|
Scratch Monkey posted:I don’t think trump ever takes questions unless he knows the questioner is 1000% not going to ask something he doesn’t want to answer He never really "takes" questions. People ask him questions and he says things but the things he says aren't necessarily responses to the questions.
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2023 12:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 13:05 |
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:He never really "takes" questions. People ask him questions and he says things but the things he says aren't necessarily responses to the questions. That's pretty much what all public figures do if they've got any sense. When my partner did media training for her job it was the explicit stated skill to master. They did exercises to show the pitfalls of attempting to actually respond to what was said to them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2023 13:25
|
|
|
OrthoTrot posted:That's pretty much what all public figures do if they've got any sense. When my partner did media training for her job it was the explicit stated skill to master. They did exercises to show the pitfalls of attempting to actually respond to what was said to them. True, almost all politicians dodge questions but their non-answers are usually at least somewhat related to the question being asked. Trump has a tendency to answer questions with rambling non-sequiturs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2023 13:39
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/MuellerSheWrote/status/1709948170971783240
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2023 16:11
|
|
|
So what are the odds that dimes are moved and Trump implicates himself further by going on a lengthy rant explaining why it's actually totally cool and okay for him to do it?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2023 16:28
|
|
|
Donkringel posted:So what are the odds that dimes are moved and Trump implicates himself further by going on a lengthy rant explaining why it's actually totally cool and okay for him to do it? I believe the odds are "Yes" Especially once the other trials start coming down and everything continues to unravel further and further. Dude's gonna start spiraling and I'm here with popcorn.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2023 16:35
|
|
|
Donkringel posted:So what are the odds that dimes are moved and Trump implicates himself further by going on a lengthy rant explaining why it's actually totally cool and okay for him to do it? Pretty sure it's an over/under you're looking at, not an odds game. I'd say... before or after 5pm next Tuesday for when he violates the order.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2023 16:52
|
|
|
Randalor posted:Pretty sure it's an over/under you're looking at, not an odds game. I'd say... before or after 5pm next Tuesday for when he violates the order. I'll take the under
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2023 17:22
|
|
|
Randalor posted:Pretty sure it's an over/under you're looking at, not an odds game. I'd say... before or after 5pm next Tuesday for when he violates the order. So is it over/under at the time he commits the acts, or the time we find out he committed the acts? If it time of actual crime, I'll take the under because he is probably actively moving money right now as we speak. If its when we find out I'll go over because getting info on financial crimes takes a moment to find out. I will also bet that he implicates himself in his next long form interview with a receptive interviewer (Hannitty or Newsmax, etc). He'll start talking about how the judge is terrible, it's a terrible decision, then he will start spiralling, going into how he interpreted the order while the interview keeps trying to change the topic.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2023 17:28
|
|
|
Donkringel posted:So what are the odds that dimes are moved and Trump implicates himself further by going on a lengthy rant explaining why it's actually totally cool and okay for him to do it? Those dimes are gonna be moving at rates not seen since the polio vaccine drive
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2023 17:38
|
|
|
Donkringel posted:So is it over/under at the time he commits the acts, or the time we find out he committed the acts? Can "under" be a negative value? I'll take the under of about -77 years if that's possible. His entire financial empire for his entire life has been one gigantic shell game, he's structured everything, everywhere, to do exactly this all the time. Grandpa Trump was probably doing shady poo poo with him while he was still in diapers. He was certainly doing it as soon as he could sign a paper.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2023 17:48
|
|
|
I've got Eric making large numbers of nine cent transactions in order to comply with his understanding of what not moving a dime means.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2023 18:33
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/eorden/status/1709984497259688378 https://twitter.com/eorden/status/1709985211830710528 This is Trump 100% micromanaging his lawyers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2023 18:36
|
|
|
A second lawyer has hit the tow… I mean moved to drop Rudy as a client https://twitter.com/ABC/status/1709558011914588172?t=Pd83Y-4-Q5uM67lZZn_s5w&s=19
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2023 18:39
|
|
|
Oh, I so would have wanted to be a fly in the room when Trump got told this: "They're going to tell me what I can and can't do with my (someone else's) money??!?!?!?!?!" He may hit Low Earth Orbit just from the explosion of steam from his head.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2023 18:54
|
|
|
gregday posted:https://twitter.com/eorden/status/1709984497259688378 I'm running for president so I'm immune from all laws!
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2023 19:08
|
|
|
SirFozzie posted:Oh, I so would have wanted to be a fly in the room when Trump got told this: "They're going to tell me what I can and can't do with my (someone else's) money??!?!?!?!?!" I think more importantly it's going to force him to reveal to the monitor who he's paying off all those loans too. I would imagine that payments to certain Saudi nationals or Russian oligarchs for example might raise some eyebrows.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2023 19:10
|
|
|
Cimber posted:I'm running for president so I'm immune from all laws! Eugene V. Debs ran for president from prison But then again he was a union man rather than a petulant baby
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2023 19:43
|
|
|
Cimber posted:I'm running for president so I'm immune from all laws! This but unironically. If/when the Dems get a supermajority in Congress, there needs to be an amendment that clearly states the one is disqualified from running/serving for President if they're a felon. Right after deleting the 2nd amendment. Yes I'm aware I'm some insane idealist, but both of these look like existential issues for the US, and crazier things have been fixed in worse times.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2023 19:58
|
|
|
Orthanc6 posted:This but unironically. You're not getting the states on board with that. It's impossible.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2023 20:01
|
|
|
Orthanc6 posted:If/when the Dems get a supermajority in Congress, there needs to be an amendment that clearly states the one is disqualified from running/serving for President if they're a felon Democratic leadership would say "but what if one day our guy was a felon? we don't want to potentially handicap ourselves in the future!"
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2023 20:16
|
|
|
I mean, if Eugene Debs was alive, and running, and in jail, I'd vote for him The problem isn't that felons are eligible to run, the problem is that people want to vote for a felon
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2023 20:19
|
|
|
Gyges posted:I've got Eric making large numbers of nine cent transactions in order to comply with his understanding of what not moving a dime means. Cue a million chuds complaining about this new unfair crime of "Structuring".
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2023 20:26
|
|
|
Failed Imagineer posted:Those dimes are gonna be moving at rates not seen since the polio vaccine drive 
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2023 20:41
|
|
|
Orthanc6 posted:This but unironically. The last time either party held a 2/3rds supermajority in both the House and the Senate was during FDR's presidency. It's not something worth daydreaming about. And fundamentally, I don't think it's right to make felonies disqualifying for the presidency. If someone's done something bad enough that they shouldn't be president, it should be easy to convince the voters of that. If not, the problem is a lot deeper than just a lack of a no-felonies restriction.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2023 20:48
|
|
|
More practically, it means the DOJ and all the state DOJs have veto power over presidential campaigns, which is not a good direction to go in
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2023 20:52
|
|
|
Orthanc6 posted:This but unironically. Disenfranchising felons has been a core plank of the Republic party for as long as I've been alive. You don't want this.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2023 20:53
|
|
|
haveblue posted:More practically, it means the DOJ and all the state DOJs have veto power over presidential campaigns, which is not a good direction to go in Convicted felon is different than indicted.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2023 20:57
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The last time either party held a 2/3rds supermajority in both the House and the Senate was during FDR's presidency. It's not something worth daydreaming about. I think it was under LBJ since I recall Dems had like 295 House and 68 Senate seats after the 1964 elections, but still before the modern political realignments making that practically impossible for multiple reasons.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2023 20:59
|
|
|
Why let's see, the only thing I have to do to disqualify vast swathes of people from office is get a felony on their record? You've recreated the main ingredient of "the junta outlaws all other political parties and jails all dissidents."
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2023 21:06
|
|
|
Cimber posted:Convicted felon is different than indicted. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/florida-republicans-bill-ban-state-democratic-party-rcna72917 Outlawing the Democratic Party was already attempted. It's not a large jump from there to make being a registered member of that party a crime.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2023 21:13
|
|
|
Name Change posted:Why let's see, the only thing I have to do to disqualify vast swathes of people from office is get a felony on their record? Yeah, while I won't say that procedural qualifications are always bad, at the end of the day the only real check on keeping the "wrong people" out of office in a democracy has to be the people. You can't legislate or delegate around that without making something tremendously abusable.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2023 22:08
|
|
|
Cimber posted:I think more importantly it's going to force him to reveal to the monitor who he's paying off all those loans too. I would imagine that payments to certain Saudi nationals or Russian oligarchs for example might raise some eyebrows. https://twitter.com/TomJChicago/status/1709965388782444823
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2023 00:37
|
|
|
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4240537-trump-asks-judge-to-throw-out-jan-6-charges-with-presidential-immunity-defense/amp/Trump's Jan 6 lawyers posted:"the prosecution falsely claims that President Trump’s motives were impure — that he purportedly ‘knew’ that the widespread reports of fraud and election irregularities were untrue but sought to address them anyway,” Trump’s attorneys wrote in the motion. So their prime defense is still "Trump thought the election fraud was real". That's a really bad defense. So many witnesses are claiming to have told him the election wasn't fraudulent. Trump stated the fraud was true for a fact, not that he was investigating allegations. Trump's extremely bad Jan 6 lawyers continue posted:“But as the Constitution, the Supreme Court, and hundreds of years of history and tradition all make clear, the President’s motivations are not for the prosecution or this Court to decide. Rather, where, as here, the President’s actions are within the ambit of his office, he is absolutely immune from prosecution.” "President crimes don't count lol"
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2023 01:05
|
|
|
Judge Schnoopy posted:https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4240537-trump-asks-judge-to-throw-out-jan-6-charges-with-presidential-immunity-defense/amp/ Eli Honig and another law professor on CNN basically said they think this is a pretty solid chance that it goes Trump's way. They said the Supreme court has not ruled on a president or former presidents ability to be charged criminally, and this is well written.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2023 01:39
|
|
|
Scratch Monkey posted:I don’t think trump ever takes questions unless he knows the questioner is 1000% not going to ask something he doesn’t want to answer Yeah because it just turns out like this classic https://youtu.be/uH-UWAlX5AM?si=TDaPudkMVtk7PgoF
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2023 01:45
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/MichaelCohen212/status/1710090677093020144 e: Never Surrender https://twitter.com/KlasfeldReports/status/1710094503464382464 e3: some people are claiming that he didnt want to appear for his deposition and 'without prejudice' means he can just do it again. https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1710092013826101426 OgNar fucked around with this message at 02:02 on Oct 6, 2023 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2023 01:49
|
|
|
Zotix posted:Eli Honig and another law professor on CNN basically said they think this is a pretty solid chance that it goes Trump's way. They said the Supreme court has not ruled on a president or former presidents ability to be charged criminally, and this is well written. It’s possible. But also there’s already been a large number of rulings where judges seemed to be able to differentiate between presidential duties and Trumps political campaign and have pretty much all come down solidly that pretty much all of this is campaigning. I also find Judge Jones’s recent arguments that federalism leaves no room for the president to interfere with the choosing of electors or their voting or how their votes are counted. Which is what he did. It’s also is the only rational answer that makes any sense because lol that a president is authorized to influence his own elections. He has investigative arms that are empowered and regulated to do investigations and they came up negative. He doesn’t get to insert his own desire into the results or we are worse than the proverbial tin pot dictatorship.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2023 02:09
|
|
|
The motion to dismiss I'm always tickled when Nixon and the Outer Perimeter comes up.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2023 02:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 13:05 |
|
|
https://twitter.com/hugolowell/status/1710104460544938307
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2023 02:59
|
|