|
|
-
They will have nobody to blame but themselves…..idiots.
Where is the move over flag when you need it?????
-
Actually, I think its kind of funny, Barbecueboy. I mean, ss12 and the ilk of anti-anti Trump hating gullible fools still b!tch’n and b!tch’n 3 years after the fact, not getting over themselves --- and you’re 100% right, they have no one but themselves to blame. And that’s not lost on the Trump supporting masses like, Clayton.
In the real world, I know a lady that wrote-off part of her family because they supported Trump. Its crazy the lengths that some of these nut-job anti-anti Trump hating gullible fools will go to just to hate on Trump.
-
Great read!
Down the Rabbit Hole Into Donald Trump’s Brain - https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/04/o...ent-fraud.html
The New York Times; Opinion Guest Essay, by Chris W. Kim
Not long after Mark Meadows, Donald Trump’s last chief of staff, left the White House, I asked him about the rambling telephone call he had participated in during which Mr. Trump told Brad Raffensperger, the Georgia secretary of state, to find him enough votes to overcome Joe Biden’s lead in the state.
During our conversation, Mr. Meadows didn’t exactly try to defend Mr. Trump or himself but rather took a stab at putting this potentially criminal request in the context of the unusual epistemology that almost everyone around Mr. Trump has come to regard as part and parcel of his presidency.
“The president has a certain way of speaking,” said Mr. Meadows. “And what he means — well, the sum can be greater or less than the whole.”
The words that will very likely get Mr. Trump indicted in Georgia, and possibly Mr. Meadows along with him, were, a weary Mr. Meadows seemed to be saying, more of the same, part of Mr. Trump’s unmediated fire hose of verbiage, an unstoppable sequence of passing digressions, gambits and whims, more attuned to the rhythms of his voice than to any obligation to logic or, often, to any actual point or meaning at all and hardly worth taking notice of.
Does Mr. Trump mean what he says? And what exactly does he mean when he says what he says? His numerous upcoming trials may hinge on these questions.
Tony Schwartz, his ghostwriter on “The Art of the Deal” — as bewildered more than 30 years ago by Mr. Trump’s disconnected-from-reality talk as anyone might be today — came up with a formulation that tried to put Mr. Trump’s rhetorical flights from earth in the context of a salesman’s savvy. In other words, if you took him at his word, you were the fool, and yet, perhaps even more to the point, he succeeds because he comes to believe himself, making him the ultimate fool (as well as the ultimate salesman).
Yes, he might have seemed to call for insurrection on Jan. 6, but as the events that day unfolded, according to various people in contact with him in the White House, he seemed uncomprehending and passive. He waved a classified document in front of a writer he was trying to impress, bragging about the secrets illegally in his possession. That certainly is in character, uncaring about rules, negligent about his actions, unthinking of the consequences. At the same time, his defense, that he had no such document, that he was waving just press clippings, that he was essentially making it all up, is in perfect character, too.
And then there was the laughable plan to mobilize new state electors. Here was certainly an effort to subvert the election, but it was also a fantasy with no hope in hell of ever succeeding; indeed, he seems to have long delighted in surrounding himself with clownish people (especially lawyers) performing clownish feats to gain his approval — more court jesters than co-conspirators.
His yearslong denial of the 2020 election may be an elaborate fraud, a grifter’s denial of the obvious truth, as prosecutors maintain, but if so, he really hasn’t broken character the entire time. I’ve had my share of exposure to his fantastic math over the years — so did almost everyone around him at Mar-a-Lago after the election — and I don’t know anyone who didn’t walk away from those conversations at least a little shaken by his absolute certainty that the election really was stolen from him.
It is precisely this behavior, unconcerned with guardrails or rules, unmindful of cause and effect, all according to his momentary whim — an overwhelming, almost anarchic instinct to try to invert reality — that prosecutors and much of the political establishment seem to most want to hold him accountable for. The chaos he creates is his crime; there is, however, no statute against upsetting the dependable order. Breaking the rules — often seemingly to no further purpose than just to break the rules as if he were a supreme nihilist or simply an obstreperous child — is not much of a grand criminal enterprise, even though for many, it’s infuriating coming from someone charged with upholding the rules.
Many Democrats have come to assume that the dastardly effect of Mr. Trump’s political success must mean that he has an evil purpose. During his trials, prosecutors will try to establish that precise link. But that might not be such a trivial challenge. He is being pursued under several broad, ill-defined statutes like the Espionage Act, RICO, conspiracy and obstruction of justice. Without an exchange of money or quid pro quo, proving his crimes will largely come down to showing specific intent or capturing his state of mind — and with Donald Trump, that’s quite a trip down the rabbit hole.
His prosecutors will try to use his words against him: among them, his exhortations that arguably prompted the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, his admission — on tape! — that he still had classified documents, his various, half-baked plots about how to game the Electoral College system, his relentless and unremitting insistence that he won his lost election and his comments to his bag man, Michael Cohen, before he paid off Stormy Daniels.
For Democrats, it’s an explosion of smoking guns.
And yet the larger pattern, clear to anyone who has had firsthand experience with the former president, is that he will say almost anything that pops into his head at any given moment, often making a statement so confusing in its logic that to maintain one’s own mental balance, it’s necessary to dismiss its seriousness on the spot or to pretend you never heard it.
Jack Smith, Fani Willis and Alvin Bragg will try to prove that the former president’s words are nefarious rather than spontaneous, that there has been a calculated effort to deceive rather than just idle talk, a series of crowd-pleasing gestures or cuckoo formulations and that his efforts to obstruct the investigations against him were part of a larger plan rather than just the actions of a bad boy. I’d guess that the Trump opposition doesn’t much care which it is — nefarious or spontaneous — but are only grateful that Mr. Trump, in his startling transparence, has foolishly hoisted himself with his own petard.
There is a special urgency here, of course, as Mr. Trump’s chances of clinching the Republican nomination seem to grow stronger by the day. The terrible possibility for Democrats, anti-Trump Republicans and the media that he could become the president again is balanced only by their fail-safe certainty of conviction on at least some of the state and federal felony charges he is facing (a complicated paradox for a democracy, to say the least).
Personally, I’m less sure of Mr. Trump’s legal fate. Prosecutors will soon run up against the epistemological challenges of explaining and convicting a man whose behavior defies and undermines the structures and logic of civic life.
There’s an asymmetric battle here, between the government’s precise and thorough prosecutors and Mr. Trump’s head-smacking gang of woeful lawyers. The absolute ludicrousness and disarray of the legal team defending Mr. Trump after his second impeachment ought to go down in trial history. Similarly, a few months ago, a friend of mine was having a discussion with Mr. Trump about his current legal situation. A philosophical Mr. Trump said that while he probably didn’t have the best legal team, he was certain he had the best looking, displaying pictures of the comely women with law degrees he had hired to help with his cases.
Here liberals see a crushing advantage: As ever, Mr. Trump seems unable to walk a straight line even in his own defense. But his unwillingness or, as likely, inability to play by the rules or even understand them creates a chaos often in his favor. Indeed, the prosecutors’ story of his grand scheming will most likely require them to present a figure of the former president — calculated, methodical, knowing and cunning — that none of his supporters or anyone who has ever met him or reasonable jurors and perhaps even the world at large would recognize.
I can’t imagine what will be produced by this dynamic of strait-laced prosecutors versus a preposterous Mr. Trump, his malfeasance always on the edge of farce. But my gut tells me the anti-Trump world could be in for another confounding disappointment.
-
Trump attorney says he ‘cannot wait’ to cross examine Pence in Jan. 6 trial - https://thehill.com/regulation/court...n-jan-6-trial/
BY LAUREN SFORZA - 08/06/23 10:27 AM ET
John Lauro, an attorney representing former President Trump in his federal case on charges of attempting to overturn the 2020 election, said Sunday that he “cannot wait” to cross examine former Vice President Mike Pence in the former president’s Jan. 6 trial.
“I cannot wait until I have the opportunity to cross examine Mr. Pence because what he will do is completely eliminate any doubt that Mr. Trump — President Trump firmly believed that the election irregularities had led to inappropriate results,” Lauro told George Stephanopolous on ABC’s “This Week.”
“What was so frustrating for President Trump was that he thought that Vice President Pence was certifying an election that was not lawfully held and he had every right to petition his vice president to deal with that issue,” he continued.
However, Pence has said that he has “no plans” to testify in the trial against Trump. He had appeared before the federal grand jury in the case in April, after previously challenging a subpoena from special counsel Jack Smith.
“I have no plans to testify, but people can be confident we’ll obey the law,” Pence said on CBS’ “Face the Nation” in an interview that aired Sunday. “We’ll respond to the call of the law, if it comes, and we’ll just tell the truth.”
Trump was indicted last week on four federal charges: conspiracy to defraud the U.S., conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction or attempted obstruction of an official proceeding and conspiracy against rights. He pleaded not guilty during his first court appearance for this case in Washington, D.C., on Thursday.
Shortly after Trump’s indictment was unsealed, Pence condemned the former president in a statement, saying that “anyone who puts himself over the Constitution should never be President of the United States.”
-
Barr blasts Garland’s ‘inept’ handling of Hunter Biden case - https://thehill.com/regulation/court...er-biden-case/
BY NICK ROBERTSON
Former Attorney General Bill Barr criticized Attorney Garland Merrick Garland’s handling of the federal investigation into Hunter Biden, saying it hurts the federal indictment against former President Trump.
“Nobody should be madder than the people that are working on the Jan. 6 case for the inept way it appears the Hunter Biden case was handled,” Barr said in a Fox News interview Friday.
Hunter Biden signed a plea agreement over a Justice Department investigation into tax crimes and gun charges. Republicans in Congress have also investigated Biden over allegations he used the influence of his father in business deals.
Barr said the Hunter Biden investigation’s shaky conclusion could raise questions about other investigations and reflect poorly on Garland, especially given the political nature of the case.
“An attorney general can not walk away from this. … These ultimately are his decisions. He has to own the decisions,” Barr said.
Barr also said he would not have charged Trump for the election crimes, referring to the stark political divide resulting from any charge related to the legitimacy of the 2020 election
“I have no problem with investigating what happened on January 6, I think that was the right thing to do … but I’m not sure I would have pulled the trigger at the end of the day on this case,” he said.
Barr served as attorney general during the H.W. Bush and Trump administrations. He has been a fierce Trump critic since leaving the administration in 2020.
-
 Originally Posted by Buford.Justice
The judge assigned Tuesday to handle special counsel Jack Smith's 2020 election case against former President Donald Trump poured thousands of dollars into Barack Obama's campaign coffers, records show.
Trump faced an indictment at the hands of a federal grand jury in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday on four new charges related to his alleged efforts to challenge the results of the 2020 presidential election and incite the Jan. 6 riot on Capitol Hill in 2021. U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who will handle the case, was an Obama appointee in 2014 and contributed roughly $4,300 to his presidential campaign and victory fund combined between 2008 and 2012, according to campaign finance disclosures reviewed by the Washington Examiner.
Clayton, that is not like you normally, to NOT cite your source.
Donald Trump indicted: Presiding Judge Tanya Chutkan donated thousands to Obama - https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...-donated-obama
The judge assigned Tuesday to handle special counsel Jack Smith's 2020 election case against former President Donald Trump poured thousands of dollars into Barack Obama's campaign coffers, records show.
Trump faced an indictment at the hands of a federal grand jury in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday on four new charges related to his alleged efforts to challenge the results of the 2020 presidential election and incite the Jan. 6 riot on Capitol Hill in 2021. U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who will handle the case, was an Obama appointee in 2014 and contributed roughly $4,300 to his presidential campaign and victory fund combined between 2008 and 2012, according to campaign finance disclosures reviewed by the Washington Examiner.
Chutkan's donations were made while she worked at Boies Schiller Flexner, a major law firm with over a dozen offices across the United States. She also gave $250 in 2008 to the campaign for Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), though the Federal Election Commission database doesn't list her backing any federal candidates after September 2012.
The Obama ties are sure to propel Republicans to allege further that the indictment and case are doomed as politically motivated, as the GOP continues to further the idea that the Department of Justice and intelligence agencies have been weaponized against disfavored speech among conservatives. Trump was ordered to appear for his arraignment on Tuesday in Washington district court and is expected to plead not guilty to the four charges.
He is accused of conspiracy to defraud the U.S., conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights, according to the indictment.
Trump said in a statement Tuesday that the charges were "nothing more than the latest corrupt chapter in the continued pathetic attempt by the Biden Crime Family and their weaponized Department of Justice to interfere with the 2024 Presidential Election."
John Lauro, an attorney for Trump, referred to the indictment as "an attack on free speech and political advocacy."
Chutkan has been involved in another Trump-related case and denied a request from the former president in 2021 seeking to block the National Archives and Records Administration from providing records on the Capitol riot to the since-defunct House select committee probing the events of that day.
"Plaintiff does not acknowledge the deference owed to the incumbent President's judgment. His position that he may override the express will of the executive branch appears to be premised on the notion that his executive power 'exists in perpetuity,'" Chutkan wrote in her prior opinion.
-
From post #30, page 2
Originally Posted by ss12
Do you think Disgrace45 is finally realizing he's screwed?
Bet you didn’t think your thread would turn in the direction it did.
And NO, I don’t think he’s screwed. You on the other hand, YES I think you’re screwed and it ALL won’t turn out like you would like it to.
How’s about that bet?
-
It won’t turn out “ in his favor”,lmao……he won’t pay up on the bet anyway, waste of time even offering it.
Speaks volumes that he never accepted.
Where is the move over flag when you need it?????
-
Nonetheless, I posted reading that is contrary to what ss12 provides. Or said in other words ---- Its not all wine and roses in the anti-anti Trump hating gullible fools camp, to say the least.
-
The SS Gullible has taken on about all the water it can. Anchors away!!! hahahhahaaa
Very brown water that is!!!
Ahoy mates, Seaman Abercrombie man the life boats!!!
If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention!
-
If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention!
-
Originally Posted by lurker
Way to go lurker. That was the very site I failed to add to my post.
If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention!
-
Originally Posted by ss12
I would just like to thank all of you top Trumpster who testified in the federal Grand Jury. Your testimony helped indict the conman for crimes he committed against, We the people. For all of you Trumpturds, here is the indictment so you all can read(?). Pages 33-37 You can read what the previous Vice President did or didn't do to save our democracy. VP Pence knew from the get-go that it was all lies. You can also see where the VP's chief of staff called the secret service for, he feared that the VP life was in jeopardy thanks to the President of the United States of America.
https://www.businessinsider.com/trum...on-case-2023-7
You crumb bumb!!!
If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention!
-
Judge overseeing Trump documents case criticizes special counsel - https://www.axios.com/2023/08/07/jud...ase-grand-jury
-
Judge orders hearing after Trump's lawyers say proposed protective order would infringe on Trump's free speech - https://abcnews.go.com/US/proposed-p...y?id=102084393
-
Nope, none of these seem to be in SS favor.
Where is the move over flag when you need it?????
-
Hey, I was always good in debate class, point-counter-point, back in the day. I know how the game is played.
Nothing new and exciting about Trump today. Maybe ss12 has something good that I missed.
-
Originally Posted by ss12
Is that why Trump told Pence "You are too honest"?
Your the idiot . Still crying over Trump while you are silent on the Career Criminal
that's in office right now . Do you not care for your country that you will spend your
ignorance all on Trump and leave this criminal alone , WHAT A FOOL .
-
Originally Posted by ss12
Is that why Trump told Pence "You are too honest"?
Your the idiot . Still crying over Trump while you are silent on the Career Criminal
that's in office right now . Do you not care for your country that you will spend your
ignorance all on Trump and leave this criminal alone , WHAT A FOOL . .
-
This probably will help Jack Smith's case this Friday.
Maga at is best.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/ma...658f4909&ei=12
Haters don't really hate you, in fact they hate themselves because you are a reflection of what they wish to be.
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:07 AM.
|
|
Senior Member
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks