goldfish21
Veteran
Joined: 17 Feb 2013
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,612
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
08 Jan 2023, 12:57 am
trump’s too greedy to just up and die for the rest of us.
He’s been selfish his whole life, why would you expect a selfless act for his finale?
The last thing I want is for him to skate away because he died before he faced the consequences. That would only further embolden the MAGA’s because they would interpret that as further evidence that God is on their side, it would be the ultimate own the libs.
It’s not a matter of greed, it is a matter of how much at his age his body can handle him abusing it. Jack Smith knows this, that is why he is in such an apparent hurry.
but.. but he doesn't drink alcohol and drinks diet coke!
AND his doctor said he was the healthiest person to ever be elected president!! !! He's gonna live forever!! 
_________________
No
for supporting trump. Because doing so is deplorable.goldfish21
Veteran
Joined: 17 Feb 2013
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,612
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
09 Jan 2023, 4:13 pm
Jack’s assembling a dream time of high powered lawyers. Apparently some of these guys likely had 7 figure salaries at the firms they’ve quit their jobs at to earn less to work with Jack and the DOJ.
These things don’t happen if special counsel isn’t preparing to charge & prosecute the biggest fish. That’s what all of these guys do for a living.. prosecute mafia bosses and corrupt government officials and such.
It might not be happening fast enough for some, but it’s happening. The only disagreement between legal minds and commentators is the timeline of When trump will likely be indicted, whether within a few weeks or so or not until April or May.
Chess pieces are being added to the board now.. eventually trumplestiltskin will be in checkmate with exactly nada he can do about it.
https://fb.watch/hYfi2NDinU/?mibextid=v7YzmG
_________________
No
for supporting trump. Because doing so is deplorable.goldfish21
Veteran
Joined: 17 Feb 2013
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,612
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
21 Jan 2023, 5:13 pm
lolol I've never even seen the troth sensial website, but it keeps getting mentioned in various news clips reporting on the crap trump spews on it from his keyboard, which often includes defamatory or threatening statements towards special counsel Jack Smith and/or his colleagues & family etc etc.
I wonder in what world trumplestiltskin thinks his words aren't all being recorded and kept for some sort of separate legal proceedings against him for talking s**t, that amounts to breaking laws, about Jack Smith? Defamation, libel, threats, obstruction of justice etc etc - somehow I don't think that all of these things are just going to be ignored as "trump being trump." If they're not the subject of a separate lawsuit, they'll at the very Least be used in legal proceedings involving Jack Smith and his team.
It's almost awesome how stupid trump is to keep publishing this stuff on the internet.
_________________
No
for supporting trump. Because doing so is deplorable.
21 Jan 2023, 10:27 pm
I wonder in what world trumplestiltskin thinks his words aren't all being recorded and kept for some sort of separate legal proceedings against him for talking s**t, that amounts to breaking laws, about Jack Smith? Defamation, libel, threats, obstruction of justice etc etc - somehow I don't think that all of these things are just going to be ignored as "trump being trump." If they're not the subject of a separate lawsuit, they'll at the very Least be used in legal proceedings involving Jack Smith and his team.
It's almost awesome how stupid trump is to keep publishing this stuff on the internet.
I'm not convinced that Trump's ramblings, per se, violate the law. He's allowed his speech, unless he knows or has reason to know it will prompt certain illegal actions, at which point he could be charged with incitement, if memory serves me correctly (I'm not a lawyer). Smith will be deemed a public figure in this scenario, I believe.
Smith is in a better position than Mueller was because of how he was brought into the picture. Smith is assigned by the DOJ under a Democrat Attorney General with Trump now out of office; Mueller was assigned by congress, which wasn't particularly eager to find fault with then President Trump. Mueller believed his assignment specifically prohibited him from going after then President Trump directly. Both must operate within the parameters given to them when appointed, but I think those parameters are vastly different.
goldfish21
Veteran
Joined: 17 Feb 2013
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,612
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
21 Jan 2023, 10:45 pm
I wonder in what world trumplestiltskin thinks his words aren't all being recorded and kept for some sort of separate legal proceedings against him for talking s**t, that amounts to breaking laws, about Jack Smith? Defamation, libel, threats, obstruction of justice etc etc - somehow I don't think that all of these things are just going to be ignored as "trump being trump." If they're not the subject of a separate lawsuit, they'll at the very Least be used in legal proceedings involving Jack Smith and his team.
It's almost awesome how stupid trump is to keep publishing this stuff on the internet.
I'm not convinced that Trump's ramblings, per se, violate the law. He's allowed his speech, unless he knows or has reason to know it will prompt certain illegal actions, at which point he could be charged with incitement, if memory serves me correctly (I'm not a lawyer). Smith will be deemed a public figure in this scenario, I believe.
Smith is in a better position than Mueller was because of how he was brought into the picture. Smith is assigned by the DOJ under a Democrat Attorney General with Trump now out of office; Mueller was assigned by congress, which wasn't particularly eager to find fault with then President Trump. Mueller believed his assignment specifically prohibited him from going after then President Trump directly. Both must operate within the parameters given to them when appointed, but I think those parameters are vastly different.
It’s an American lawyer & news commentator that calls trump’s social media posts about Jack Smith all those things - defamation, threats, obstruction etc. He’s also said he figures all of these public statements will be used against trump in court later.
Not really seeing how it’s somehow fair game to post illegal statements about someone if they’re deemed to be a public figure ?? Is that seriously American law? Public figures are fair game for defamation, threats, and trying to obstruct justice ?
That’d be bizarre IMO.
_________________
No
for supporting trump. Because doing so is deplorable.23 Jan 2023, 5:06 pm
I wonder in what world trumplestiltskin thinks his words aren't all being recorded and kept for some sort of separate legal proceedings against him for talking s**t, that amounts to breaking laws, about Jack Smith? Defamation, libel, threats, obstruction of justice etc etc - somehow I don't think that all of these things are just going to be ignored as "trump being trump." If they're not the subject of a separate lawsuit, they'll at the very Least be used in legal proceedings involving Jack Smith and his team.
It's almost awesome how stupid trump is to keep publishing this stuff on the internet.
I'm not convinced that Trump's ramblings, per se, violate the law. He's allowed his speech, unless he knows or has reason to know it will prompt certain illegal actions, at which point he could be charged with incitement, if memory serves me correctly (I'm not a lawyer). Smith will be deemed a public figure in this scenario, I believe.
Smith is in a better position than Mueller was because of how he was brought into the picture. Smith is assigned by the DOJ under a Democrat Attorney General with Trump now out of office; Mueller was assigned by congress, which wasn't particularly eager to find fault with then President Trump. Mueller believed his assignment specifically prohibited him from going after then President Trump directly. Both must operate within the parameters given to them when appointed, but I think those parameters are vastly different.
It’s an American lawyer & news commentator that calls trump’s social media posts about Jack Smith all those things - defamation, threats, obstruction etc. He’s also said he figures all of these public statements will be used against trump in court later.
Not really seeing how it’s somehow fair game to post illegal statements about someone if they’re deemed to be a public figure ?? Is that seriously American law? Public figures are fair game for defamation, threats, and trying to obstruct justice ?
That’d be bizarre IMO.I have not heard any of the lawyers I listen to call the posts illegal, although I could have missed it. The law isn't always black and white, so lawyers can and will disagree on points.
It does make a difference if someone is a public figure or not. American law treats private citizens and public figures very differently when it comes to media and liable. Basically, it is very hard for a public figure to win a liable case. Public figures put themselves out there for scrutiny, while private individuals do not. There are points past which people and organizations can't go even for public figures, but the line is much further out there than for private individuals. The idea is that we should be free to talk about and express opinions on public figures without worry of sanction.
goldfish21
Veteran
Joined: 17 Feb 2013
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,612
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
24 Jan 2023, 4:10 pm
It’s one thing to express a negative opinion of a public figure, and entirely another to fabricate things about them or to threaten them. Pretty sure you’re still not allowed to do those things within legal boundaries of speech.
_________________
No
for supporting trump. Because doing so is deplorable.Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,449
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
24 Jan 2023, 8:52 pm
goldfish21
Veteran
Joined: 17 Feb 2013
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,612
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
24 Jan 2023, 9:34 pm
Only if you don't mind being taken to court for slander.
That’s the thing the law talking commentator guy says is gonna likely happen later when Jack Smith and the DOJ file such a case against trump in addition to everything else.
Maybe it’ll happen maybe not, might not be worth their time to bother.. but no consequences for that kind of speech against a special counsel for the DOJ seems like an odd precedent to set. Even if trump is buried by every other legal matter they might still file this one, too.
_________________
No
for supporting trump. Because doing so is deplorable.24 Jan 2023, 9:39 pm
goldfish21
Veteran
Joined: 17 Feb 2013
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,612
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
24 Jan 2023, 9:49 pm
Slander is a civil issue. The legal remedy would be financial damages, which can be very difficult to prove (and often don't exist, given that even slander keeps one's name out there). A public figure also opens themselves up to a whole new can of worms trying to take any of these cases to court. As a result, it has to be egregious and institutional before most people will bother. The most effective response is usually no response, although exceptions exist.
Threats are a criminal issue, and that is taken seriously by the law enforcement system, to the limited extent it can.
When it’s donnie trumplestiltskin on his troth sensial soapbox, the slander/defamation & threats are more like stochastic terrorism.. and definitely such if it drives some maga-nutter off the deep end and someone ends up attacking the special prosecutor or his home or family.
These are very real possibilities. There have already been bombers, some gun guy at an FBI office they had to waste, an armed insurrection at the Capitol etc so it’s not a stretch of the imagination at all to think djt’s troths might send someone after Smith.
Obvi Jack knows this comes with the job. He’s already prosecuted a war criminal president. But still, it doesn’t make it right or any less of a threat irl.
_________________
No
for supporting trump. Because doing so is deplorable.goldfish21
Veteran
Joined: 17 Feb 2013
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,612
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
04 Feb 2023, 1:07 pm
Wisconsin tapes prove trump campaign people knew he lost and lied about the election being stolen & plotted their stupid stunts anyways.
https://fb.watch/iulVVbkWqG/?mibextid=v7YzmG
As the lawyer host points out, Jack Smith likely has copies of this and other recordings may exist from other states proving trump and his campaign’s criminal intent.
I think the biggest reason Jack hasn’t indicted trump yet is that there are just SO MANY CRIMES that it takes time to get through all the material.
My opinion remains unchanged: 0% chance the US gov’t doesn’t roast trump for his crimes against them. Not a chance they set the precedent that any of this s**t is okay just because it wasn’t a complete success.
_________________
No
for supporting trump. Because doing so is deplorable.ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 35,899
Location: Long Island, New York
04 Feb 2023, 9:29 pm
ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 35,899
Location: Long Island, New York
09 Feb 2023, 9:37 pm
goldfish21
Veteran
Joined: 17 Feb 2013
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,612
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
10 Feb 2023, 12:30 am
:ketchup chips:
pence went along with a bunch of trumplestiltskin’s evil so he doesn’t get a total pass. But I think he’s mostly honest (as far as a homophobic bigot politician can be, anyways) and will at least answer questions vs lie or plead the 5th 400 times.
Hopefully his religious streak makes him want to come clean vs taint his soul forever.
_________________
No
for supporting trump. Because doing so is deplorable.
10 Feb 2023, 5:28 am
