1. #75901
    Quote Originally Posted by Lenonis View Post
    I can't help but wonder -- if someone is actually serious about trying to assassinate the president...would it be possible they don't have issues?

    I mean the mentality you'd have to adopt to think you are not only capable of killing someone in cold blood but also capable of pulling it off requires a detachment from reality that I think firmly moves you out of any sort of well side of mental health.
    Let’s put it this way, if Trump had got his way and Pence had refused to certify the election and cheated to hand Trump the win and McConnell and the Supreme Court all went along with it. How many do you think would have been ready to try and take him out even if it cost them their lives and their freedom in an attempt to protect their nation and their children?

    Not saying that this guy was sane, he was obviously batshit as was the January 6th group along with the majority of the Republican Party over the past decade.

    Just calling into account how anyone who would attempt would have to be crazy. It all depends on how far the envelope is pushed before that response crosses the threshold from crazy to understandable and beyond.
    Since we can't call out Trolls and Bad Faith posters and the Ignore function doesn't actually ignore it. Add
    "mmo-champion.com##li.postbitignored"
    to your ublock or adblock filter to actually ignore ignored posters. Now just need a way to ignore responses to them as well.

  2. #75902
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    This is good shit, threatening to kill people isn't cool. Ever. Also, this is kinda hilarious because the old guy called...the Secret fucking Service to phone in this threat? From his cell phone? Three times? And identified himself by name? And voluntarily went in for interviews over a year and half with them?
    He might be nuts but I think this is someone very publicly calling attention to himself. Its almost like he's using the court system to make a political statement.

  3. #75903
    Void Lord Breccia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    41,373
    Well, once again, it's a bad day to be a Trump ally.

    1) Or, in some cases, just near Trump. One of Trump's golf courses was recently devauled by Trump, on the grounds of he said so. Well, no, that's not completely true. He claimed on his fiscal disclosure forms it was worth $50 million as recently as Dec 15. But on his taxes, which yes tell more than fiscal disclosure forms, he reduced the value from $15 million to $10 million. This caused a domino effect that ends with the average resident in the area paying $250 more and the local school district almost $600,000.

    2) CNN brought an actual cult member, specifically the Unification Church more information here, to explain how Trump is, in fact, a cult leader.

    3) Local officials in Arizona and Michigan were caught submitting fake documents to the National Archives claiming Trump won their state.

    Taking legal action against at least one pro-Trump group, Arizona sent a cease and desist letter to a Trump-supporting “sovereign citizen” group in which they told them to stop using the state seal, sending the issue on to the state’s attorney general.

    Group leader Lori Osiecki told the Arizona Republic in December 2020 that she chose to send in the fake documents after going to rallies after the election and attending a full-day meeting in Phoenix where then-Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani was present. After the meeting, she was upset that Governor Doug Ducey wasn’t helping Mr Trump overturn the election.
    The Michigan one didn't use the state seal and was as transparently false as something Trump says.

    4) The GA AG is closer to deciding if Trump will face charges for trying to extort the state of Georgia. In an unrelated coincidence, the Jan 6th panel is looking into state pressure as well.

    5) Dershowitz asked Trump to pardon Maxwell. Huh. Wonder why one person on the Lolita Express would...oh. Yeah.

    6) A year after election, RNC still spending hundreds of thousands to cover Trump's legal bills

    In October and November alone, the Republican National Committee spent nearly $720,000 of its donor money on paying law firms representing Trump in various legal challenges, including criminal investigations into his businesses in New York, according to campaign finance records.

    Trump's legal bills have sent the Republican Party's total legal expenditures soaring in recent months, resulting in $3 million spent just between September and November. In contrast, the Democratic National Committee has been gradually winding down its legal expenses over the last few months.
    7) Trump is having issues in court again, but this time, with regard to his personal liability for the riot. He tried "absolute immunity" agin, which even if it applied to everything he said job-related, the Jan 6th event was not an official WH duty. It was a re-election duty. Trump does not have "absolute immunity" the USA does not have kings or emperors. Just because he says it while in the White House, doesn't make him immune to the consequences of his speech.

    8) I can't top this headline: Jim Jordan is sure acting like a guy who knows he’s guilty and probably going to jail

    In a letter addressed to committee chair Rep. Bennie Thompson, Jordan said the committee’s request that he provide information about his communication with ex-president Donald Trump in the days leading up to the deadly attack is “an unprecedented and inappropriate demand to examine the basis for a colleague’s decision on a particular matter pending before the House of Representatives.”

    He also called the request “an outrageous abuse of [the committee’s] authority” and said it falls “far outside the bounds of any legitimate inquiry, violates core Constitutional principles, and would serve to further erode legislative norms.”

    Then he accused the committee of being “partisan” and said he has “no relevant information” that would help the investigation anyway, nor does he have any “confidence that the Select Committee will fairly or accurately represent” whatever information he does provide.
    Indeed, "I don't know anything and I wouldn't tell you anyhow" does not sound like the kind of thing someone with nothing to hide would say.

    9) So, have you heard Trump's social media platform is due to launch within a month or so? I hope you have! Also, it's already broken to uselessness.

    As a reminder, they got a $1 billion...in theory...ally named DWA. Turns out, DWA has a pretty low number of employees. It's zero. They have an address, but it's a shared office in Miami. They have no business plan and have already missed mandatory filings. Basically, they're shady as hell and yes the SEC is investigating.

    Oh, and as a reminder, they can't/won't get any other backers -- not even Parler, who asked -- because other sites won't ban people for saying mean things about Trump, and Trump insisted on that. Also don't forget its first beta launch in October was almost entirely hackers and trolls, therefore, that first launch lasted a few hours.

    All of these stories were posted in the last 24 hours. You don't have to go looking for reports that Trump lied and lost. It's everywhere.

  4. #75904
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivanstone View Post
    He might be nuts but I think this is someone very publicly calling attention to himself. Its almost like he's using the court system to make a political statement.
    Go for it. The First Amendment is not, and has never been absolute and threats against officials, especially the POTUS, have a long history of being taken seriously. I'm not sure what political statement he'd be trying to make outside of, "You can't threaten a sitting/former president with assassination, specifically to the very department responsible for protecting said POTUS/former POTUS."

  5. #75905
    Quote Originally Posted by Vegas82 View Post
    *looks at Kathy Griffin*
    *coughs*
    Yes? That had nothing to do with the First Amendment, what she did was extremely legal. The consequences she faced were purely social, as they should be.

    If I'm reading Ivanstone correctly, he's thinking this might be a legal challenge to the First Amendment and how far it extends.

  6. #75906
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    81,933
    Quote Originally Posted by Vegas82 View Post
    *looks at Kathy Griffin*
    *coughs*
    What Griffin did wasn't an explicit threat, and implicit threats need a lot of extra backing to be a legal issue.

    What Griffin did was less problematic than that map with certain Democratic members with crosshairs on them, put out by Sarah Palin's PAC, including among the targets Gabby Giffords. Who then got shot in the actual head.

    Now, there was no direct connection, and it was ruled that there was no direct incitement there, but there was an actual attack to consider.

    The Giffords image was gruesome and she deserved to take flak for it, but claiming it was a threat is a kneejerk of epic proportions and anyone trying to connect those dots is being more than a little silly.


  7. #75907
    Void Lord Breccia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    41,373
    Couple of quick things:

    One, Team Trump is asking the NY AG to recuse herself from the investigation into Trump's businesses, on the grounds of "she might find out about all that stuff we did".

    The motion, filed in the Northern District of N.Y., accuses the Democratic attorney general of overreach and launching a "politically-motivated attack."

    It called the "co-mingling of joint criminal and civil investigations" into the Trump Organization "highly prejudicial."

    "By playing both sides, she is able to cherry pick her investigatory methods—civil or criminal—in a calculated manner to, for example, leverage a Fifth Amendment assertion and obtain an adverse inference," the filing alleges.
    To be fair, there may be some loophole Trump can exploit here. Maybe. I honestly don't believe that NY law was written with this situation in mind. "What if an organization is so ridiculously fat and illegal," they didn't say, "that we'd need two entirely different prosecutors to handle it? Oh, and sonehow they wouldn't exchange information or even speak while doing so?" If Trump's businesses both owe money and also committed crimes, saying the AG has to pick one or the other doesn't seem like it's going to help much.

    Two, and I'm not dignifying this with a link, Hannity says the Jan 6th panel needs to subpoena Pelosi.

    No, really.

    This is, of course, part of the Party of Trump's attempt to lie and deflect about the problem with Jan 6th. Desperate to avoid the question being "why was there a murderous insurrection?" they want the question to be "why didn't they stop the murderous insurrection we started?"

  8. #75908
    Void Lord Breccia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    41,373
    Quote Originally Posted by Vegas82 View Post
    On the Georgia stuff, Trump’s lawyers apparently had an in person meeting with the people in charge of the case.
    Yeah...Trump's not happy about that. There is enough public information about whta Trump and Team Trump did and tried to do, to suggest charges could be filed based purely on that. I mean, we have GA officials who recorded it talking about it on live TV for a calendar year now.

    I suspect you're right, that GA was basically asking Trump to plead out -- and Trump would literally rather die than admit what he did was wrong.

  9. #75909
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    Yes? That had nothing to do with the First Amendment, what she did was extremely legal. The consequences she faced were purely social, as they should be.

    If I'm reading Ivanstone correctly, he's thinking this might be a legal challenge to the First Amendment and how far it extends.
    I don't think he's challenging the First Amendment. I think he just wants to make a big statement: "I'm Thomas Welnicki and I hate Trump this much." Unlike Kathy Griffin he can't just ramble on social media and expect to be heard. People say stupid shit on the internet all the time and its just noise. Welnicki very clearly stated his name to someone who would take his statements seriously and then turned himself into a televised event.

  10. #75910
    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    Couple of quick things:

    One, Team Trump is asking the NY AG to recuse herself from the investigation into Trump's businesses, on the grounds of "she might find out about all that stuff we did".

    To be fair, there may be some loophole Trump can exploit here. Maybe. I honestly don't believe that NY law was written with this situation in mind.
    Huh. This is pretty much what I posted a talking head on CNN said could happen last week, and I got read the riot act for it. LOL

  11. #75911
    Quote Originally Posted by Vegas82 View Post
    You posted that Trump’s lawyers made this argument on CNN… keep up.
    NO, I posted that ex prosecuter Elie Honig said that. Keep up yourself

  12. #75912
    Void Lord Breccia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    41,373
    So let's talk about anti-vaxxer and therefore Trump supporter Christopher Key.

    He's pissed.

    "Don't you mean fucked?"

    Not this time, no. The leader of the "Vaccine Police" (eyeroll) recently posted that urine cures COVID.

    The antidote that we have seen now, and we have tons and tons of research, is urine therapy. I know to a lot of you this sounds crazy, but guys, God’s given us everything we need.

    Now drink urine! I drink my own urine!
    "...okay...surely that's based on a scientific study?"

    No.

    "A non-scientific study?"

    Would it matter? But, no. This is the closest I could find, a study that suggests you can detect COVID by how much your urine foams.

    "How do you know he's not Deep State, trying to trick Trump supporters into drinking their own urine?"

    Well, there's the part where he was arrested for not masking in a supermarket last year. Or the part where he showed up to trial without a mask, either. Or when he refused to stop filming the courtroom when the judge asked. He claimed to have a religious exemption, which as we all know is "I just don't want to".

    "That's not so--"

    Also he put up this billboard:



    "Okay, that's not--"

    Or the part where he wrote threatening letters to school board officials.

    "...uh..."

    Or, the part where he said Wal-Mart employees who give vaccinations should be executed.

    Key is so anti-vaxxer, even Alabama is done with him. Also Louisiana probably, he threatened to arrest their governor.

    I am the vaccine police.n We have shut down pharmacists. We have shut down boards of education. And we will be arresting the governor of Louisiana on February the 7th if he does not stand down and not vaccinate the children of Louisiana.
    "Is that how citizen's arrest works?"

    No. Well I'll be fair and invite @cubby to speak up, but I 75% expect his response to be all-caps laughter.

    By the way, his name is in the news now, because he was just at trial for...well, most of those could be crimes honestly, but it was the supermarket thing. Based purely on his history, he's going to blow his bail and be thrown in jail. Where, to be fair, he can drink all his own urine he wants.

  13. #75913
    Quote Originally Posted by solinari6 View Post
    Huh. This is pretty much what I posted a talking head on CNN said could happen last week, and I got read the riot act for it. LOL
    You got read the riot act for expecting it could actually succeed, not just that Trump's lawyers would throw anything and everything against the wall in hopes that something would stuck. Because of course they will, it's just unlikely to actually work.

  14. #75914
    Quote Originally Posted by DarkTZeratul View Post
    You got read the riot act for expecting it could actually succeed, not just that Trump's lawyers would throw anything and everything against the wall in hopes that something would stuck. Because of course they will, it's just unlikely to actually work.
    You might want to check your reading comprehension, because I clearly wasn't stating that I thought it would succeed.
    Quote Originally Posted by solinari6 View Post
    I saw some lawyers on CNN talking about this last night, and they seemed to think that they Trumps MAY have a case to quash these subpoenas.
    Quote Originally Posted by solinari6 View Post
    All I'm saying is the lawyer on CNN said that if they can show the AG has a political axe to grind, the judge may have to consider that. Is that enough to throw out the subpoenas? Beats me.
    Quote Originally Posted by solinari6 View Post
    No, it was not Trump's lawyers. I'm not THAT stupid. It was Ellie something (kinda sexy guy with a nice jaw). He's a fairly straight shooter and he just said that Trumps claims MAY have some merit. The only reason I posted that was to prepare people for the worst, because god knows it happens often.

  15. #75915
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    81,933
    Quote Originally Posted by solinari6 View Post
    You might want to check your reading comprehension, because I clearly wasn't stating that I thought it would succeed.
    You were making arguments suggesting there was merit to meritless cases.

    That's what you were taken to task for. Which you put in bold in this "defense", admitting to doing so. While attempting to shift the goalposts from "could succeed", as you quoted DarkTZeratul, to "would succeed", in your own response.

    I shouldn't have to point out that "could" does not mean "would", and that "could" and "may" can basically be used interchangeably.


  16. #75916
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    You were making arguments suggesting there was merit to meritless cases.
    I was clearly saying there MAY be merit. I was trying to explain why Eli thought there MAY be merit. How is that any different than Breccia saying:
    To be fair, there may be some loophole Trump can exploit here. Maybe.

  17. #75917
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    81,933
    Quote Originally Posted by solinari6 View Post
    I was clearly saying there MAY be merit. I was trying to explain why Eli thought there MAY be merit. How is that any different than Breccia saying:
    So that there "COULD" be merit. That, in other words, that "COULD succeed".

    The very phrase you're taking DarkTZeratul to task for using to describe your position. He's exactly correct. You had to misrepresent what he said.


  18. #75918
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    So that there "COULD" be merit. That, in other words, that "COULD succeed".

    The very phrase you're taking DarkTZeratul to task for using to describe your position. He's exactly correct. You had to misrepresent what he said.
    I really don't understand what you are getting at here. Yes, if something MAY have merit, then logically it COULD succeed. That doesn't mean I EXPECTED it to succeed.
    And really, NO ONE here is the final arbiter of what does or does not have merit.

  19. #75919
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    81,933
    Quote Originally Posted by solinari6 View Post
    I really don't understand what you are getting at here. Yes, if something MAY have merit, then logically it COULD succeed. That doesn't mean I EXPECTED it to succeed.
    You lied about what DarkTZeratul said about you.

    That's what I'm getting at.

    You quoted him directly, and then lied about what he'd actually said in that quote. And you admit, here, that you know the difference, so it wasn't an accident. You knew what he meant, and lied about it.


  20. #75920
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    You lied about what DarkTZeratul said about you.

    That's what I'm getting at.

    You quoted him directly, and then lied about what he'd actually said in that quote. And you admit, here, that you know the difference, so it wasn't an accident. You knew what he meant, and lied about it.
    ok NOW I see what you are getting at. It was his "expecting it could actually succeed" that got me. How do you expect a "maybe"? I'll admit I misread exactly what he said, but even still it isn't very sensical, or something that inspires debate. Basically he's saying he already made the decision that there is 100% zero merit, and anyone who even considers otherwise is a trump supporting spreading nonsense. It's just stupid, especially since Breccia posted the same misgivings about the claims, and no one went after him.

    Anyway, we're actually on the same side here, and want to see Trump in jail. There's MAYBE a chance he can get out of these subpoenas, but we will just have to wait and see.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •