Donald Trump: Classic or Dud?

speaking of which the other day this whole thing was brought up at the record store and an older guy started talking about how some art organization he was a part of in the 80s did a big event that was sponsored by Trump Tower and featured a speech by the man himself. apparently Trump arrived with some woman who clearly was not his wife, spoke for about 5 minutes and left, then just outright refused to pay a dime, which caused this organization to fold. I believe the way he put it was "fuck that guy, he's a huge asshole and I hope everyone knows it"

Taylor Swift should fly Concorde, which I recall is how Phil Collins was able to get from London to Philly in time to play both cities for Live Aid.

I remember that Collins stunt All Too Well

I do like the idea that someone like Taylor Swift can be so rich and successful that she owns a private decommissioned Concorde.

"Blank Space (Sonic Boom Remix)"

Here's the Wahington Post's latest on the Fani Willis stuff, it goes into lots of details of all the ins and outs. The bottom line is that the accusations may be ridiculous and technically unrelated to the actual case, but there are still many ways for this to go completely off the rails.

Gift link:

https://wapo.st/3UqCHCl

I'm sorry, but this is a don't shit (fuck) where you eat type situation and easily avoidable.

Even if there are no merits.

A love affair with someone you supervise automatically carries plenty of pitfalls. Often it's a bad idea. But this stuff happens everywhere all the time and I haven't heard a whisper that it wasn't consensual. The 'ethics' charges Trump's lawyers raised are all bogus afaics.

It's complete bullshit and a transparently craven move by the Trump team plus GA politicians to undermine the case. I just think it has a non-trivial chance of being consequential bullshit.

Took them long enough, but this is good news

BREAKING: Donald Trump is *NOT* immune from prosecution, DC Circuit rules.

Details TK pic.twitter.com/U0rgc5kNXd

— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) February 6, 2024

Your move, Sam and Clarence.

and Ted and Alice

Photoshop that sucker!

I didn't pay attention in Civics/Gov't class, but how does SCOTUS decide whether to take up or decline to hear a case? Always seemed a mystery to me

whim

Until Taft led a successful effort to reform the cert process, they pretty much by law had to accept almost every appeal.

(four of nine them have to want to hear it)

(four of nine them have to want to hear it)

supposedly the justices discuss whether the case presents elements not adequately addressed by precedent and appropriately settled during appeal, thus requiring SCOTUS review. in reality, what f. hazel said.

I don't have much faith in the Supreme Court either but I don't think they're going to rule on the side of "the President can break the law"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iG3V3CTUliI

I don't have much faith in the Supreme Court either but I don't think they're going to rule on the side of "the President can break the law"

― frogbs, Tuesday, February 6, 2024 1:56 PM

What, in the judicial histories of Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kav and Barrett, makes you think such a thing?

Biden if they ruled that way: "Oh great!" *immediately has them arrested for roffles*

Right, it's all an issue of timing. Give it a year, rule the (GOP) president can declare himself king for life

^^^That's what the Founding Father would have wanted... a Christian Monarchy

where is the lie?

(said everyone who never read a single founding document)

I saw a real document today that Ben Franklin signed. There were wax seals even. I didn't read it but I think I'm better than you guys now.

said everyone who never read a single founding document)

― badpee pooper (Eric H.),

srsly?

ferioufly

no, of course I'm not being serious

I love my irreligious Masonic founding fathers.

ferioufly

i love this post so goddamn much. like my entire mentality fees validated lol

also, the founders were radical dipshits about the even-possibility of tyranny and would have roasted trump on a fucking spit long before now. in my amateur student opinion.

Just a little something

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/feature/intro-chesebro-docs

Hmm, sounds familiar:

During the interview with prosecutors, Chesebro cast himself as the latest in a long line of attorneys to be victimized by Trump and those around him. He blamed the campaign for throwing him under the bus in the years after the Capitol insurrection, suggesting that the campaign ordered him to stay quiet, while also casting him to the Jan. 6 Committee as a rogue attorney, all while refusing to pay his legal bills.

“It’s been a real lesson in not working with people that you don’t know and are not sure you can trust. It really went south for me,” Chesebro told prosecutors. “I had a wonderful apartment in NYC that I had to sell for a $2 million dollar loss, and lost almost all my net worth because of the attorney bill.”

if only there had been some clue that this might happen! lol

I mean if an upshot of everything Trump-legal-related are a bunch of arrogant types who happen to be lawyers getting constantly hosed by their client while even more arrogant types who happen etc. line up for inevitable future hosing, then I welcome these obvious idiots getting theirs.

Cheesebro can go fuck himself. He knew exactly what he was doing.

theorizing, in early stages, went even further than previously known, imagining a Jan. 6 that lasted for not hours but days, an intervention by Supreme Court justices that they presumed to be loyal to President Trump, and a vice president who upended his constitutional duties, allowing the U.S. to descend into chaos

Good to have documentary confirmation. There were open speculations about this train of events even before Jan. 6. Most likely they were fueled by leaks coming from people involved in the conspiracy, especially since the reach of the conspiracy by necessity extended to many hundreds of people, not all of whom were all that bright. Such huge conspiracies are impossible to keep secret and coups d'etat are always preceded by insistent rumors of a coming coup.

No matter what the indictments say are the charges brought by the special counsel, the reality was treason.

I think his own attorneys are clearly not happy with him, per this first story in the overall series:

Attorneys for Chesebro downplayed his involvement to TPM, casting him as a lover of legal theory who lacked both the influence and understanding to impact the Trump campaign’s plans. “If you meet him and ask one straightforward question you’ll get 12 different ways it could be,” Chesebro attorney Manny Arora said.

"He's a confused legal moron who drives us nuts but he's paying us for now."

Okay what the

It appears that Ken Chesebro had a secret online identity in the runup to Jan. 6.

In emails obtained by TPM, Chesebro told other Trump lawyers to read documents uploaded from a Google Drive account called “Badger Pundit,” and encouraged other attorneys, via email, to support him in various Twitter (now known as X) arguments that an account with the “Badger Pundit” handle was engaging in.

It's interesting to note how Trump's recent comments about NATO countries focus on "you don't pay your bills." He literally used those words. The world's most famous non-bill-payer.

So I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say Donald Trump: dud.

But I might kinda admire the brazenness of that hypocrisy if it came from someone less evil and harmful.

Sounds real fun to be around!

That backup X account remains active, and unlocked. Last August, after Georgia prosecutors charged Chesebro and others in a RICO indictment, thebadger14 complained: “Can’t the DA just drop all the RICO stuff, and focus on the fake electors? Seems like that’s plenty.”

hahahahaa so desperate

I like his early work

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIyixC9NsLI

“The Badger Pundit”

🦡

You know what? We complain a lot about the NY Times' coverage of Trump, and rightly so, but today they published a long and exhaustive guide to all his different court cases. (That's a gift link.) This is just the intro:

Former President Donald J. Trump’s legal problems are coming to a head as a wave of law enforcement scrutiny into his business and political careers culminates in overlapping trials and judicial rulings.

Mr. Trump has been sued by the New York attorney general and criminally indicted in four separate cases: two brought by the special counsel Jack Smith, one by the Manhattan district attorney and the last coming from local prosecutors in Georgia.

The result is a striking split screen as Mr. Trump fights multiple lawsuits and 91 felony charges across four states while seeking to lock up the Republican presidential nomination. His first criminal trial could start as soon as March, in the thick of the campaign.

The trials began last year, not with a criminal case, but with the civil trial led by the New York attorney general, Letitia James, who sued Mr. Trump, his adult sons and their family business, accusing them of fraudulently inflating the former president’s net worth by billions of dollars.

Ms. James, a Democrat, wants to extract a penalty of roughly $370 million, and to oust Mr. Trump from his own company and the wider world of New York real estate. In effect, she could run Mr. Trump out of doing business in the state he once called home.

The criminal cases carry far more serious repercussions for Mr. Trump, who could face years behind bars.

The first indictment came in March 2023, when the Manhattan district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg, filed 34 felony charges against Mr. Trump related to what prosecutors described as a scheme to cover up a potential sex scandal and clear his path to the presidency in 2016.

The first federal case came months later, in June, as part of the special counsel’s investigation into Mr. Trump’s handling of classified documents and whether he obstructed the government’s efforts to recover them after he left office.

In that case, Mr. Trump faces 40 criminal counts: 32 related to withholding national defense information, five related to concealing the possession of classified documents, one related to making false statements and two related to an effort to delete security camera footage at Mr. Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate, where he stored the documents.

The special counsel later filed another case — arguably the most consequential of all Mr. Trump’s legal entanglements — accusing him of conspiring to subvert the results of the 2020 election, which he lost to President Biden.

The fourth and perhaps final indictment of Mr. Trump was brought by the Fulton County district attorney, Fani T. Willis, who accused the former president of orchestrating a “criminal enterprise” to reverse Georgia’s results in the 2020 election. He was charged alongside 18 of his lawyers, advisers and supporters as part of a sweeping racketeering case.

Here is where the notable cases involving the former president stand:

And as for their appeal of the immunity decision to the Supreme Court...uh:

Trump's lawyers argue that putting him on trial now would violate the First Amendment rights of "all American voters," who are entitled to hear what he has to say.

https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:rjczpaotvf22sva3wheiwmgk/bafkreia3uo3bczlcg4wt2gr2wlutd3haaeqmgb4dpo3mhfr6djmbxuqav4@jpeg

As you might guess, legal folks on social media are, how you say, bemused.

That is what we call a makeweight.

Or, more accurately, bullshit.

oh to have it dismissed properly as frivolous without briefings or nuthin. it won't