Trump’s Troubles

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Totally. And this is from the man who advocates for the right to bear arms on the basis of the Constitution. You couldn't make it up!

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...ices-rcna42355

A source with knowledge of the deposition said Trump took the Fifth more than 440 times.

"I once asked, 'If you’re innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?'" Trump said in a statement. "Now I know the answer to that question. When your family, your company, and all the people in your orbit have become the targets of an unfounded, politically motivated Witch Hunt supported by lawyers, prosecutors, and the Fake News Media, you have no choice. Accordingly, under the advice of my counsel and for all of the above reasons, I declined to answer the questions under the rights and privileges afforded to every citizen under the United States Constitution."

---------- Post added at 18:54 ---------- Previous post was at 18:32 ----------

https://wapo.st/421hiS1

A state judge overseeing the election-interference case against former president Donald Trump in Georgia has scheduled a hearing for Feb. 15 to hear evidence regarding accusations that Fulton County District Attorney Fani T. Willis (D) and her lead prosecutor engaged in an improper relationship and mishandled public money.


Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee also wrote in his order that Willis must respond to the accusations in writing by Feb. 2. The accusations first came to light in a filing from one of Trump’s co-defendants, former campaign aide Mike Roman. The order, which is not yet on the case docket, was obtained by The Washington Post.


Willis has declined to address the accusations directly so far. McAfee’s order appears to be forcing her to do so in televised court proceedings, a development that could at the least be embarrassing for the district attorney and at worst derail the investigation completely.


In his filing, Roman called for Willis and the lead prosecutor, Nathan Wade, to be removed from the case, and also for the charges to be dismissed.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Hugh

And what about his statement regarding terminating the Constitution?

Well it would be helpful if you quoted all of it.

A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution,” he wrote. “Our great ‘Founders’ did not want, and would not condone, False & Fraudulent Elections!”

He’s speaking specifically about election fraud, and he can’t terminate the constitution anyway.

He’s just still whinging about the election.

It’s as worrying as Kier Starmer saying he’s going to abolish the monarchy, he can’t.

Originally Posted by Pierre

Well it would be helpful if you quoted all of it.

He’s speaking specifically about election fraud, and he can’t terminate the constitution anyway.

He’s just still whinging about the election.

It’s as worrying as Kier Starmer saying he’s going to abolish the monarchy, he can’t.

Like I did in post #341 that you replied to at 14:25 today?

Trump, who announced last month that he is running again for president, made the claim over the weekend on his Truth Social media platform.

“A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution,” he wrote. “Our great ‘Founders’ did not want, and would not condone, False & Fraudulent Elections!”

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68051757

Republican Governor Ron DeSantis suspends his campaign for US president, saying there is no "clear path to victory"

[Itshim]

Originally Posted by Hugh

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68051757

Trump is clearly going to be selected, pity Biden is as well

[1andrew1]

Nikki Haley has questioned Donald Trump's mental capacity to serve a potential second term in the White House.

In Keene, New Hampshire, on Saturday, Ms Haley commented on the ages of both Mr Trump and President Joe Biden, 81.

"We see that Biden has changed so much in two years.

But last night, Trump is at a rally and he's going on and on, mentioning me multiple times as to why I didn't take security during the Capitol riots.

"Why didn't I handle 6 January better? I wasn't even in DC on 6 January. I wasn't in office then."

She added: "They're saying he got confused, that he was talking about something else, he's talking about Nancy Pelosi.

"The concern I have is - I'm not saying anything derogatory - but when you're dealing with the pressures of the presidency, we can't have someone else that we question whether they're mentally fit to do this. We can't."

https://news.sky.com/story/nikki-hal...elosi-13053026

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

https://news.sky.com/story/nikki-hal...elosi-13053026

They'll try everything to take him down. It's going to be a very nasty 11 months.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Pierre

They'll try everything to take him down. It's going to be a very nasty 11 months.

It's pretty clear that Trump bought this upon himself by incorrectly attacking Nikki Hailey instead of Nancy Pelosi.

A generous interpretation would be that it was not due to Trump's cognitive issues that he did this. Instead, it could be argued that he was well aware it was nothing to do with Hailey but felt that the truth was less important than smearing an opponent.

Originally Posted by Pierre

They'll try everything to take him down. It's going to be a very nasty 11 months.

When they repeat what he actually says, that’s pretty nasty…

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

It's pretty clear that Trump bought this upon himself by incorrectly attacking Nikki Hailey instead of Nancy Pelosi.

A generous interpretation would be that it was not due to Trump's cognitive issues that he did this. Instead, it could be argued that he was well aware it was nothing to do with Hailey but felt that the truth was less important than smearing an opponent.

You don't have to dumb to vote for The Donald, but it sure helps! Fortunately for him a large proportion are just that.

New Hampshire Primary today, which Trump should win convincingly.

Only slight fly in the ointment is the fact that registered undeclared voters can vote in this Primary, which could affect the balance, and lessen the landslide.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/202...now-rcna134129

the secretary of state’s office released updated registration numbers, showing that 39% of voters are undeclared (344,335), 31% are registered Republicans (267,768), and 30% are registered Democrats (261,254).

If that happens, just wait for the outcry about "Fake News” and "Election Fraud"…

Trump can still win Dixville Notch if only Mike Pence has the courage.

https://wapo.st/3vOYRnv

NEW YORK — A federal court jury awarded a total of $83.3 million in damages to E. Jean Carroll for defamatory comments Donald Trump made about her as president in 2019, remarks attacking her character that kicked off years of threats and harassment from the former president’s supporters. Most of the award involved $65 million in punitive damages after jurors concluded that Trump acted spitefully and wantonly towards Carroll after she accused him of sexually assaulting her in the 1990s. Jurors also awarded a combined $18.3 million in compensatory damages.

Because this was a civil trial, not a criminal one, former president Donald Trump did not face the possibility of time behind bars. E. Jean Carroll’s lawyers also only had to prove their case by a standard known as preponderance of evidence.
Unlike proving something beyond a reasonable doubt — the standard in criminal trials — in this case, jurors were essentially asked whether it was more likely her claims were true than not.
On the jury verdict form, they were asked whether she proved, “by a preponderance of evidence,” a few things. They were asked whether Carroll proved by that standard that she had “suffered more than nominal damages” due to Trump’s statements; whether he acted “maliciously, out of hatred, ill will, or spite,” among other things; and whether he did so “in wanton, reckless, or willful disregard” of her rights.
On all three counts, the jurors said Carroll had proven her case.

Today’s ruling may not be the end of the story, according to Andy McCarthy, a former assistant U.S. attorney in the Southern District.
“In theory, if [Donald Trump] continues to repeat what he said, she can continue to sue him, and seek more millions [in] damages,” McCarthy said on Fox News.

[Pierre]

He’ll appeal, he may end up paying out some of it, if not all. It has no bearing on his presidential race.

Originally Posted by Pierre

He’ll appeal, he may end up paying out some of it, if not all. It has no bearing on his presidential race.

He will have to pay all of it into court pending appeal. If he can’t, the court will start siezing his assets. It’s not a good look.

All this, plus his behaviour during the hearings, has already had a bearing on the race. As a former president, his performance in his primaries ought to be understood as if he were the incumbent, in which circumstances he would face a token challenge if any. Obviously he is on course to win, but his win in NH was not nearly convincing enough - especially in a state where voters who are not registered republicans can vote. He isn’t going to win over those who didn't support him in 2020 and, anecdotally, there are plenty of never-Trump republicans who will hold their noses and vote for Biden rather than see Trump back in the White House.

His antics during this trial play to the gallery well enough and energise those who already drank his Kool Aid. But will they convince any waverers? I can’t see it.