Donald Trump: Classic or Dud?

icrime at the time but the laws we changed em

he posted a video yesterday that strongly implied george bush sr. killed kennedy lmao

this election is going to be absolutely insane.

this is brutal, pretty much how all interviews with these lunatics should go

BORIS SANCHEZ: What would be your justification for removing Joe Biden from the ballot in Missouri?

JAY ASHCROFT: There have been allegations that he's engaged in insurrection

SANCHEZ: How so?

ASHCROFT: Um, I've seen allegations from the lieutenant governor of Texas pic.twitter.com/687uqKyCUw

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 8, 2024

show me staters demand you show the evidence that joe biden did not engage in insurrection, allegedly, is what we heard

"Boris Sanchez" is a comic book character name.

seems to have some interviewing skills tho...

Treeship: as opposed to all those really civilized and sober ones that we've gotten for the last, uh, 44 years?

Lemme guess: this Jay cat's related to our beloved John Ashcroft.

his son!

looks like he might have been conceived by a minute droplet of aftercum

Trump the Comforter:

As a close-knit community in Iowa grapples with a school shooting that killed a sixth grader and left seven others injured, former President Donald Trump had this advice: “Have to get over it.”

“We’re really with you as much as anybody can be. It’s a very terrible thing that happened,” he said Friday during a speech in Sioux City, Iowa. “And it’s just horrible to see that happening, it’s just horrible. So surprising to see it here. But, uh, have to get over it. We have to move forward, we have to move forward.”

posts consist of so many things, so many ideas; really almost any combination of words can form a post, this is the magic of ilx

Hardly getting over it, he's hardly getting used to getting by ...

Hüsker Dön

just be grateful for the time you have your with your child, they may not always be around

TBF Trump is viewing the tragedy from his own perspective, where like losing Don Jr. just means there's suddenly one less person to go fetch him a hamberder, a little sad but you move on

Masochists can listen to the first (I believe) hearing to determine if a president has immunity for all "official" acts:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEQ1aToavl8

The seemingly incredulous judge (I think) just asked the defense if a president could be prosecuted for ordering the assassination of a political rival, and the defense basically said no, unless the president were convicted in an impeachment trial.

Judge asks if a president ordered the murder of political opponent by Seal Team 6, would he be immune from criminal prosecution? Trump lawyer says yes, in effect, unless he was impeached and convicted first.

— Jim Sciutto (@jimsciutto) January 9, 2024

oh sorry already mentioned

https://x.com/jimsciutto/status/1744735106970108230?s=20

Judge noted that Trump argued during impeachment trial that, in effect, there was no need to vote to convict there because he was subject to criminal prosecution later, adding those arguments are in the congressional record. She then asked his lawyer, “What changed?”

— Jim Sciutto (@jimsciutto) January 9, 2024

it's very interesting to listen to this, but good lord, someone give this lawyer some water and a cough drop

Covid *taps noggin knowingly*

Meanwhile, one of the defendants in the GA trial has filed a motion accusing Fani Willis of having an improper relationship with one of her prosecutors and paying him excessively to be on the team then taking fancy vacations with him.

I have no idea how real any of this is, could be utter BS. Apparently Willis will be filing a response soon.

lol, that voice, reminds me of giamatti in american splendor

it would be pretty wild to put yourself front and center against Trump and his hordes without knowing they would be coming for you with anything they could. xp

xp

I kept thinking of this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czWGMpRm9I8

she probably went on vacation to a hotel and coincidentally ran into him there and said 'nice to see you' and put her hand on his shoulder once and then left to go to her room

xxp

Thats true, but it's also kind of a wildly bold claim to put in a court motion if it's completely fabricated

it doesn't have to be completely fabricated. just misrepresented.

it's what Trump does and trains the people he pays to do - find something relatively minor that could be spun into a big deal with a little imagination

that is entirely possible, but also not exactly a great outcome

the fuck is a great outcome?

because who knows what actually happened. the filing was made, and Trump's lawyer already gave the excuse as for why she can't provide evidence in the filing, and Trump can then go on social media and share the bombshell news, knowing that Fani Willis cannot reply to it publicly and has to follow the proper channel to respond.

there might be something to it, but there doesn't have to be. Trump's claims stay in the news and circulating among his idiot fanbase for several days, if not longer, and by the time the complaint is dismissed as a nothingburger, the story's circulated enough to poisoned everybody's perception of what happened

The seemingly incredulous judge (I think) just asked the defense if a president could be prosecuted for ordering the assassination of a political rival, and the defense basically said no, unless the president were convicted in an impeachment trial.

I thought you lot had a revolution to get rid of this sort of behaviour from your rulers?

xpost I mean he literally did this all the time when he was President

basically, this:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/fani-willis-allegations-wont-put-trumps-georgia-prosecution-at-risk

(written by former federal prosecutor)

I'd say any outcome that allows Willis to continue to pursue the case is good. If she has to step down, the case is over.

since apparently it may be paywalled:

There is something to worry about in a motion filed today by a Donald Trump co-defendant seeking to dismiss the indictment and disqualify Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis. But the worry has nothing to do with the criminal prosecution.

The motion was filed by attorney Ashleigh Merchant who represents Trump co-defendant Michael Roman—a former Trump campaign official—and accuses DA Willis of misconduct, conflict of interest, and even possible federal crimes based upon Merchant’s unsupported claim that Willis had “engaged in an improper and clandestine personal relationship during the pendency of the case” with a special prosecutor she hired to work on the case.

Holding aside the fact that the motion manages to ramble on for 39 pages without offering any proof of a relationship between the two prosecutors, the motion’s legal theory is defective because at most the allegations amount to an HR personnel issue, not a prosecutorial misconduct—one much less a supposed federal crime.

First, contrary to the Trump lawyer’s argument, there is no “conflict of interest” presented by two prosecutors having a romantic relationship. That’s because they are on the same side of the case. If a prosecutor and a defense attorney were a romantic item, then the defendant might argue that their defense counsel was conflicted because the relationship might cause the defense attorney to fail to zealously represent the client by going easy on their friends-with-benefits opponent.

To get around this problem, defendant Roman argues that the conflict arises from the allegation that the special prosecutor—Nathan Wade—spends money on vacations with Willis, and that Willis therefore improperly “profits” from the prosecution. The problem with this argument is the fact that Willis is already paid to prosecute the case, so there is no “profit” in any prosecution for her.

Any theory that Wade spent money on Willis derived entirely from his salary as a special prosecutor would require proof that—but for his special prosecutor salary—Wade could not afford to spend any money on his supposed dates with Willis. That’s hardly a convincing proposition on its face, and one that would be particularly to prove at any evidentiary hearing.

But as The New York Times reported, one law and ethics professor—Clark D. Cunningham of Georgia State University—opined that Roman’s motion should have included “sworn affidavits by witnesses with personal knowledge or authenticated documents,” so the lack of any such proof makes it appear likely that any hearing would produce nada.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution—which first reported the story—quotes a professor emeritus ethics professor, Stephen Gillers, as saying if the allegations are true then “Willis was conflicted in the investigation and prosecution of the case” for lack of required “independent professional judgment.” But the professor goes on to clarify “that does not mean that her decisions were in fact improperly motivated,” but that the relationship could cause the public and state to lack confidence in her independent judgment.” Public confidence, however, is not a piece of evidence in criminal trials—because we don’t conduct prosecutions based on public opinion polling.

Second, let’s look at a somewhat similar scenario involving the storied O.J. Simpson murder trial. In that case, it later became rumored (to this day, these remain unproven rumors) that the two lead prosecutors—Marcia Clark and Chris Darden—had been romantically involved during the case.

If Simpson had been convicted, such a relationship would not have been grounds for reversal of his conviction because their theoretical relationship could not have affected the evidence in the case. That’s the problem for team Trump—it doesn’t matter what kind of relationship prosecutors may have unless that relationship somehow affects the evidence in the case.

The aftermath of the Simpson case actually offers the only real cause for concern about friends with benefits dynamics between prosecutors. Namely, that it might prove a distraction.

As Chris Darden put it in 2016, reacting to renewed interest in the case because of the hit FX series The People vs O.J. Simpson, “If I were to say I had a relationship with Marcia Clark, people would say we lost the case because we were more interested in intimacy than the law and the facts.”

Defendant Roman also makes the argument that the entire indictment is defective because Wade had not filed his oaths of office prior to starting work. But that argument was already rejected previously by Judge Scott McAffee who though so little of the argument that he analogized it to the Monty Python skit about a dead parrot.

So what is there to worry about with this motion? It’s the racism and sexism inherent in this effort to smear the district attorney and taint the prospective jury pool.

Attacking Fani Willis’ character is just a continuation of the racist trope of hyper-sexualized black women and men. Like the media image of Asian women as “Dragon Ladies” (or submissive sex dolls), the “Jezebel” image of black women is equally degrading and harmful. Writing in The Washington Post, Jagger Blaec quoted Sherronda J. Brown: “In order for white women to be upheld as pure, black women are first defined as licentious and sexually deviant.”

Trump himself wasted no time jumping on the bandwagon to smear Willis posting in his social media about the allegations. This is not new for Trump, as he previously made baseless claims about Willis supposedly of having an affair with a gang member. Then he referred to Willis as a “young racist”—which is Trump code used in place of a racial epithet like the “N-word.”

So the real concern is not the meritless legal arguments made in this latest maneuver by the Trump legal team. No, the real worry is that it’s a continuation of Trump’s willingness to play to racist and sexist hatred if he thinks it will help him and the willingness of millions of Americans to condone it.

so let me get this straight, they have no evidence of this whatsoever?

they claim they have it but that they can't share it until prosecutor's divorce records are unsealed and that it will "all come out during that hearing"

so yes, they have no evidence.

I'm totally open to the idea that it is 100% fabricated. Like I said, it seems like kind of a crazy bold step to take, and weirdly specific details. The article you shared is the only thing I've seen so far that is critical of all of this from a legal perspective, that it should have no bearing either way. Hopefully that is true. Pretty much everything else I've seen has just reported that there was a motion and what was in it without taking much of a stand on what it means.

again - we've seen him and his lawyers do this again and again. It's literally what they did when they tried to challenge the election.

Find something that looks improper, however small. Frame it like it's a big deal. Use it to influence the public that things are rigged.

He and his lawyer know this will fail but he knows this will be in the news cycle for a week and that's what he wants. it's what he always wants.

how many times do he or his lawyers or the lawyers of people affiliated with him actually ever win anything?

I don't know, but I think we should spend three years investigating it. Starting after the election, of course.

I mean even if it's true, so what? they're on the same side

p much the crux of the article.

"Ok, ok. I'll fuck you. If you'll do something for me..."

"What?"

"Maybe I could convince you to help put Trump away"

"ok...well, I mean that's what you're already paying me f-"

"maybe you could say something in court that...i don't know...influences the case and gets Trump locked out"

"but that's already my jo-"

"look don't twist my arm man - maybe you could let slip in court some incriminating things Trump did"

"but I"m already the prose...you know never mind, sure, I'll do it. (unzips)"

the "FBI Lovers" were on the same side and he never shut up about them. It really riles him up to think about his enemies getting it on with each other.

If the accusations are completely true, the argument raised by that article may well be technically correct, but I'm not convinced that's a line Willis will be able to hold. I could very well be wrong, but I could easily see it being a problem just because that's the kind of fucked up world we live in.

I mean....the author isn't even arguing on the validity of what is even alleged, he's saying "it's irrelevant because even if it didn't happen, that wouldn't impact the case or get it dismissed"

court of public opinion, well....they're mostly idiots so, lost cause