Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Edge-]

Hmm. Which crime?

Insurrection, clearly. Just ask the Missouri Secretary of State about it. He thinks he should be able to violate his states Constitution, which he seems ignorant of, because the Constitutions in other states are different and have different rules and that's just not fair to him because he's just learning all of this.

And he said that Ron DeSantis and Greg Abbott have accused Joe of insurrection. He's still processing requests to clarify what the "insurrection" actually was, he's got really, really long loading and buffering times.

So in about 5 months maybe he'll have finished processing and be able to give us an answer. I just hope he can hold his breath for 5 months.

[gondrin]

I was under the impression that if there is a gap inbetween the two 4 year terms then he can do a 3rd, its's just 3 consecutive terms that aren't allowed

3 terms are only able to be done in one fashion and that is if they were VP for one term, became president due to the president resigning/dying in office near the end of their current term and the VP gets to be president for less than a period of 2 years out of that current term. They can run for 2 4 year terms after that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty...s_Constitution

The amendment prohibits anyone who has been elected president twice from being elected again. Under the amendment, someone who fills an unexpired presidential term lasting more than two years is also prohibited from being elected president more than once.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Honestly never thought we'd see the Donald x Juggalo crossover. I look forward to seeing them at his next insurrection. The Faygo gonna be flowin.

I'm just eagerly awaiting the inevitable chorus of "What he meant was..."

[gondrin]

So, I wonder how this will go. Trump is planning on giving part of the closing statements himself in his fraud trial. I bet his lawyers are really loving this. I really want to see a live stream of this. Might be the best train wreck I could watch.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...d88372dd0&ei=9

Trump intends to deliver part of closing himself, say sources

Former President Trump intends to personally deliver part of the defense's closing argument at the conclusion of his civil fraud trial in New York on Thursday, sources familiar with the former president's strategy tell ABC News.

The defendants in the case -- Trump, his two eldest sons and two former Trump Organization executives -- are represented by three primary attorneys, Christopher Kise, Clifford Robert and Alina Habba. But sources say Trump himself is determined to deliver a portion of the closing statement.

The sources cautioned that plans for the defense's closing argument remain fluid.

The Manhattan courtroom where his trial has been held over its first 11 weeks is currently in use for another high-profile trial involving the New York attorney general's case against the National Rifle Association and Wayne LaPierre, and the judge in that case told jurors the trial would temporarily move to a different courtroom this week to accommodate Trump's civil trial.

[Edge-]

So, I wonder how this will go. Trump is planning on giving part of the closing statements himself in his fraud trial. I bet his lawyers are really loving this. I really want to see a live stream of this. Might be the best train wreck I could watch.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...d88372dd0&ei=9

First off: Can he even do that? Like, can the defendant that's has legal representation the whole trial just get up and make their own closing argument despite having legal representation and shit?

Second off: Holy fuck please let this happen I cannot wait for the courtroom sketch.

[gondrin]

First off: Can he even do that? Like, can the defendant that's has legal representation the whole trial just get up and make their own closing argument despite having legal representation and shit?

Second off: Holy fuck please let this happen I cannot wait for the courtroom sketch.

I bet he think he will have a My Cousin Vinny moment or some other courtroom moment where the defendant has a comeback and wins. All that will happen is he will have a senior moment and ramble on about nonsense.

[Breccia]

The Gateway Pundit posted the following:

In Nikki Haley's situation, reports indicate that her parents were not U.S. Citizens at the time of her birth in 1972. Based on the Consitution as interpreted by Paul Ingrassia, this disqualifies Haley from the presidential or vice-presidential candidacy under the 12th Amendment.

"Okay, but they're a well-known useless source."

Overall, we rate The Gateway Pundit Questionable based on extreme right-wing bias, promotion of conspiracies, and numerous instances of publishing false (fake) news.

"So why are you sharing this?"

Trump reposted it yesterday on his social media platform.

"...wasn't she born in South Carolina?"

Yes.

"So...the immigration status of her parents is largely irrelevant, right? She's American from birth?"

Yes. Nikki Haley is as American as Barron Trump.

EDIT: So, you'll notice I left out a 24-hour challenge. Sadly, TGP said "according to" so they have left themselve a legalese loophole. They, and by proxy Trump, are not saying she's ineligible, they're saying someone else said she's ineligible. That's like hiring an assassin, but not pulling the trigger. I'm not ready to say people paying the person who hires the assassin are murderers. Yet. I'll leave that for Seal Team 6.

[Kaleredar]

I bet he think he will have a My Cousin Vinny moment or some other courtroom moment where the defendant has a comeback and wins. All that will happen is he will have a senior moment and ramble on about nonsense.

The accused were exonerated in My Cousin Vinny by expert witness testimony and clever cross-examination the entire trial by the defense attorney.

Trump doesn’t have that. The only thing they’ve got going in common with My cousin Vinny is that the judge is pissed off.

[Edge-]

The Gateway Pundit posted the following:



"Okay, but they're a well-known useless source."

Overall, we rate The Gateway Pundit Questionable based on extreme right-wing bias, promotion of conspiracies, and numerous instances of publishing false (fake) news.

"So why are you sharing this?"

Trump reposted it yesterday on his social media platform.

"...wasn't she born in South Carolina?"

Yes.

"So...the immigration status of her parents is largely irrelevant, right? She's American from birth?"

Yes. Nikki Haley is as American as Barron Trump.

EDIT: So, you'll notice I left out a 24-hour challenge. Sadly, TGP said "according to" so they have left themselve a legalese loophole. They, and by proxy Trump, are not saying she's ineligible, they're saying someone else said she's ineligible. That's like hiring an assassin, but not pulling the trigger. I'm not ready to say people paying the person who hires the assassin are murderers. Yet. I'll leave that for Seal Team 6.

I'm still astounded some conservative billionaire somewhere keeps forgetting they set up an endowment for TGP or something. That group has never put out a single credible piece of media that I can recall in their entire history.

[Breccia]

That group has never put out a single credible piece of media that I can recall in their entire history.

I mean, they probably cited other sources enough times. But they got caught in lie after lie after lie. The only people who think they're credible are Trump and Trump supporters, who have long since abandoned evidence, facts, and reason.

[Shadowferal]

Well, since gas prices were mentioned...as I recall a few weeks ago, Angola pulled out of OPEC...not sure if it's relevant.

[Rasulis]

Trump's legal team has repeatedly argued that the ex-president has "absolute immunity" from criminal prosecution related to his acts while in office (a claim many legal experts reject).

But Judge Florence Pan, one of three judges on the Washington, DC, appeals-court panel, tested that argument at length when she posed a series of hypotheticals to Trump's lawyer D. John Sauer.

Pan wondered whether, according to the Trump team's argument, a president could be held criminally accountable for selling pardons or military secrets if he wasn't impeached and convicted by Congress for it.

"Your position is that he can't be prosecuted for that unless he's impeached?" Pan said.

"Yup, as long as it's an official act," Sauer said.

Then Pan took it a step further.

"Could a president order SEAL Team Six to assassinate a political rival?" she said. "That's an official act: an order to SEAL Team Six."

"He would have to be, and would, speedily be impeached and convicted before the criminal prosecution — " Sauer began, but Pan cut him off.

"But if he weren't, there would be no criminal prosecution, no criminal liability for that?" she said.

Sauer reiterated that a president would first have to be impeached by the House of Representatives and convicted by the Senate before he could be criminally charged for any acts related to his office. He started to discuss the position of the Founding Fathers before Pan cut him off again.

"I asked you a yes or no question," the judge said. "Could a president who ordered SEAL Team Six to assassinate a political rival, who was not impeached, would he be subject to criminal prosecution?"

"If he were impeached and convicted first, and so — " Sauer began.

"So your answer is no," Pan said.

US politics have descent to a pretty low level.

[Sunseeker]

Trump's legal team has repeatedly argued that the ex-president has "absolute immunity" from criminal prosecution related to his acts while in office (a claim many legal experts reject).

But Judge Florence Pan, one of three judges on the Washington, DC, appeals-court panel, tested that argument at length when she posed a series of hypotheticals to Trump's lawyer D. John Sauer.

Pan wondered whether, according to the Trump team's argument, a president could be held criminally accountable for selling pardons or military secrets if he wasn't impeached and convicted by Congress for it.

"Your position is that he can't be prosecuted for that unless he's impeached?" Pan said.

"Yup, as long as it's an official act," Sauer said.

Then Pan took it a step further.

"Could a president order SEAL Team Six to assassinate a political rival?" she said. "That's an official act: an order to SEAL Team Six."

"He would have to be, and would, speedily be impeached and convicted before the criminal prosecution — " Sauer began, but Pan cut him off.

"But if he weren't, there would be no criminal prosecution, no criminal liability for that?" she said.

Sauer reiterated that a president would first have to be impeached by the House of Representatives and convicted by the Senate before he could be criminally charged for any acts related to his office. He started to discuss the position of the Founding Fathers before Pan cut him off again.

"I asked you a yes or no question," the judge said. "Could a president who ordered SEAL Team Six to assassinate a political rival, who was not impeached, would he be subject to criminal prosecution?"

"If he were impeached and convicted first, and so — " Sauer began.

"So your answer is no," Pan said.

US politics have descent to a pretty low level.

We have gone beyond worst timeline. We have surpassed dumbest timeline. We are now in silliest timeline.

But his defense doesn't really have any choice, they have no control over him, know he's bound to do more stupid shit, don't even know the full extent of what he has done, so they have no choice but to argue that everything is immune. From killing political opponents to nuking the Jews, it's all on the table because nothing is off limits with Trump.

[zorkuus]

I believe it was Mitch McConnell, during the 2nd impeachment of the orange one, who argued that it's not the job of the senate to convict him but the courts.

So which one is it republiturds?

[Captain N]

I believe it was Mitch McConnell, during the 2nd impeachment of the orange one, who argued that it's not the job of the senate to convict him but the courts.

So which one is it republiturds?

They can't answer that question. Expecting consistency in Republicans when one of their own commits crimes is like dividing by zero. Once in happens...everything ceases to exist.

[Breccia]

I believe it was Mitch McConnell, during the 2nd impeachment of the orange one, who argued that it's not the job of the senate to convict him but the courts.

So which one is it republiturds?

The Republican Party has made their choice: Trump can do anything, and they will allow him. The rest is details that, magically, don't apply to anyone else.

[Masark]

I believe it was Mitch McConnell, during the 2nd impeachment of the orange one, who argued that it's not the job of the senate to convict him but the courts.

So which one is it republiturds?

Neither. They've regressed all the way back to divine right.

[Breccia]

The Iowa rally should be proof Trump is not fit to serve office. I've quoted it a few times already. He also said illegal immigrants could vote which is, of course, still illegal.

[MrLachyG]

The Iowa rally should be proof Trump is not fit to serve office. I've quoted it a few times already. He also said illegal immigrants could vote which is, of course, still illegal.

what I find funny is that Trump calls Biden too old, too senile etc to be President. But then the way he acts, he too is too old, too senile to be President.

As an Australian I truly find that ridiculous. If I remember my history right, our oldest PM ever was 71, then 68 and the most recent oldest 67 (who got voted out in 2007). Biden wins, he will be President until he is 86, Trump will be 82 if he wins. Like, can't you lot find someone younger?

[zorkuus]

what I find funny is that Trump calls Biden too old, too senile etc to be President. But then the way he acts, he too is too old, too senile to be President.

I firmly believe that a lot (not all) of the stupid things he says is not because he's dumb or senile. He says this shit because he knows his gullible base will believe anything.