|
Fuschia tude posted:lol at thinking that Donald J. Trump will continue to honor the terms of any agreement the nanosecond the president signs that pardon In this case, Trump would have to hold up to his side until the GOP president takes office, after which the new POTUS would pardon him, and Trump would no longer be needed. But yeah, at this point I think it's pretty clear that the case hinges on jury selection. If the prosecution can manage to filter out all true believer MAGA chuds from the jury, Trump will likely be convicted. If they can't, it will be a hung jury, mistrial and a huge circus. The prosecution will probably want to do everything they can to avoid the second option, and dripfeeding incriminating stuff about Trump to the public while letting him mouth off about it might literally be a strategy. So who knows who benefits the most from delay.
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2022 14:27
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 17:46 |
|
|
Fart Amplifier posted:The current president can declassify anything. This is not correct. While most classification stems from the executive, and therefore a sitting president can undo it at will, there are a few categories of classified material that are classified by separate law, which means that only the congress can declassify such documents, by passing a bill. One such category is "nuclear secrets", or things covered by the Atomic Energy acts of 1946 and 1954. This is why "nuclear secrets" has been such a hot topic in this investigation -- if Trump stole those, they remained classified even if he tried to declassify them. Another category protected by law is identity of spies working for the US.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2022 21:42
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:That doesn't make it declassified. It just means the President has all the access to all the things at once if they so choose. To further stir the pot, the POTUS does have the power to declassify most things with a word. Because most things that are classified are classified under executive orders, which the president can give or rescind at will, even verbally. My point was just that while that's true of most things, it doesn't cover exactly everything, because a few categories of information are classified under acts of congress.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2022 22:14
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:whats funny is even if its all long shaggy dogs story, the GOP is gonna waste even more time and tie itself even closer to trump because the chuds demand it and now we will see some impeachment effort on garland because of this. if they had any brains they would ignore this and keep severing ties to the fucker like they were trying to do last week. Thinking strategically, their biggest possible win would be backing Trump 110%, and then Trump losing and going to prison for long enough for him to never be a political actor again. The big problem of the GOP right now is that they have created a monster they no longer like, but cannot afford to let go lest it eat them too. Trump is probably not going to win any elections going forward (exhibit 1: all the guys he picked for midterms who massively underperformed), but he also has the ability to make any republican candidate lose by either running third party, or just poo poo-talking about them to his hordes of supporters.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2022 22:05
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:I dismissed that because it's clearly not their best possible hope. Sorry, I meant "lose the case", not "lose the election". That is, the best outcome for GOP is that they are publicly loyal to Trump, but then Trump goes away forever before he has time to do any more damage. It gets them to co-op back his base, without having to deal with him anymore. And I very much don't think this is the best possible outcome for the country.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2022 00:51
|
|
|
Tatsuta Age posted:so your theory is the secret servixe is gonna go "sorry sir you're late for court, get out of bed!" I don't think they are supposed to do that at their own initiative, but they do have to obey a court order, and the judge knows they are always around and how to contact them. I doubt this has actually happened, but the point is that if trump tries playing cute and missing appointments, the judge has a really easy way to enforce compliance, everyone knows this, and so it isn't tested.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2023 23:49
|
|
|
Caros posted:Between the various ongoing cases, I'm fairly sure he has blow through a lot of his on hand cash. Most rich people are really cash-poor, and at any point have much more debt than cash. This is both because they can loan money at very favorable rates, giving them an advantage if they invest it, and because it's tax-optimal. Trump definitely still has a bunch of hard assets. The way you usually use those as cash without having to sell them is you take debt against them. However, judgements have priority over debt, and there are a whole bunch of cases that could be very expensive ongoing against him, meaning that lenders might be unwilling to deal with him. So he'd have to sell to have cash, and that would be newsworthy on it's own.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2023 18:04
|
|
|
dr_rat posted:Haha, it's amazing how such openly weird and lovely people some how keep making it on to the US national political stage. The amazing part is that Santos probably didn't want to win. He's a scam artist, whose latest scam seemed to be doing political campaigns in hopeless districts and pocketing campaign money. Only the local democrats hosed up so bad he ended up winning and now has to manage in the congress.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2023 17:48
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Trump being barred would likely result in a significant fracturing of the Republican party as some portion of its base would commit even more fully to conspiracy theories around the election, likely splitting and diminishing R turnout. I doubt that. I think what would happen is that whoever comes out on top in the primary is going to be screeching really loud about how the drat liberals did Trump dirty, regardless of what they believe, just to woo the MAGA crowd too. (And then not actually do anyhing that's not symbolic about it.) Trump being ineligible for office makes supporting him risk-free. (Or at least seem risk-free.)
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2024 09:01
|
|
|
Caros posted:Goons really do ruin everything. ... but also: FLIPADELPHIA posted:Hate to be That Guy but the Ghandi Civ thing is an urban legend The one spelled out above this post is specifically an urban legend that I started on tvtropes to troll people.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2024 12:40
|
|
|
Judge Schnoopy posted:Wtf?!? I've read web articles detailing the bug, and I swear they even quoted people who worked on the game. And it was just you loving with me all along?? All of those web articles sourced from tvtropes. The reason gandhi was like that in Civ 1 is that everyone was like that in civ1. There was just not a lot of difference between the AI behaviour.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2024 12:54
|
|
|
Fell Fire posted:Are you being sarcastic? This is the literal opposite of what they believed. I believe The Top G:s shtick is dropping into random threads to drop random trolls. But I actually believe that the USSC could come out with that decision. Even though it's not true and they have absolutely used the opposite logic in the past.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2024 17:09
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:If Trump was just a house member in an not super contested district they probably would give him the same poo poo they gave Santos. To be clear, kicking out Santos is quite possibly going to lose the republicans a house seat. The seat has not been contested in the past, as it was a safely D. The reason Santos won was that the liked incumbent left the seat for a gubernatorial run, and the guy the party found to replace him was really unlikable and just a bad candidate in so many ways. The old democrat incumbent has announced he's running to replace Santos. Against him, the republicans are running a registered democrat (?).
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2024 01:08
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Right, but Germany having an infantile democracy is not patently untrue. I really think it is. In some ways, late Imperial Germany was a more democratic state than, for example, the UK was at the same time period. Neither of them were absolute monarchies, they both had an established constitutional system, they both had similar nominal split in power between the monarchy and the parliament/reichstag. The big differences were that the actual power available to the monarch was somewhat lower in Britain, as while the king could in principle fire the PM at any time, if he actually did that without a drat good reason it would have resulted in a constitutional crisis that would likely have caused him to lose this power, and everyone knew that so he didn't. But this really shouldn't be overstated, as for all his powers the kaiser lacked the power of the purse and was fully beholden to the reichstag on anything that potentially cost money. And the way they were more democratic than Britain is that the wide franchise came to Britain very late. When the first world war started, every adult German man had the vote and was represented in the Reichstag, while way less than half of the British men did, most of them denied representation by various property requirements. This was well represented in the composition of the respective legislative assemblies, with the UK parliament mainly consisting of the Tories and Liberals, with 7% of the seats held by Labour, while in the Reichstag the SPD was the largest party at 28%. The biggest difference between the countries was that of image. The UK was proud of it's liberal, representational heritage, while everyone conveniently ignored that it was very much a government of the small rich minority for the small rich minority. For the Germans, it was important to represent themselves as a powerful, conservative monarchy, while everyone conveniently ignored that the monarch hardly had the power to wipe his own rear end if he couldn't get the reichstag to sign off on it. It's notable that pre-war Germany was also significantly more democratic than Weimar Germany was. The kind of authoritarian rule by decree that was repeatedly used during the Weimar period would have been unthinkable before the war. It's not that the German people were unfamiliar with democratic institutions; it's that the institutions were eroded away and people lost confidence in them during and immediately after the war. (In 1918, you could argue that Germany was neither a monarchy nor democratic, but instead a military dictatorship.) Post-war the moderate center of the German political field was hollowed out because they were (and not entirely wrongly) held as the culprits of the disastrous war and all the loss caused by it.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2024 18:22
|
|
|
small butter posted:Trump is not really in control of his businesses in NY but the monitor is, correct? So what happens when the deadline comes? Is the monitor looking at what to liquidate now or does that process start at the deadline? A good way to think about it is that the monitor can never do anything at their own initiative. They have fiduciary duty both to Trump and the people he owes money to, and cannot do anything that harms either party's interest (which covers basically everything they could possibly do), unless compelled to do so by the appropriate legal order. So the monitor basically has to twiddle their thumbs until the appropriate paperwork is delivered to them.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2024 15:02
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:Is the judge/prosecuting team in GA a bunch of clowns or what? Most important trial ever and they gently caress it up left and right and also were loving. I'd argue that this is probably less of a fuckup and more of trying to get away with something. It is to the prosecutor's benefit to charge with as vague of indictments as possible, it's to the defendant's benefit to be charged with as specific of an indictment as possible. The prosecutors did not lose the case, they were told they pushed it a bit too far and should come back with a more specific indictment. All it cost them was a bit of time.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2024 19:23
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:*in full British imperial regalia* [posh laughing noises] Prime post/AV combo.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2024 15:28
|
|
|
dr_rat posted:Says RNC gets a cut after legal fees. Hahaha, there is absolutely no possibility RNC gets a cut whatever happens. It's funnier than that. Every individual who donates to the joint fundraising vehicle (that is, trying to donate to RNC) will first donate the legal maximum directly to Trump's campaign, then the legal maximum to Trump's legal fee slush fund, and then everything above that goes to RNC. The person detailing the plan to press said that it's not that bad because if you donate $800k to the RNC, then almost all of the money actually goes to the RNC, and only a little bit goes to Trump. Lol.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2024 21:55
|
|
|
mdemone posted:So what does property seizure actually look like on this scale? Are they just going to put a chain on the doors to the golf clubhouse? Does everybody in 40 Wall Street have to stand outside on the sidewalk? I would expect that if the properties have current tenants, the government wants to minimize disruption to them to maximize sale price of the asset. I think what happens is just a whole bunch of lawyers contact the tenants and tell them to switch the accounts they pay rent to.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2024 17:07
|
|
|
The Lone Badger posted:Does the bank get the full proceeds of the auction and get told to go bother Trump for the balance of the loan, and the court moves on to the next property with $0 recorded in the 'amount seized so far' column? Correct. The civil judgement is last in line for recovery.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2024 10:28
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:On the other hand, if a debt is forgiven it is counted as taxable income. If someone wants to gift Trump money they won't forgive the loans, they just defer collecting until he's dead.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2024 10:35
|
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:Would a juror also be excused if they posted something about how great Trump is? If the prosecution wanted to kick them out for that, absolutely. (And they should.)
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2024 02:12
|
|
|
Looks fairly normal schizophrenic rambling to me.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2024 20:47
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 17:46 |
|
|
OrthoTrot posted:... competent attorneys ... I would like to point out that just very a bit upthread, there is a story about how a Trump attorney asked a witness a question, didn't like how the answer is very comprehensive and bad for Trump, and attempted to strike his own question. Maybe these are not the most competent attorneys.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2024 02:04
|
|