• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Special Counsel investigation of Trump part 2

T.G.G. Moogly said:
Thanks for teaching me a new word. I should get out more. Orange Yambo. I like it.
Click to expand...
I don't.
I think that what's going on here is important enough to name names.

Substituting school yard level taunts indicates that the writer isn't worth reading.
Tom
 
www.judicialwatch.org

Judicial Watch Statement on Trump Election Indictment - Judicial Watch

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton made the following statement regarding the indictment of former President Donald Trump for disputing the election of President Joe Biden: The Biden administration has left the rule of law and the U.S. Constitution behind with its latest...
www.judicialwatch.org

:rolleyes:
 
I like how well he uses quotes directly from the indictment itself to bolster his arguments. Sham indeed!
 
It wouldn’t surprise me if Trump’s warning post (as ill-advised, stupid, and arrogant as it was) was found to be within the bounds of protected First Amendment speech, and falls short of triggering him being remanded into custody.
As unable as he is to control his bad impulses, some part of him knows where the line is—what he can say and what he can’t say. And what he did say (despite anyone with a brain understanding “what he really meant”) gives at least plausible cover that it was aimed at his political opposition—either Democratic or Republican.
If, obviously, he’d been overt and specific, posting, say, “Anybody who finds me guilty is going to pay for it,” that’s game,set, match, here’s your orange jumpsuit.
But he didn’t.
He did what other mob bosses do— he said it so that it’s clear what he “really means,” but it’s intentionally vague enough to provide some degree of legal wiggle room, analyzed in print.
He did the same thing aiming his mob of MAGA mouth-breathers at the Capitol on Jan.6: he told his stupid army what he wanted them to do, but stopped short of publicly saying, “Go hang Mike Pence.”

If I was that judge, I think I’d be hesitant to have him thrown in jail “over this,” which, again, as onerous as it was, may be a bit of a stretch to warrant actually getting tossed in the clink for. I’d warn the shit out of him, maybe tell him basically that while that particular post fell just shy of triggering jail time, that was it—the literal next threatening word associated with these charges, that’s it…you absolutely will be detained. If there’s a virtual certainty in this world, it’s that defendant Trump would stupidly fall into that trap, and very quickly.

One could of course say he was already warned, by the judge, at arraignment.

But I think giving him one more chance (to basically be himself ) would simultaneously demonstrate publicly that the judicial system is bending over backwards to show him some deference befitting a former U.S. president, while virtually guaranteeing that you’ll get the chance to put his dumb ass in custody.
 
Amusing thought from a reading over at Electoral-Vote.com :

T.K. in Fort Collins, CO, writes: While I understand that a jury of "one's peers" generally means "any citizens," the latest indictment of TFG this week made me think that for once, I'd be willing to accept a much more restrictive interpretation of "peers." Specifically, presidents of the U.S. So the jury pool would be:

  1. Joe Biden
  2. Barack Obama
  3. George W. Bush
  4. Bill Clinton
  5. Jimmy Carter
Since that doesn't get us to 12, maybe add all the living VPs:

  1. Kamala Harris
  2. Mike Pence
  3. Dick Cheney
  4. Al Gore
  5. Dan Quayle
We're still not quite there, so maybe expand peers to be those who have received electoral votes.

  1. Hillary Clinton
  2. Mitt Romney
  3. John Kerry
  4. Michael Dukakis
Granted, that doesn't leave room for many dismissals, but with that group it would be pretty tough to argue that they can't understand the issues, or lack the character. From what I gather, only #1 has a real job (sorry #6) that they need to get to. It's bipartisan and has men, women, and minorities. I'm guessing if anyone asked, they'd be willing to serve (OK, maybe not #5). It would definitely add credibility to any verdict they returned, and I'm guessing they wouldn't be terribly susceptible to jury intimidation.
Click to expand...
 
LoAmmo said:
It wouldn’t surprise me if Trump’s warning post (as ill-advised, stupid, and arrogant as it was) was found to be within the bounds of protected First Amendment speech, and falls short of triggering him being remanded into custody.
As unable as he is to control his bad impulses, some part of him knows where the line is—what he can say and what he can’t say. And what he did say (despite anyone with a brain understanding “what he really meant”) gives at least plausible cover that it was aimed at his political opposition—either Democratic or Republican.
If, obviously, he’d been overt and specific, posting, say, “Anybody who finds me guilty is going to pay for it,” that’s game,set, match, here’s your orange jumpsuit.
But he didn’t.
Click to expand...
He certainly wanted to communicate that but perhaps chose language that was more vague because he's such a child. The Judge should treat him as a child. The judge should tell him that such speech can and will be interpreted as a threat to jurors, witnesses, judges, prosecutors and anyone who isn't a trumper. Violence has already happened and we need to control our speech so as to not foment more.

That said if he wants to say the judge is a stupid bitch maybe Her Honor will laugh it off. But if he says she is "going down" that's a threat. So I would admonish him and his lawyers to be more specific in their speech and not make statements that can be interpreted threateningly.
 
Scumbag is just trying to create some more battles, to distract from the far more important ones, that he is badly losing.
 
Elixir said:
Scumbag is just trying to create some more battles, to distract from the far more important ones, that he is badly losing.
Click to expand...
But he's taking in millions from his fools. That's his main purpose. Gaining presidential office again is just a means to an end, the end being to make more money. I don't think he gives a fuck about going to jail so long as the money keeps rolling in.
 
T.G.G. Moogly said:
Elixir said:
Scumbag is just trying to create some more battles, to distract from the far more important ones, that he is badly losing.
Click to expand...
But he's taking in millions from his fools. That's his main purpose. Gaining presidential office again is just a means to an end, the end being to make more money. I don't think he gives a fuck about going to jail so long as the money keeps rolling in.
Click to expand...

I'm beginning to wonder if he simply doesn't understand what he's facing. The judge in this latest case basically told him "if you don't stop throwing these little tantrums, I'm going to put you in time out."

His campaign tried to give themselves some plausible deniability by saying "oh he was just talking about those other RINO candidates" but then this morning he comes out with another rant where he goes straight after the judge herself. I'm sure his attorneys (such as they are) have tried to tell him politely and with as much deference: "shut the fuck up, Donnie," but he can't.

On a side note, most astute politicians (and a few that aren't so astute) have social media managers that...well...manage their social media. It is not often that a senator or governor is sitting there on their phone typing out a tweet. They have people to do that for them. It helps them stay on message, and if need be they can blame a staffer. Trump doesn't even seem to have someone he can run these posts by and say "does this sound good?"
 
Maybe after this has gone to trial, and Jack Smith's job in this specific case has come to an end and Jack Smith is released from special prosecutor duties, Jack Smith can sue Trump for slander, libel and defamation. And maybe Faux Nooz also.
 
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump

THERE IS NO WAY I CAN GET A FAIR TRIAL WITH THE JUDGE "ASSIGNED" TO THE RIDICULOUS FREEDOM OF SPEECH/FAIR ELECTIONS CASE. EVERYBODY KNOWS THIS, AND SO DOES SHE! WE WILL BE IMMEDIATELY ASKING FOR RECUSAL OF THIS JUDGE ON VERY POWERFUL GROUNDS, AND LIKEWISE FOR VENUE CHANGE, OUT IF D.C.
Click to expand...
 
Every time he makes a public comment I am reminded that he is not a mature adult.
 
I honestly wonder at this point if somewhere in the murky recesses of his big beautiful mind, the best mind ever, many are saying, Trump isn’t actively TRYING to get taken into custody. Here’s why:

He is seeing that every time he gets indicted, he’s getting *some* of what he wants—he’s triggering a wave of indignant outrage from the Faux News desks. He’s getting a bump in cash donations from the imbeciles he’s shamelessly fleecing. He’s getting riled-up crowds at his MAGApalooza “campaign rallies.”

BUT.

He’s NOT getting the reaction he feels is the appropriate one; the reaction he thinks his “unprecedented-in-history persecution” warrants…the reaction he thinks he deserves: violent mass riots in the streets in his name.

I think it’s possible that Trump feels like “time is running out” a bit, under this unrelenting pressure, and he needs a HUGE event (like, say, a J6-ish mob unleashed in every red state) to radically re-seize the initiative.
His followers, in other words, are “making some noise” every time he suffers a legal setback, but they’re not taking the (in HIS fucked-up mind) next logical step, which is to start essentially the next civil war.
I bet, to him, his base is a little TOO accepting of the rule of law, and he feels that they’re a little too willing to watch him die of these thousand paper cuts (and counting.) Sure, they generate a shitstorm of idiotic tweets every time, and maybe fly their dumb “Trump Won” flags a little higher, but…the long guns are staying in the pickup trucks. For now.

Trump may calculate that he needs to up the ante—create a spectacle that MAGA World can’t simply whine and cry about but, at the end of the day, passively accept. The drama of him being very publicly handcuffed (probably accented by a staged “struggle”) and frog-marched into prison, to a guy who’s always been all about “the show,” probably appeals to him as a way to force the hand of his supporters. He may even be figuring, deep down, that he’s probably going to be sentenced for one of these felonies anyway; so why not try to turn it into a “win.”

An illusory win, like the vast bulk of his “wins,” but, I just wonder if a thought process like that is underpinning these ridiculous posts right in front of a judge who’s warned him explicitly about them.
 
I also think he's trying to trigger another attempt at overthrowing the government. He thinks he would be made king or something like it. But also: the electorate rejected me so I'll burn the place down. But mostly he's in it for the attention and $$.
 
Toni said:
I also think he's trying to trigger another attempt at overthrowing the government
Click to expand...
What was your first clue?
He has no other option. Even if he manages to steal the presidency he will be headed up the river for State crimes. So yeah, the corrupt government and all its totally unfair laws - gotta go, or you won’t have a golden calf any more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom