of these kinds of things is relatively normal, most companies don't want the publicity and want to move on, plus it's often cheaper to settle.   

Fox News paid a settlement in the Dominion case and in some case around Tucker Carlson.  CNN this year reached a defamation settlement.  NBC settled with the woman they called a "uterus collector".  Happens all the time.

Again, with Paramount being fronted by a friend of Trump, and even if it wasn't,  it's not surprising a settlement was reached.  I don't find it controversial.

 

 

Yeah. 

I didn't find the settlement surprising.  Disappointing would be more reflective of my "feelings".  This particular lawsuit was largely considered frivolous with Trump having no legal standing.  But, as you say, those things are expensive and the company had other needs.  That $16 million "settlement" was a cheap investment.  The free TV programming is not that important to the media companies anymore.  Their profit futures lie elsewhere.  

So, not only was this cheaper for the parent company, it was likely profitable.  Corruption is fully in play in Trump 2.0. We were advised during Trump 1.0 that quid pro quo was business as usual.  We've observed for 10 years that Trump is 1)dishonest and corrupt, 2) transactional, and 3) vindictive and mean when he doesn't get what he wants. This was a transaction. We likely won't ever know what the agreements fully entailed.  Cowardly and corrupt behavior, in the company of Trump's kind of personality and power, is commonplace.  

I think that political corruption is controversial. 

 

[heron, ASN, RN]

nursej22 said:

In the before times, paying off a politician to get approval of a business deal was called a bribe. Now it's a settlement. 

And, as tweety showed us, it's SOP and completely normal.

[GrumpyRN, NP]

toomuchbaloney said:

Corruption is fully in play in Trump 2.0. We were advised during Trump 1.0 that quid pro quo was business as usual.  We've observed for 10 years that Trump is 1)dishonest and corrupt, 2) transactional, and 3) vindictive and mean when he doesn't get what he wants.

Just 10 years? I think those who did business with him in New York might think it was longer than that.

Check out the number of law suits he has had :-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_and_business_legal_affairs_of_Donald_Trump

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37956018

About 4000.

I never understood why America voted for him the first time never mind a second time.

I fully agree that Trump is 1) dishonest and corrupt, 2) transactional, and 3) vindictive and mean.

As the old Chinese curse goes "May you live in interesting times."

Take care everyone, "all things must come to an end".

[Tweety, BSN, RN]

nursej22 said:

In the before times, paying off a politician to get approval of a business deal was called a bribe. Now it's a settlement. 

You're twisting what happened.  There was a lawsuit and it was settled.  

You do wonder if he didn't need the sign off from Trump on a totally separate matter,  would he have settled at this time and Colbert called it a bribe.  However, remember the leader of Paramount is a MAGA so settling with Trump was an eventual given IMO.  

Business is business and you scratch my back and I'll scratch mine.  America.

 

 

 

[Tweety, BSN, RN]

toomuchbaloney said:

 

So, not only was this cheaper for the parent company, it was likely profitable.  Corruption is fully in play in Trump 2.0. We were advised during Trump 1.0 that quid pro quo was business as usual.  We've observed for 10 years that Trump is 1)dishonest and corrupt, 2) transactional, and 3) vindictive and mean when he doesn't get what he wants. This was a transaction. We likely won't ever know what the agreements fully entailed.  Cowardly and corrupt behavior, in the company of Trump's kind of personality and power, is commonplace.  

I think that political corruption is controversial. 

 

People knew what they were getting with Trump 2.0 so these things like corruption, lies and dishonesty from a President don't matter to the voters.

I was listening to the BBC podcast today and the Republican running for Governor (only in California could a Republican stand against Trump and not worry) says voters are now seeing how they were duped by Trump surrounding the Epstein client list that they claimed they had all through the election now say doesn't exist.  

But as has been proven they can lie, flip flop and do what they want and the voters see it with their own eyes and ears and support him anyway.  

[toomuchbaloney]

Tweety said:

People knew what they were getting with Trump 2.0 so these things like corruption, lies and dishonesty from a President don't matter to the voters.

I was listening to the BBC podcast today and the Republican running for Governor (only in California could a Republican stand against Trump and not worry) says voters are now seeing how they were duped by Trump surrounding the Epstein client list that they claimed they had all through the election now say doesn't exist.  

But as has been proven they can lie, flip flop and do what they want and the voters see it with their own eyes and ears and support him anyway.  

Those things don't matter to Trump voters.  I don't think that's true of all voters.  

[Tweety, BSN, RN]

toomuchbaloney said:

Those things don't matter to Trump voters.  I don't think that's true of all voters.  

Understand and I was talking about Trump voters.  He won the election and the popular vote and people knew what they were getting, and are fine with it.  There was a study I read that stated he still could have won the election even if all eligible people voted for him.

While it might matter to voters who are going to vote in the mid-term, we live in a country that by a majority voted in Trump and I'm still not hopeful, at least for the immediate future that our country has changed.  

What's interesting is we get on our high horse about the CEO who was caught on Coldplay's kiss cam cheating with an employee that was not his wife and we humiliate him and destroy his life and career (for the moment), but on the other hand we live in a country that voted Trump in as President.  America.

https://www.Yahoo.com/news/chief-exec-coldplay-concert-suspended-131735222.html

[toomuchbaloney]

Tweety said:

Understand and I was talking about Trump voters.  He won the election and the popular vote and people knew what they were getting, and are fine with it.  There was a study I read that stated he still could have won the election even if all eligible people voted for him.

While it might matter to voters who are going to vote in the mid-term, we live in a country that by a majority voted in Trump and I'm still not hopeful, at least for the immediate future that our country has changed.  

What's interesting is we get on our high horse about the CEO who was caught on Coldplay's kiss cam cheating with an employee that was not his wife and we humiliate him and destroy his life and career (for the moment), but on the other hand we live in a country that voted Trump in as President.  America.

https://www.Yahoo.com/news/chief-exec-coldplay-concert-suspended-131735222.html

Trump is the only celebrity or person of influence and power in the country who is above the law and whose behavior and language is above reproach. He is the only person who can get caught in an epic lie, in a very public fashion, and not suffer consequences.  He has cult leader status.  No one else has that station.  Not even Musk.  

[GrumpyRN, NP]

toomuchbaloney said:

Trump is the only celebrity or person of influence and power in the country who is above the law and whose behavior and language is above reproach. He is the only person who can get caught in an epic lie, in a very public fashion, and not suffer consequences.  He has cult leader status.  No one else has that station.  Not even Musk.  

The definition of a dictator.

 

There is a lot of talk over here (Scotland) about Trump visiting us to see his golf courses. They are looking out the big baby Trump balloon and of course they will be protesting him everywhere. Just a pity that Janey Godley has died as she had the perfect poster for him and describes him accurately.

I can't give a link to it or the moderators will ban me, so just Google:- "Janey Godley Trump poster" and go onto images. (Warning, bad language)

[toomuchbaloney]

GrumpyRN said:

The definition of a dictator.

 

There is a lot of talk over here (Scotland) about Trump visiting us to see his golf courses. They are looking out the big baby Trump balloon and of course they will be protesting him everywhere. Just a pity that Janey Godley has died as she had the perfect poster for him and describes him accurately.

I can't give a link to it or the moderators will ban me, so just Google:- "Janey Godley Trump poster" and go onto images. (Warning, bad language)

Shhh... you're contradicting the Trump narrative that the rest of the world perceives Trump as a strong and fearsome leader.  You seem to be treating him like a chaotic and predictably instigating bully.  Thank you for telling us because our US media tries really hard to ignore and not elevate any anti-trump protests. 

[NRSKarenRN, BSN, RN]

Desperate to turnaround  Epstein internet chatter:

 

The Epstein Cover-Up at the FBI

Allison Gill   July 20th, 2025

https://www.muellershewrote.com/

Quote

As many of you know by now, Senator Dick Durbin penned a letter to Pam Bondi two days ago asking questions about information his office received from a protected whistleblower. The letter read, in part:

According to information my office received, Attorney General Bondi then pressured the FBI to put approximately 1,000 personnel in its Information Management Division (IMD), including the Record/Information Dissemination Section (RIDS), which handles all requests submitted by the public under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and Privacy Act, on 24-hour shifts to review approximately 100,000 Epstein-related records in order to produce more documents that could then be released on an arbitrarily short deadline. This effort, which reportedly took place from March 14 through the end of March, was haphazardly supplemented by hundreds of FBI New York Field Office personnel, many of whom lacked the expertise to identify statutorily-protected information regarding child victims and child witnesses or properly handle FOIA requests.

My office was told that these personnel were instructed to "flag" any records in which President Trump was mentioned.

Despite tens of thousands of personnel hours reviewing and re-reviewing these Epstein-related records over the course of two weeks in March, it took DOJ more than three additional months to officially find there is "no incriminating 'client list," and the memorandum with this finding includes no mention of the whistleblower or additional documents, the existence of which Attorney General Bondi publicly claimed on February 27....

This letter was made public right after I had filed a FOIA request for all the Epstein and Maxwell Grand Jury testimony (see my last post on Substack.) When I saw that over one thousand people had been put to work reviewing the Epstein files, I put a call out on my BlueSky account...

In the 24 hours since, I've received several messages, including from a former analyst that was assigned to review the files, and a few things stood out to me.

First, approximately 1,000 personnel in the Information Management Division (IMD) and the FBI New York Field Office were assigned to this task, confirming the whistleblower account made to Senator Durbin's office. I can also confirm that a log exists tracking the mentions of Donald Trump in the files, and that there were approximately 100,000 files containing roughly 300,000 pages. Individual analysts were told to flag mentions of Trump by document and page number by logging them in an Excel spreadsheet, then they'd hand in their spreadsheet at the end of their (sometimes 24 or even 48-hour) shift. But it's important to note that the agents were not told to flag Trump until later in a process that began mid-March.

As far as content, there was one confirmed mention of Donald Trump in the files reviewed by an analyst who again spoke on the condition of anonymity. Beyond that, there were other instances of Trump appearing in the files, but the number of times and to what extent is unknown.

But the log exists.....

 

 

[toomuchbaloney]

NRSKarenRN said:

Desperate to turnaround  Epstein internet chatter:

 

The Epstein Cover-Up at the FBI

Allison Gill   July 20th, 2025

https://www.muellershewrote.com/

 

The desperation is dangerous.  It is good that it exposes Trump's belief that only he is immune from prosecution.