Author Topic: Citizen Trump  (Read 23577 times)

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69113
    • View Profile
Re: Citizen Trump
« Reply #300 on: March 24, 2023, 03:46:23 PM »
Apparently Trump himself posted the picture of himself with the baseball bat next to a photo of Bragg.

Unhinging rapidly.  DeSantis increasingly likely to take the nomination.


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18348
    • View Profile
anyone want to bet me
« Reply #302 on: March 31, 2023, 06:00:58 AM »
the mugshot will be leaded to some lucky LEFT wing outlet?

a lot money to be made for it.
nah, no one gets bribed for "leaks"

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69113
    • View Profile
Chappelle on Trump
« Reply #303 on: March 31, 2023, 07:02:22 PM »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69113
    • View Profile
WSJ
« Reply #304 on: April 01, 2023, 08:36:01 AM »
Pandora’s Donald Trump Prosecution
The first indictment of a former U.S. President is a sad day for America.
By The Editorial BoardFollow
March 30, 2023 9:03 pm ET


The news late Thursday that a Manhattan grand jury has indicted former President Donald Trump is a sad day for the country, with political ramifications that are unpredictable and probably destructive. If there was ever a case that opens Pandora’s box, the first indictment of a former President in U.S. history is it.


The indictment itself remains under seal, so we can’t examine the specific charges and evidence. But we know the charges relate to hush-money payments in 2016 to adult film actress Stormy Daniels about her alleged affair with Mr. Trump. Perhaps Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has new evidence that will be compelling.

But nearby, Ethan Greenberg and Sam Braverman offer speculation based on experience about the potential violations and pitfalls of the case in court. Their analysis doesn’t inspire confidence that this will go down well with the country, or even perhaps inside the courtroom.

As these columns have made clear, we believe any prosecution of a former President should involve a serious offense. The evidence should also be solid enough that a reasonable voter would find it persuasive. The last thing a politically polarized America needs is a case in which partisans line up on either side like a political O.J. Simpson trial. The prosecution must be seen by most of the country as an example of fair-minded justice.


That is doubly so when the case involves a former President who is also running again for the same office, as Mr. Trump now is. Add that the prosecutor belongs to the same Democratic Party as the current President whom Mr. Trump is running against, and the suspicion of a political prosecution will be rampant. This is why we urged Mr. Bragg not to revive a seven-year-old case that federal prosecutors declined to act on.

Mr. Trump made clear in a statement that he will make the prosecution part of his campaign—calling it a Democratic effort to deny him another presidential term. Democrats have “done the unthinkable,” he said, “indicting a completely innocent person in an act of blatant Election Interference.”

He will add this to the list of false Russian collusion claims, two failed impeachments, and the FBI’s Mar-a-Lago document raid. Whether that political defense succeeds will depend on how the case evolves in court in what will be a media circus for the ages. Mr. Trump’s reckless personal behavior has made himself vulnerable as usual, but Democratic excess could rescue him again.

And there is no doubt that Mr. Bragg is doing what most Democrats want. They want Mr. Trump in the dock and at the center of the political debate. Even if he’s not convicted, they figure the indictment and spectacle will help him become the Republican nominee. They think he is the easiest candidate to beat because he motivates Democrats and divides Republicans and independents. That is certainly the lesson of the GOP election disappointments of 2018, 2020 and 2022.

Democrats also know that the indictment will put GOP challengers to Mr. Trump in a difficult position. They will have to take a stand on this prosecution, and maybe on others to come. They will be asked constantly about Mr. Trump, and not about the failures of the Biden Presidency that the country should be debating.

The danger for America is the precedent this prosecution sets. Mr. Bragg is busting a political norm that has stood for 230 years. Once a former President and current candidate is indicted, some local Republican prosecutor will look to make a name for himself by doing the same to a Democrat. U.S. democracy will be further abused and battered. Mr. Bragg, the provincial progressive, is unleashing forces that all of us may come to regret.
« Last Edit: April 01, 2023, 10:20:57 AM by Crafty_Dog »

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: WSJ
« Reply #305 on: April 01, 2023, 09:15:08 AM »
Autodelegitimization

If government is not seen as legitimate, then all it has left is naked force. This is why they are so desperate to disarm us.


Pandora’s Donald Trump Prosecution
The first indictment of a former U.S. President is a sad day for America.
By The Editorial BoardFollow
March 30, 2023 9:03 pm ET

SAVE

PRINT

TEXT
6189
image
Former President Donald Trump in 2020
PHOTO: DOUG MILLS/ZUMA PRESS

The news late Thursday that a Manhattan grand jury has indicted former President Donald Trump is a sad day for the country, with political ramifications that are unpredictable and probably destructive. If there was ever a case that opens Pandora’s box, the first indictment of a former President in U.S. history is it.

OPINION: POTOMAC WATCH
WSJ Opinion Potomac Watch
Why is Joe Biden Meddling in Israeli Politics?


SUBSCRIBE
The indictment itself remains under seal, so we can’t examine the specific charges and evidence. But we know the charges relate to hush-money payments in 2016 to adult film actress Stormy Daniels about her alleged affair with Mr. Trump. Perhaps Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has new evidence that will be compelling.

But nearby, Ethan Greenberg and Sam Braverman offer speculation based on experience about the potential violations and pitfalls of the case in court. Their analysis doesn’t inspire confidence that this will go down well with the country, or even perhaps inside the courtroom.

As these columns have made clear, we believe any prosecution of a former President should involve a serious offense. The evidence should also be solid enough that a reasonable voter would find it persuasive. The last thing a politically polarized America needs is a case in which partisans line up on either side like a political O.J. Simpson trial. The prosecution must be seen by most of the country as an example of fair-minded justice.

NEWSLETTER SIGN-UP

Morning Editorial Report

All the day's Opinion headlines.


Preview

Subscribed
That is doubly so when the case involves a former President who is also running again for the same office, as Mr. Trump now is. Add that the prosecutor belongs to the same Democratic Party as the current President whom Mr. Trump is running against, and the suspicion of a political prosecution will be rampant. This is why we urged Mr. Bragg not to revive a seven-year-old case that federal prosecutors declined to act on.

Mr. Trump made clear in a statement that he will make the prosecution part of his campaign—calling it a Democratic effort to deny him another presidential term. Democrats have “done the unthinkable,” he said, “indicting a completely innocent person in an act of blatant Election Interference.”

He will add this to the list of false Russian collusion claims, two failed impeachments, and the FBI’s Mar-a-Lago document raid. Whether that political defense succeeds will depend on how the case evolves in court in what will be a media circus for the ages. Mr. Trump’s reckless personal behavior has made himself vulnerable as usual, but Democratic excess could rescue him again.

And there is no doubt that Mr. Bragg is doing what most Democrats want. They want Mr. Trump in the dock and at the center of the political debate. Even if he’s not convicted, they figure the indictment and spectacle will help him become the Republican nominee. They think he is the easiest candidate to beat because he motivates Democrats and divides Republicans and independents. That is certainly the lesson of the GOP election disappointments of 2018, 2020 and 2022.

Democrats also know that the indictment will put GOP challengers to Mr. Trump in a difficult position. They will have to take a stand on this prosecution, and maybe on others to come. They will be asked constantly about Mr. Trump, and not about the failures of the Biden Presidency that the country should be debating.

The danger for America is the precedent this prosecution sets. Mr. Bragg is busting a political norm that has stood for 230 years. Once a former President and current candidate is indicted, some local Republican prosecutor will look to make a name for himself by doing the same to a Democrat. U.S. democracy will be further abused and battered. Mr. Bragg, the provincial progressive, is unleashing forces that all of us may come to regret.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18348
    • View Profile
« Last Edit: April 05, 2023, 06:20:50 AM by ccp »


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69113
    • View Profile
NRO: Stormy the Extortionist
« Reply #308 on: April 07, 2023, 06:57:32 PM »
Yes, Trump Was Extorted
By RICH LOWRY
April 7, 2023 6:30 AM

Let’s acknowledge what Stormy Daniels did.
It’s not as though he was the innocent victim, but when Donald Trump and his legal team say that Stormy Daniels extorted him, they are right.


From one perspective, this is another perversity of the case — Stormy Daniels engaged in a kind of extortion, and yet Trump is the one the authorities have tried their utmost to nail to the wall.

There’s been a lot of focus on the timing of the $130,000 payment to Daniels near the end of the 2016 campaign. Trump’s pursuers say this shows how the hush money was all about making the story go away right before the election. But the timing was also a function of Daniels and her side realizing that right after the release of the Access Hollywood tape was the point of maximum leverage to make an extortionate demand.

“Pay me or I will expose you” is undoubtedly a form of blackmail. Now, there’s a fuzzy line between negotiations toward a deal involving a payment in exchange for a non-disclosure agreement, which happens all the time, and illegal threats.

Make no mistake, though, the difference between what Stormy Daniels was doing in 2016 and what gets people prosecuted for extortion is one of degree, not of kind.

The prosecutor Mark Pomerantz, who ended up quitting Bragg’s office to write a book making the case for prosecuting Trump, at one point contemplated using the idea that Daniels extorted Trump against him, bizarrely enough. “If Daniels had been extorting Trump,” Reuters explains, “then the money could be considered criminal proceeds and efforts to conceal that it came from Trump could constitute money laundering.”

The cases of extortion involving illicit affairs that show up in the press tend to involve prostitutes or strippers who threaten to use a tape or some other evidence to expose a john, and typically engage in harassment or other threats related to their demands.


In a typical case, a couple of years ago, a prostitute in the St. Louis area tried to get $15,000 from a married man by threatening to post a secret recording of their tryst with another woman. She got three payments of $2,200 out of him, but when she wanted more and posted the video, he went to the FBI.

In Pennsylvania not too long ago, a prostitute was charged with blackmailing the president of the Pennsylvania Bar Association.

The Eliot Spitzer scandal involved an extortion scheme. One of the hookers threatened to expose him to the public and his family, and he regularly paid her off between 2014 and 2016 to the tune of $400,000. She was charged with blackmail, and ended up pleading guilty to another charge, bringing the case to a close.

Celebrities are flypaper for extortion plots. Kevin Hart was extorted (in a murky case). So was Dana White. So was Mark Jackson. So was Danny Cipriani, an English soccer player.

Of course, one of the lessons here is that the prostitute, stripper, or porn star with whom someone has an affair may be less than totally reliable.

The Stormy Daniels demand wasn’t as sleazy or coercive as those that result in extortion charges, and she had a lawyer helping in her effort to pressure Trump. (Although lawyers can run afoul of extortion law, as former Daniels lawyer Michael Avenatti spectacularly demonstrated during his self-immolation; the line between tough bargaining and blackmail is a contested one.)

And Trump and his allies, in effect, legitimated the extortionate demands made against him by planning for them, bargaining over them, and paying them off without a peep to the authorities or any complaint until well after the fact.

It takes two to tango — the women made the demands, and Trump paid up because it was worth it to him to make these stories go away.

Again, he was no victim, but the women who cashed in were no victims, or saints, either.

“I don’t think that his crimes against me are worthy of incarceration,” Stormy Daniels told Piers Morgan in an interview.

How high-minded. But what crimes is she thinking of? Daniels threatened Trump with exposure, got a handsome payoff to keep quiet, and ended up talking anyway.

That’s pretty much a master class in how to make an extortionate demand work.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18348
    • View Profile
Re: Citizen Trump
« Reply #309 on: April 08, 2023, 07:36:29 AM »
good article and I might add, if I am not mistaken Lowry is a virulent anti Trumper


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18348
    • View Profile
she knows
« Reply #311 on: April 11, 2023, 01:38:27 PM »
sssshhhh- 

'She Knows' has the inside skinny on Melania / Donald:

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/donald-trump-reportedly-made-very-182619657.html

ooooh aaaaah

let stop posting so I can call all my friends and share the hot gossip

 :wink:



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69113
    • View Profile
Re: Citizen Trump
« Reply #314 on: April 17, 2023, 01:22:07 PM »
Is Alvin Bragg’s Case Against Trump Constitutional?
Biden—and all future presidents—should hope for a ruling that it falls foul of the Supremacy Clause.
By David B. Rivkin Jr. and Kristin A. Shapiro
April 17, 2023 3:24 pm ET


Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s indictment of Donald Trump could mean trouble down the road for Joe Biden. “I think our Republican AGs and DAs”—attorneys general and district attorneys—“should get creative,” Mike Davis, a Republican former Senate staffer, told the New York Post. Rep. James Comer told Fox that he’s heard from at least two prosecutors who “want to know if there are ways they can go after the Bidens now.”

Mr. Biden himself is currently safe under the accepted view that sitting presidents are immune from prosecution. But under the Trump precedent, what’s to stop an ambitious Republican prosecutor somewhere from bringing dubious state charges against him before a hostile jury after he leaves office? Likewise for his successors of either party. Every four to eight years, prosecutors would order up a presidential ham sandwich. Presidents might end up having to flee the country when they leave office.

But there’s a way Mr. Trump could stop the madness that would serve his own interests as well as his successors’. His lawyers should file a notice in the Southern District of New York to remove the case to federal court under a unique legal defense: immunity under the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.

The clause provides that federal laws, including the Constitution, “shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.” The Supreme Court stated in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) that “it is of the very essence” of the federal government’s supremacy “to remove all obstacles to its action within its own sphere, and so to modify every power vested in subordinate governments, as to exempt its own operations from their own influence.” The justices invalidated Maryland’s tax on the Bank of the United States on grounds that the power to tax the federal government would make a state “capable of arresting all the measures of the government, and of prostrating it at the foot of the states.”


One pivotal aspect of the Supremacy Clause is its provision of immunity to federal officers from state criminal prosecution for actions relating to their federal duties. The seminal case is In re Neagle (1890), in which the justices held that California couldn’t criminally prosecute a federal marshal for killing a man in defense of Justice Stephen Field. If a federal officer “can be arrested and brought to trial in a state court for an alleged offense against the law of the state, yet warranted by the federal authority they possess,” the court found, “the operations of the general government may at any time be arrested at the will of one of its members.”

To be sure, the case against Mr. Trump involves conduct that wasn’t “warranted by the federal authority” he possessed. But there is a strong argument that Supremacy Clause immunity should extend to any state criminal prosecutions of federal officers undertaken because of their federal service, even if the charged conduct is unrelated to their federal duties. Permitting states to burden former federal officers on account of their federal services offends the Supremacy Clause’s core principles and makes it easy for aggressive state prosecutors to circumvent. As the Supreme Court warned in Neagle, “unfriendly” states could administer the law “in such a manner as to paralyze the operations of the government.” That threat exists anytime former or current federal officers are targeted for criminal prosecution because of their federal service. A president or other official can’t lead effectively under constant threat of retaliatory prosecution.


Mr. Trump’s foes like to say that no one is above the law; and Mr. Biden’s enemies would no doubt adopt the same slogan. But Supremacy Clause immunity wouldn’t vitiate that principle. It wouldn’t prevent federal prosecutions, and it would protect against state criminal prosecutions only when the prosecutor targeted the defendant for his federal service. Mr. Trump could still be prosecuted if he shot a passerby on Fifth Avenue.

A recognition of Supremacy Clause immunity in this context would involve an inquiry into a prosecutor’s state of mind, something courts are reluctant to undertake in most contexts. But not all—courts are regularly required to determine, for example, whether a prosecutor has engaged in racial discrimination in jury selection, or whether a state criminal prosecution is motivated by a desire to harass the defendant.

First Amendment case law also recognizes, in the context of protecting core constitutional rights, the impermissibility of disparate law-enforcement treatment. In Nieves v. Bartlett (2019), the high court held that probable cause isn’t sufficient to block a retaliatory-arrest claim “when a plaintiff presents objective evidence that he was arrested when otherwise similarly situated individuals not engaged in the same sort of protected speech had not been.”


An inquiry into whether a state criminal prosecution was undertaken because of the defendant’s federal service would involve judicially manageable questions such as whether a reasonable prosecutor would bring the charges and whether there are indicia of political retribution. Mr. Trump has a strong argument here. Does anyone believe he’d be prosecuted for anything having to do with Stormy Daniels if he hadn’t become president?

Federal officers, including former officers, have a statutory right to remove state civil or criminal cases against them “for or relating to any act under color of such office” to federal court (emphasis added). The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted this language broadly, explaining in Willingham v. Morgan (1969) that “the test for removal should be broader, not narrower, than the test for official immunity” because the purpose of the statute “is to have the validity of the defense of official immunity tried in a federal court.”

In Jefferson County v. Acker (1999), the justices permitted removal of state actions against two federal judges seeking collection of a state occupational tax. The court explained that, even though the tax was imposed on the judges personally, it was effectively a tax on the performance of their federal duties, thereby providing the “essential nexus” between their official duties and the state prosecution.

Mr. Trump has 30 days after his arraignment—until May 4—to invoke the federal-officer removal statute. Because a novel and important constitutional issue would be at stake, the case could easily reach the Supreme Court, and it would be wise for the federal courts to delay any state trial until Mr. Trump’s immunity defense is resolved. With only 21 months remaining in his term, Mr. Biden might find himself quietly rooting for a decision in his predecessor’s favor.

Mr. Rivkin served at the Justice Department and the White House Counsel’s Office in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations. Ms. Shapiro served as an attorney-adviser at the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel during the Trump and Biden administrations and is a senior fellow at the Independent Women’s Forum. Both practice appellate and constitutional law in Washington.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69113
    • View Profile

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18348
    • View Profile
rape allegations
« Reply #316 on: April 27, 2023, 06:20:47 AM »
https://www.yahoo.com/news/jury-probably-decided-trump-fate-013257966.html

Of course I don't know
but I don't believe her

sounds totally coached by lawyers what to say
do we know of any lawyers that would like to frame DJT?


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69113
    • View Profile
Re: Citizen Trump
« Reply #317 on: April 27, 2023, 11:48:28 AM »
25-30 years ago?!? 

Fizz off!!!


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18348
    • View Profile
not every woman likes to be grabbed by their private parts
« Reply #319 on: May 09, 2023, 03:11:30 PM »
I don't believe
she was raped
but molested or grabbed

certainly does seem quite plausible from a guy who is ON
TAPE boasting about it (billy bush tape) and is known to lie

The LEFT now has THIS to TELL us 24/7 !

please can we get rid of Trump ?

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69113
    • View Profile
Re: Citizen Trump
« Reply #320 on: May 09, 2023, 04:52:28 PM »
If I may, a tangent:

"not every woman likes to be grabbed by her private parts".

Thank you.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: not every woman likes to be grabbed by their private parts
« Reply #321 on: May 10, 2023, 06:46:08 AM »
https://media.gab.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=852,quality=100,fit=scale-down/system/media_attachments/files/137/454/170/original/60a812d53f00197b.png



I don't believe
she was raped
but molested or grabbed

certainly does seem quite plausible from a guy who is ON
TAPE boasting about it (billy bush tape) and is known to lie

The LEFT now has THIS to TELL us 24/7 !

please can we get rid of Trump ?

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18348
    • View Profile
Re: Citizen Trump
« Reply #322 on: May 10, 2023, 07:17:55 AM »
listening to the breakdown of the case
it is clear this was a get trump political tool
of the lawsters

Levin had good analysis last night.

that said the LEFT now can go on and on about this for eternity
and more easily ignore the flood of immigration
and Comer's Hunter / Joe report on their corruption

 :roll:

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Citizen Trump
« Reply #323 on: May 10, 2023, 07:41:32 AM »
https://media.gab.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=852,quality=100,fit=scale-down/system/media_attachments/files/137/454/697/original/7f210ab0a55b3f08.jpg



listening to the breakdown of the case
it is clear this was a get trump political tool
of the lawsters

Levin had good analysis last night.

that said the LEFT now can go on and on about this for eternity
and more easily ignore the flood of immigration
and Comer's Hunter / Joe report on their corruption

 :roll:

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69113
    • View Profile
To a TDS friend
« Reply #324 on: May 10, 2023, 09:33:47 AM »


Dershowitz says he has a very good chance of prevailing on appeal.

Working from memory as to what he said:

a) Serious statute of limitations issues- hell they can't even pin down what year the alleged events happened.  27 years ago?  29 years ago?

b) Serious issues about the "evidence" that the judge admitted;

c) Serious issues about the witnesses allowed to testify;

d) On my own I would note the champerty issue:  https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/champerty  This may have something to do with why she brought it up now after all these years.  We saw similar horseshit with the Kavanaugh accusations.

e) hard to believe the jury pool made it possible to have an unbiased jury;

f) then, given the track record of all concerned with the plethora of events with Bill Clinton, there is the matter of consistency in application of standards.

g) Then there is the matter of the plausibility of her accusation of actual rape in the dressing room of a major department store.  The jury disbelieved her rape charge, yet gave her credibility on the grabbing her by the pussy charge.  Where is the logical consistency here?

ALL THAT SAID, OF COURSE IT IS PLAUSIBLE THAT HE GRABBED HER BY PUSSY!

THAT SAID, UNDER THE RULE OF LAW IT IS CRAP TO BRING SUCH A CHARGE NEARLY 30 YEARS LATER.

GIVEN THE SIX YEARS OF THE DEEP STATE OPERATING OUTSIDE THE RULE OF LAW TO BRING HIM DOWN, AT THIS POINT MY STARTING POINT IS TO DISRESPECT PRETTY MUCH EVERYTHING THEY SAY.

QUITE DISAPPOINTING THAT THIS DOES NOT SEEM TO MATTER TO YOU.

Cornered into the choice I'd certainly vote for him over the corrupt and COMPROMISED BY CHINA AND UKRAINE President Biden-- this apart from his senility and AmINO values (America In Name Only)-- if only to bring an end to the invasion of our country (7+M and counting!) the geopolitical disaster heading our way, and the racial marxism.

At present I root for DeSantis.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18348
    • View Profile
Even more disgusting lawster change in law in NY
« Reply #325 on: May 10, 2023, 10:04:26 AM »
this was almost certainly passed to get Trump

https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-hochul-signs-adult-survivors-act

lets also no forget Conway became anti Trump after he was not offered administrative job :

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/carroll-v-trump-the-rape-case-that-started-at-a-resistance-party

RULE OF LAW  now the rule

RULE OF LAWYERS

the shysters of the profession

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69113
    • View Profile


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18348
    • View Profile
Re: Citizen Trump
« Reply #328 on: May 11, 2023, 09:25:12 PM »
sorry this is not admissible evidence
in a case against Trump ......

too prejudicial and has no bearing on situation from 27 yrs
ago.  :wink:

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69113
    • View Profile
Re: Citizen Trump
« Reply #329 on: May 12, 2023, 06:20:37 AM »
Of course that is how the judge ruled, but I would submit it has quite a bit to do with the credibility of the accuser.


G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Citizen Trump
« Reply #330 on: May 12, 2023, 06:30:27 AM »
Of course that is how the judge ruled, but I would submit it has quite a bit to do with the credibility of the accuser.

Wow, it's like the same kangaroo kourt lawfare tactics used against Alex Jones was used against Trump. Who could have foreseen this?

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69113
    • View Profile
Re: Citizen Trump
« Reply #331 on: May 12, 2023, 06:59:18 AM »
OK, I'll bite.  How are the two cases the same?

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Citizen Trump
« Reply #332 on: May 12, 2023, 07:21:42 AM »
OK, I'll bite.  How are the two cases the same?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDnYVPq7Q4c

Start at 6:45

Robert Barnes explains.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69113
    • View Profile
Champerty
« Reply #333 on: May 12, 2023, 09:14:09 AM »
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/rape-sexy-trump-accuser-bankrolled-billionaire-hoax-funding-linkedin-founder

PS:  Looks like ZH may be blurring the lines here on the rape charge, but as far as I can tell the champerty issue remains.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18348
    • View Profile
humorous but
« Reply #334 on: May 13, 2023, 08:42:00 AM »
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/saraharnold/2023/05/12/trump-rolls-out-new-shirt-aimed-at-taunting-cnn-n2623198

but hardly going  to be the "great uniter " that the major blowhard, Dick Morris
speaks of ....... :roll:

In addition again he promotes himself not the policies or ideology....  :roll:

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69113
    • View Profile
Re: Citizen Trump
« Reply #335 on: May 13, 2023, 09:35:30 AM »
Point taken, but can be defended on OODA loop grounds.   What is CNN to do now?  Give up the ratings machine that he is, or ???

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18348
    • View Profile
Carroll now thinks she should get 10 mill more
« Reply #336 on: May 23, 2023, 08:00:20 AM »
https://www.yahoo.com/news/columnist-adds-trumps-post-verdict-215011265.html

I wonder.
When the first case gets overturned on appeal
can he sue her and her lawyers


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69113
    • View Profile
Re: Citizen Trump
« Reply #337 on: May 23, 2023, 01:04:17 PM »
Trump is right.  Whacko nut job.



ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18348
    • View Profile
Re: Citizen Trump
« Reply #340 on: May 27, 2023, 12:52:19 PM »
oooohh aaaahhh

this is very big deal :

Michael Cohen has secret tape of Trump discussing "hush money to his playboy girlfriend

the scandal  of the century;  this must be illegal - ask Larry lib to find a way

they got him now  :wink: :wink: :wink: :roll: :roll: :roll:

write aaron katersky of ABC non news

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/secret-audio-tape-reportedly-among-013705352.html


G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Citizen Trump
« Reply #341 on: May 27, 2023, 01:55:20 PM »
Are the walls closing in?


oooohh aaaahhh

this is very big deal :

Michael Cohen has secret tape of Trump discussing "hush money to his playboy girlfriend

the scandal  of the century;  this must be illegal - ask Larry lib to find a way

they got him now  :wink: :wink: :wink: :roll: :roll: :roll:

write aaron katersky of ABC non news

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/secret-audio-tape-reportedly-among-013705352.html





ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18348
    • View Profile
Re: Citizen Trump
« Reply #346 on: June 22, 2023, 11:10:39 AM »
"Again, who has the ultimate declassification authority?"

well,
ex presidents do not.


G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Citizen Trump
« Reply #347 on: June 22, 2023, 11:12:55 AM »
"Again, who has the ultimate declassification authority?"

well,
ex presidents do not.

Was Trump president went he took the documents?