Moderators: LawBeefaroni, $iljanus
I'm not sure if you're referencing this, but he'll start receiving intelligence briefings again this week after he receives the nomination.What country in their right mind would share ANY sensitive information with the US, knowing that it could end up on the floor of a Mar-a-lago shitter waiting to be sold to the highest bidder...and the American legal system has rubber stamped that as being perfectly ok?
I don't know where you're getting your supply of Hope, but I would like to borrow some.
Until Trump wins the election. Then it will just disappear.
I wasn't thinking of that specifically, but yeah...total nightmare.Smoove_B wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 12:11 pmI'm not sure if you're referencing this, but he'll start receiving intelligence briefings again this week after he receives the nomination.What country in their right mind would share ANY sensitive information with the US, knowing that it could end up on the floor of a Mar-a-lago shitter waiting to be sold to the highest bidder...and the American legal system has rubber stamped that as being perfectly ok?
Makes total sense.
I assume when this happens the appeal to have the case reviewed by the Supreme Court has been written and ready to go.
I agree. I can't understand why she went nuclear. She could have kept control of the case and slow-walked it for as long as she needed.
I assume she was told to (and not by Thomas but someone else).
And to do it today… so it won’t be headline news and just a gift to the emperor. And sympathy for the emperor of democracy because of the assassination attempt means the public will shrug.
Exactly how Trump's DOJ wanted it. Statue of limitations has long expired.
Well, his finances weren't fully maga-fied yet, and he really needed money...GreenGoo wrote:10 million? Not only was he selling the US, he's selling it on the cheap.
Where’s this “different judge” stuff coming from? In my limited appellate experience, a case on remand is remanded to the judge who had it below, absent a finding that there was a conflict of interest. Am I off on that?
Remember the 11h has already rebuked her once in this case.4. The best outcome for the government would be to get the case to the Eleventh Circuit quickly and obtain a ruling reversing Judge Cannon. The icing on the cake would be to have the circuit order that the case be reassigned on remand to a new judge. As we discussed, that’s a possibility here where a judge has been reversed repeatedly in a matter, and Judge Cannon’s behavior certainly has cast the integrity of the courts into question. Clearing the air by assigning a new judge would be the institutionally sound move here.
That's actually true, so I can understand why he would sell for cheap, but man, missed opportunity to grift harder.
They market sets the price.
Don't worry he did fine, as did kushner...GreenGoo wrote:That's actually true, so I can understand why he would sell for cheap, but man, missed opportunity to grift harder.
When you phrase your confusion like that, I'm not sure what side you are saying needs to explain itself.
I'm confused about your question.
Okay, we both see it the same way - so I will explain where I got confused...El Guapo wrote: ↑Mon Aug 05, 2024 11:16 amI'm confused about your question.
Typically one would donate to a campaign during the campaign, and not after the campaign is over. To the extent that the allegation is that this is just a straight up bribe to the then incoming president, that would make sense, but that's not what the articles I have seen have described / alleged.
He came out cheap, is my point. That he learned from that mistake I'm quite certain.
I guess I'm just looking for it to be spelled out more to make sure that I understand it. Is it related to them wanting to get Trump elected (like maybe the withdrawal was to cover donations previously made)? Or is it for influencing the incoming president (i.e. bribes)? Obviously both are bad.Unagi wrote: ↑Mon Aug 05, 2024 11:40 amOkay, we both see it the same way - so I will explain where I got confused...El Guapo wrote: ↑Mon Aug 05, 2024 11:16 amI'm confused about your question.
Typically one would donate to a campaign during the campaign, and not after the campaign is over. To the extent that the allegation is that this is just a straight up bribe to the then incoming president, that would make sense, but that's not what the articles I have seen have described / alleged.
I followed you until your second sentence (in red, above)
When you say, "Not that it's not a little shady" ... "curious about the theory here"
Sounded like you were questioning just how shady it should be taken, and you wanted people who found it super-shady to explain their theory.
If you found it shady and the 'campaign donation' theory sounded lame, I would have expected your second sentence to have said something like:
It's nothing but shady..., especially the coverup. I'm curious how they thought that theory would make chronological sense.
Does that confusion make sense? Or do I fail at reading...
Also! I guess I have not really read the articles, and that's probably my real problem... As I assumed they were hinting at straight-up bribes.
I don't think the campaign ceases to exist after the election, does it? Contributions could still be made to pay for outstanding expenses, or upcoming ones, like the inauguration itself.
Here's a good breakdown from the WaPo article ( https://www.washingtonpost.com/investig ... stigation/) ...El Guapo wrote: ↑Mon Aug 05, 2024 2:20 pmI guess I'm just looking for it to be spelled out more to make sure that I understand it. Is it related to them wanting to get Trump elected (like maybe the withdrawal was to cover donations previously made)? Or is it for influencing the incoming president (i.e. bribes)? Obviously both are bad.Unagi wrote: ↑Mon Aug 05, 2024 11:40 amOkay, we both see it the same way - so I will explain where I got confused...El Guapo wrote: ↑Mon Aug 05, 2024 11:16 amI'm confused about your question.
Typically one would donate to a campaign during the campaign, and not after the campaign is over. To the extent that the allegation is that this is just a straight up bribe to the then incoming president, that would make sense, but that's not what the articles I have seen have described / alleged.
I followed you until your second sentence (in red, above)
When you say, "Not that it's not a little shady" ... "curious about the theory here"
Sounded like you were questioning just how shady it should be taken, and you wanted people who found it super-shady to explain their theory.
If you found it shady and the 'campaign donation' theory sounded lame, I would have expected your second sentence to have said something like:
It's nothing but shady..., especially the coverup. I'm curious how they thought that theory would make chronological sense.
Does that confusion make sense? Or do I fail at reading...
Also! I guess I have not really read the articles, and that's probably my real problem... As I assumed they were hinting at straight-up bribes.
So.. campaign needed cash, Trump is a cheap SOB, but maybe Egypt agreed to fund him, so he made a "loan" to the campaign.As the Mueller team got going, investigators focused on how at the time candidate Trump met with Sisi in 2016, Trump’s campaign had been running low on funds. They learned through interviews with the candidate’s closest advisers that they had pleaded with Trump to write a check to his campaign for a final blitz of television ads. Trump repeatedly declined — until Oct. 28, roughly five weeks after the meeting with Sisi, when he announced the $10 million infusion. In the context of the Egypt intelligence, investigators considered the amount a point of interest, people familiar with the probe said. Though the infusion was recorded in campaign finance reports as a contribution, Trump’s campaign finance chairman had structured the transaction as a loan that could be repaid to Trump to persuade him to approve the deal, according to FBI interview notes of a key Trump adviser.
Team 10 began looking for signs of the alleged transfer of the same amount — searching for evidence of the money either leaving Egypt or arriving with Trump.
I'm also quite certain that Egypt's now-proven bribes to Bob Menendez are the only time they've ever done such a thing.Over the course of his presidency, Trump shifted U.S. policy in ways that benefited the Egyptian leader, a man he once called “my favorite dictator.” In 2018, Trump’s State Department released $195 million in military aid that the United States had been withholding over human rights abuses — a move that had been opposed by his first secretary of state — followed by the release of $1.2 billion more in such assistance.
Maybe not an insta-appeal, but he did get it in the day before the deadline. Notably, he isn't asking for her removal.
Special Counsel Jack Smith has filed his appeal of Judge Cannon's dismissal of the Obstruction and Espionage classified documents case on the grounds that he was appointed improperly.
Special counsel Jack Smith has charged former President Donald Trump in a superseding indictment in his federal election interference case that charges him with the same offenses in the original indictment, but is adjusted to the Supreme Court's recent presidential immunity ruling.
"The superseding indictment, which was presented to a new grand jury that had not previously heard evidence in this case, reflects the Government's efforts to respect and implement the Supreme Court's holdings and remand instructions," a Justice Department spokesperson said Tuesday.
...
While the original indictment laid out five ways Trump allegedly obstructed the function of the federal government -- having state election officials change electoral votes, arranging fraudulent slates of electors, using the Department of Justice to conduct "sham" investigations, enlisting the Vice President to obstruct the certification of the election, and exploiting the chaos of the Jan. 6 riot -- the new indictment removes mention of his use of the Department of Justice, which was explicitly mentioned in the Supreme Court's ruling as falling within his official duties.
While the original indictment mentions the Justice Department on over 30 occasions, the new indictment makes no mention of the DOJ.
It also reframes the portion of the original indictment outlining that Trump allegedly knew his claims of election fraud were false.
The filing was unsealed on Wednesday. It was submitted by special counsel Jack Smith’s team following a supreme court opinion that conferred broad immunity on former presidents and narrowed the scope of the prosecution.
...
Prosecutors laid out details including an allegation that a White House staffer heard Trump tell family members that it did not matter if he won or lost the election, “you still have to fight like hell”.
The new filing cites previously unknown accounts offered by Trump’s closest aides to paint a portrait of an “increasingly desperate” president who, while losing his grip on the White House, “used deceit to target every stage of the electoral process”.
“So what?” the filing quotes Trump as telling an aide after being alerted that his vice-president, Mike Pence, was in potential danger after a crowd of violent supporters stormed the US Capitol on January 6.
“The details don’t matter,” Trump said, when told by an adviser that a lawyer who was mounting his legal challenges would not be able to prove the false allegations in court, the filing states.
It's just getting started
Having a really, really hard time understanding (just on what little I've seen from what's been revealed so far) why Merrick Garland has been slow rolling this for 3+ years. I don't get the impression this is stuff that was just learned last week.Smith has evidence of what Trump was looking at on his phone while he was sitting at the White House watching TV during the afternoon of Jan. 6
If our democracy is damaged, a big chunk of the blame should be laid at his feet.
Trump supporters are in an oubliette of sorts. There is no way out, they have taken up residency and will not, or more accurately, cannot move.YellowKing wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2024 8:29 am Gotta love how some rumors about Hillary's email server was enough to torpedo her "sure thing" election victory at this point in the election in 2016, but exposure of Trump's numerous crimes in trying to overthrow democracy won't budge the polls at all.
Undoubtedly. However, 165 pages of DonOld trying to stage an actual coup is a pretty nice October surprise.
Still one of my favorite jokes about his early years in the WH.
