Post trump Legal Actions, Including his Enablers

[obelixtim 100]

A paraphrased view of Trump from a writer in England: "He has no class, no charm, no humour, no coolness, no credibility, no compassion, no wit, no warmth, no wisdom, no subtlety, no sensitivity, no self-awareness, no humility, no honour, no honesty, no morality, and no grace. And while Trump may be laughable, he has never once said anything wry, witty or even faintly amusing. To lack humour is almost inhuman. If Doctor Frankenstein decided to make a monster assembled entirely from human flaws, he would make a Trump!"

[Phil1111 911]

1 hour ago, obelixtim said:

A paraphrased view of Trump from a writer in England: "He has no class, no charm, no humour, no coolness, no credibility, no compassion, no wit, no warmth, no wisdom, no subtlety, no sensitivity, no self-awareness, no humility, no honour, no honesty, no morality, and no grace. And while Trump may be laughable, he has never once said anything wry, witty or even faintly amusing. To lack humour is almost inhuman. If Doctor Frankenstein decided to make a monster assembled entirely from human flaws, he would make a Trump!"

"Trump Akin to 'Horror-Movie Villains' Who Won't Go Away:" Christian Scholar

Some previously unknown type of STD might be more accurate. Radiation doesn't kill it, chemo doesn't kill it...

[gowlerk 1,912]

Today Trump sat in a federal appeals courtroom while his lawyers made an argument that it would not be a crime for a POTUS to order the assassination of his political opponents.  Does anyone else see this as surreal?

[JoeWeber 2,299]

7 hours ago, gowlerk said:

Today Trump sat in a federal appeals courtroom while his lawyers made an argument that it would not be a crime for a POTUS to order the assassination of his political opponents.  Does anyone else see this as surreal?

Not lately. 

[winsor 186]

8 hours ago, gowlerk said:

Today Trump sat in a federal appeals courtroom while his lawyers made an argument that it would not be a crime for a POTUS to order the assassination of his political opponents.  Does anyone else see this as surreal?

So Biden could have him whacked?

[jakee 1,255]

8 hours ago, gowlerk said:

Today Trump sat in a federal appeals courtroom while his lawyers made an argument that it would not be a crime for a POTUS to order the assassination of his political opponents.  Does anyone else see this as surreal?

In the disqualification case they’ve also been arguing that only Congress has the power to decide on eligibility of a candidate when the meet to certify the election. Which lead to a counter argument essentially saying “do you seriously think the framers designed a system where voters would have to choose between candidates without ever knowing if they were eligible for office until after they won?”

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

On 1/8/2024 at 5:22 PM, GeorgiaDon said:

I don't agree with the insinuation that only stupid people support Trump.  I think there are a lot of reasonably smart people who are more concerned about power and inflicting their priorities on the country than they are about democracy or political/legal "norms".  People who see the Handmaid's Tale as aspirational rather than dystopian, such as Michael Johnson.  Or people like Ted Cruz or Steve Bannon, who seem (to me anyway) to seek to take advantage of the chaos Trump creates to enhance their own wealth or power.

I'm not sure I'd call them 'reasonably smart'. 

They want Trump in power. They think he hates the people that they hate.
That he'll hurt those people while favoring them.

Remember the shutdown in 2019? 
There were people who were surprised that Trump's actions hurt THEM, when he was supposed to hurt 'the other people'. 

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/1/8/18173678/trump-shutdown-voter-florida

The reality is that Trump is a narcissistic psychopath. He uses people and then throws them away.

All those idiots who participated in the insurrection.
He called on them to 'fight like hell'.
He told them he 'loved them'.

Now they're sitting in jail or prison.

Anyone who thinks that they'll be in a position of privilege or power because they're Trump supporters is a fucking idiot.

They might be able to beat up minorities, they might be able to shove their Trumpty Dumpty flags in people's faces, but they will be just as vulnerable to his whims as everyone else.
They'll be just as exposed to his idiotic decisions.

Fortunately, I don't agree that he has much of a chance of winning (not zero, but pretty low).

One thing I don't see this time around is all the flags and lawn signs.

There are still some out there. And usually in a yard that is full blown cult behavior.

But the huge numbers aren't there. Not like last time.

[JoeWeber 2,299]

51 minutes ago, winsor said:

So Biden could have him whacked?

Absolutely if Trump prevails on absolute immunity. Also the eminently whackable , Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and last because he should know when he's next, Roberts. Then MTG, Johnson and just for fun George Bush. 

[Phil1111 911]

10 hours ago, gowlerk said:

Today Trump sat in a federal appeals courtroom while his lawyers made an argument that it would not be a crime for a POTUS to order the assassination of his political opponents.  Does anyone else see this as surreal?

Yes but he was caught red handed. The constitution is black and white and they have to argue something.

Think of it as a political statement for the base. Twenty percent of Americans believe those who are not a part of their tribe is the "enemy". Thirty percent believe the FBI led the insurrection. I can't be bothered to hear the logic as to why the FBI would lead an insurrection to keep trump in power. As I believe the FBI is a very credible force/body.

W/O derailing this thread you're a credit to the concept that formal education is not directly correlated to intelligence.

[Phil1111 911]

51 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Absolutely if Trump prevails on absolute immunity. Also the eminently whackable , Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and last because he should know when he's next, Roberts. Then MTG, Johnson and just for fun George Bush. 

Too funny. Obviously you make a facetious argument, as do I.  But you forgot trump, the whole tea party, Mitch McConnell, etc. SEAL team six should handle them all in a day or so.

[normiss 622]

She has yet to learn anything. Maybe prison will help?

These people leave me speechless. 

[billvon 2,400]

11 hours ago, gowlerk said:

Today Trump sat in a federal appeals courtroom while his lawyers made an argument that it would not be a crime for a POTUS to order the assassination of his political opponents.  Does anyone else see this as surreal?

Well, more accurately he made an argument that the only way to determine that it was a crime was a successful impeachment.  Unfortunately there's some pretty clear language in the Constitution that says that impeachment applies to "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States" - not former presidents.  So if his argument carried the day there would be a way to assassinate someone and get away with it - assassinate them, then resign if it looks like an impeachment might be successful.  He can then argue on Constitutional grounds that he is no longer subject to impeachment.

[billvon 2,400]

I'd also add that if his argument that he cannot be held liable for political assassinations unless he is impeached, it would be easy to find out who was going to vote to impeach, then have them assassinated as well.  Or just make it known that if anyone DOES vote to impeach, their families will be next.  No more troublesome dissent!  No more anti-American liberals poisoning the blood of America!  No more need to buy megayacht vacations for Clarence Thomas to get him to 'see the light!'  Think of the savings.

[ryoder 1,384]

A good point from Heather Cox Richardson's latest letter.

https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/january-9-2024

A quick reminder: Impeachment is a political process, not a legal one. A president could be impeached simply for watching TV all day, which is not a crime but which would make it impossible to do the job. Another reminder: as NBC’s Vaughn Hillyard documented today, in Trump’s second impeachment trial, his own lawyer Bruce Castor assured the Senate that “the text of the Constitution…makes very clear that a former President is subject to criminal sanction after his presidency for any illegal acts he commits.”

A number of Republican Senators—including then Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY)—agreed, saying they would acquit Trump but expected him to answer to the law rather than the political system. “We have a criminal justice system in this country,” McConnell said. “We have civil litigation. And former Presidents are not immune from being held accountable by either one.” 

Interestingly, Trump’s argument that he cannot now be charged with crimes makes the Republican senators who voted to acquit him complicit. It’s an acknowledgement of what was clear all along: they could have stopped him at any point, but they repeatedly chose not to. Now he is explicitly suggesting that their behavior shields him from answering to the law. 

[jakee 1,255]

14 minutes ago, ryoder said:

Another reminder: as NBC’s Vaughn Hillyard documented today, in Trump’s second impeachment trial, his own lawyer Bruce Castor assured the Senate that “the text of the Constitution…makes very clear that a former President is subject to criminal sanction after his presidency for any illegal acts he commits.”

Who was that guy? I don't remember working with him. Maybe he brought us coffee.

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Less dramatic than assassinations perhaps, but under the scenario Trump is proposing an outgoing president could openly sell pardons or even top secret military information to the highest bidder, as long as there wasn't enough time left in his term to impeach and convict him.  On January 18th he could advertise "going out of business: pardons for sale for only $100,000" and no-one could do anything about it.

[jakee 1,255]

15 minutes ago, GeorgiaDon said:

Less dramatic than assassinations perhaps, but under the scenario Trump is proposing an outgoing president could openly sell pardons or even top secret military information to the highest bidder, as long as there wasn't enough time left in his term to impeach and convict him.  On January 18th he could advertise "going out of business: pardons for sale for only $100,000" and no-one could do anything about it.

Well yeah... but I think that first off Trump would argue that he's actually allowed to do that anyway.

You really do have to go a long way down the rabbit hole before you get to something he'd agree he needs immunity for.

[Stumpy 256]

2 hours ago, ryoder said:

A president could be impeached simply for watching TV all day

do you think she had anyone in mind?

 

[SkyDekker 1,122]

2 hours ago, ryoder said:

A good point from Heather Cox Richardson's latest letter.

https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/january-9-2024

A quick reminder: Impeachment is a political process, not a legal one. A president could be impeached simply for watching TV all day, which is not a crime but which would make it impossible to do the job. Another reminder: as NBC’s Vaughn Hillyard documented today, in Trump’s second impeachment trial, his own lawyer Bruce Castor assured the Senate that “the text of the Constitution…makes very clear that a former President is subject to criminal sanction after his presidency for any illegal acts he commits.”

A number of Republican Senators—including then Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY)—agreed, saying they would acquit Trump but expected him to answer to the law rather than the political system. “We have a criminal justice system in this country,” McConnell said. “We have civil litigation. And former Presidents are not immune from being held accountable by either one.” 

Interestingly, Trump’s argument that he cannot now be charged with crimes makes the Republican senators who voted to acquit him complicit. It’s an acknowledgement of what was clear all along: they could have stopped him at any point, but they repeatedly chose not to. Now he is explicitly suggesting that their behavior shields him from answering to the law. 

Trump has a long history of arguing both sides of an argument, depending on which one benefits him at the time.

President being, or not being an officer of the United States is another example of this.

[ryoder 1,384]

I was not even aware of this one!

The Stable Genius Trump Just Got Hammered to the Tune of $400,000 Donald Trump has suffered another legal blow, this time over his lawsuit against the The New York Times.

A New York state judge on Friday ordered Donald Trump to pay The New York Times almost $400,000 in legal fees for a lawsuit he brought against the paper in 2021.

Trump accused the paper and three Times reporters of conspiring with his niece Mary Trump, who has contributed to The New Republic, in an “insidious plot” to illicitly obtain his tax records. The Times published a series of stories on Trump’s taxes in 2018 that revealed the president wasn’t the self-made billionaire he claimed he was. In fact, most of his wealth came from his parents or from dodging taxes, as his businesses continued to bleed money elsewhere.

 

So much whin....err...winning!

[billvon 2,400]

On 1/10/2024 at 7:20 AM, Phil1111 said:

Too funny. Obviously you make a facetious argument, as do I.  But you forgot trump, the whole tea party, Mitch McConnell, etc. SEAL team six should handle them all in a day or so.

Well, if it works both ways . . .

[ryoder 1,384]

Another Trump attorney has left. Perhaps he was tired of not getting paid?

MTN: Trump Attorney Joe Tacopina is Out

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

41 minutes ago, ryoder said:

Another Trump attorney has left. Perhaps he was tired of not getting paid?

MTN: Trump Attorney Joe Tacopina is Out

I would be very surprised if ANY of the attorneys representing Trump aren't demanding pay in advance. 
"You give me $100k. When that runs out, you give me more. I'm not doing shit for you if I don't see the money up front."

Maybe the money ran out and Trump didn't pony up more. 

Maybe he just got tired of Trump's shit.

The unhinged rants at the judge. Both the one inside the courtroom, pretending to be 'closing arguments' and the ones outside. Both in person and on social media.

He had asked for ANOTHER delay in the trial. Claiming he had to go to Melania's mom's funeral. The judge refused, partly because he's sick of Trump's stupid games, partly because Trump didn't need to be there for that part of the proceedings.

So, of course, when the day of the funeral that Trump HAD TO BE at, where is he?
Campaigning in New Hampshire.

Judges tend to take a dim view of that sort of behavior. They tend to go after the attorneys, telling them to make sure their client understands and obeys the rules.

Or maybe he just finally decided that Trump wasn't worth the damage to his reputation, his career, his future. 

In any case, Trumpty Dumpty is in deeper shit. Which is fine by me.

[kallend 1,623]

On 1/10/2024 at 2:31 PM, SkyDekker said:

Trump has a long history of arguing both sides of an argument, depending on which one benefits him at the time.

 

Iowa clearly shows that this strategy works for him, so why expect anything to change?

Isn't that the lesson  New Coke taught us?

Edited January 16 by kallend

[lippy 771]

1 hour ago, kallend said:

Isn't that the lesson  New Coke taught us?

Sounds like Don Jr’s type of lesson!

 

…..one more time for the conservatives on the forum:

Sounds like Hunter’s type of lesson!