Donald Trump: Classic or Dud?

It's so brazen I'd suggest it's also only lightly polished.

If Trump had friends I bet he'd be invoking the "all my friends are doing it!" defense.

if theres no one watching theres no reason to do a good job

sometimes during a witch hunt, you catch actual witches

He's never actually denied being a witch.

it's defrauding the market and can have a negative impact on ordinary folk who want to borrow from banks themselves. But I think most of the public don't really care that much about it and dismiss it as one the lesser crimes that rich people do. Obv this is just based on a feeling and not quoting any solid opinion polling. But possibly it would prosecuted more if there was more public outrage.

pretty sure theres a high public disapproval of rich people getting away with stuff

I heard a good analogy: you secretly 'borrow' $100 from your boss on a Friday, go to a casino on Saturday and win $1000, then replace the $100 monday morning

Not only did you steal the $100 from your employers, you also stole the other $900 since you couldn't have won it without the first theft

witch hunt

In Trump's case, more like a lil' bitch hunt.

well right now it's more of a snitch hunt

xxp
yeah, I'm probably posting bollox here! But it's kind of boring fraud, like maybe the public get more animated when there are lurid tales of gold bars hidden in the wardrobe or whatever.

it's a miracle he got any work done with all those criminals around him

im sure they would, and that dynamic is illustrative of the corrupt nature of the system altogether, if the people get fired up you can throw them a bone then continue on as per usual xp

it's kind of boring fraud

This is part of the challenge for sure. Like I had a generally well-informed friend saying he just can't get interested in the SBF case because anything to do with crypto just makes his eyes glaze over — a sane reaction, but actually it's been a very entertaining trial imo once you get past the gobbledygook.

the sbf trial is so crazy and funny if you dont like that you dont like financial crimes

is there anyone recommendable doing interesting coverage of the sbf case?

crypto is basically a way to do crimes that are way too stupid to get off the ground in the normal financial system, you gotta love it

is there anyone recommendable doing interesting coverage of the sbf case?

― vodkaitamin effrtvescent (calzino), Tuesday, October 24, 2023 1:54 PM (five seconds ago) bookmarkflaglink

these guys are prob deeper into the case and the whole scene than anyone

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvy1IJyax6E

matt levine also frequently writes about it https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-10-12/ftx-had-many-bad-spreadsheets

thanks, I needed a new wormhole to go down!

enjoy, its good stuff lol

the whole lewis take of "but wait-- the money isn't necessarily even gone because ~accounting~, there's a good chance many victims will be made whole" at that point my eyes don't glaze over but just refuse to look there because fuck these guys

lewis is really not covering himself in glory recently, which is a shame hes such a good writer, the government has throughly demonstrated that the money is in fact gone, not all of it but prob like half, also even if the money was all there the ftx brass were simply doing crimes left and right

apparently one of the investments sbf made with ftx customer funds did well and sbfs lawyers were like hey look at this that moneys not stolen its right here in fact it grew and can cover for some of the other stolen money and the judge said if i steal a dollar from you and buy a scratch ticket that hits and then pay you back i have still stolen a dollar from you (exactly the same point andy was making upthread re trump)

As I understand it, it's not that they are hand-picked, per se, but that lawyers have a certain number of "vetoes," and have to do so strategically. (Lawyers, is this right?) Like, lawyers can't just say "no" to every juror, forever, especially when everyone knows the defendant and their alleged crimes.

― Josh in Chicago, Tuesday, October 24, 2023 7:41 AM bookmarkflaglink

During the jury selection process I believe each side can excuse (veto) an unlimited number of jurors for cause ("cause" including displaying bias - there can be a side bar with the judge to argue this) and a set number of peremptory challenges (challenges where you don't have to provide an explanation).

However, there is case law prohibiting using peremptory challenges solely for racial reasons or in a way that is otherwise biased (Batson v. Kentucky being one of these cases.)

So a jury is not exactly hand-picked but it's not also completely uncurated.

felicity otm.

I see that a third lawyer in the Georgia case, Jenna Ellis, has now flipped.

Rats, ship, etc.

having to smell two of Giuliani's close range farts at a hearing should have been enough to break her

I hear that people are now starting to say that Mr. Trump may not be permitted infinite wriggles in the direction of 'out'.

how many farts must a man crack out

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution had a pretty interesting profile on Chesebro this past Sunday. People who know him well (e.g., his law school classmates at Hahvahd) are astonished at what appears to be a complete right turn in his life. Again, I am amazed at the power of Trump's only true talent: getting people to destroy themselves for his own aggrandizement.

Among the gazillions of reasons for concern about another Trump presidency is what kinds of people are still willing to go anywhere near him. The "adults in the room" of the first term, such as they were, did actually stop him from doing a lot of crazy shit. If he somehow gets thru all of this and ends up as president, it's going to be nothing but grifters, goons and Stephen Miller.

And he may never leave office voluntarily.

I hear that people are now starting to say that Mr. Trump may be permitted infinite isolations in the direction of 'increasingly.'

Keep 'em coming

“Obviously we didn’t win.”

ABC EXCLUSIVE — Mark Meadows has testified before a grand jury in exchange for immunity - according to sources familiar with the former chief of staff’s conversations with the Special Counsel.

Meadows told prosecutors he he agreed the 2020 election…

— Jonathan Karl (@jonkarl) October 24, 2023

Neanderthal

how many farts must a man crack out

The answer, my friend, is breaking in the wind

maybe the public get more animated when there are lurid tales of gold bars hidden in the wardrobe or whatever.

or nuclear secrets in the shitter

how many farts must a man crack out

what makes a man shart liars?

He’s got a lot on his mind right now, including holiday cakes:

I don’t think Mark Meadows would lie about the Rigged and Stollen 2020 Presidential Election merely for getting IMMUNITY against Prosecution (PERSECUTION!)

https://i.imgur.com/aAhNHZ9.jpg

Oh. I thought ^^^ that was a closeup of Trump's brain.

not enough yeast

Trump compared himself to Nelson Mandela. I'm just gonna say that sentence a couple of times.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgnPzDtgUl0

bless jimmy kimmel for immediately calling him Nelson Mandelicatessen.

lol A+. I can't believe I just listened to 2:24 of this idiot, but it was edifying to learn that we have gone to "communism, Marxism, fascism" since he left office. I must have missed the memo.

It's been hard out here.

I'll try to get out of the habit of posting tweets, but this was posted by Erica Orden:

Judge Engoron just tore into Trump, accusing him of having potentially violated the gag order again with comments he made outside the courtroom. Judge said he is under the impression Trump again disparaged his law clerk. Trump lawyer Chris Kise argued Trump was referring to Cohen

Here is what Trump said: "it would have been fair at least...because no negative jury would vote against me. But this judge will, because this judge is a very partisan judge with a person who's very partisan sitting alongside… perhaps even much more partisan than he is.”

The judge said: "I am very protective of my staff, as i should be…I don’t want anybody killed." After Kise claimed Trump was referring to Cohen, Judge Engoron said he would take the matter under advisement.

More Engoron: "I stated the last time that any future violations would be severely punished.
Why should there not be severe sanctions for this blatant, dangerous disobeyal of a court order?"

The judge is now closing the courtroom with Trump and lawyers still in there.

Trump just exited the courtroom. He refused to say what happened during the conference.

He denied that his earlier comment was about the clerk but he refused to answer multiple questions about who he was referring to.

lock him up!

Ok but "disobeyal"?

Disobeying, disobedience, defiance, flouting, ignoring... those are words

I don't say evasion, I say avoision

OED allows it, dates from 1889 xp

lock him up!

Ad inifinitum.

dornaldo troomps for prions

Oh shit, looks like the judge put Trump on the stand, found him not credible, and fined him $10,000 on top of the previous $5000. Which, sure, is not a lot in Trumpworld, but you know it pissed him off.