Jump to content

The Official Former President Trump thread


banana

Recommended Posts

The defence should be interesting, considering that I don't think a court will have much interest in conspiracy theories about Hugo Chavez. Maybe worth going down the satire route?

1 hour ago, welshbairn said:

 

I really hope somebody offered her a nice egg at that trying time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, BFTD said:

The defence should be interesting, considering that I don't think a court will have much interest in conspiracy theories about Hugo Chavez. Maybe worth going down the satire route?

I really hope somebody offered her a nice egg at that trying time.

According to a tweet mentioned in the blog post above, the difficulty will be in proving that Giuliani actually had serious doubts that what he was saying was true, but said it anyway ie you need to be able to prove what he was thinking. 

Unfortunately it doesn't look like the case will be the slamdunk I first assumed it would be - not that it's an impossible win, but it's not as simple as pointing at RG and going, "I mean, c'mon tae f**k your honour FFS. I rest my case." 

Edit: actually I wonder if that's a reason they don't seem to be going after Trump - after all it's perfectly credible that he believed 100% all the shit he was coming out with (altho it's probably something more boring to do with him being president now I think about it.) 

Edited by madwullie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, madwullie said:

According to a tweet mentioned in the blog post above, the difficulty will be in proving that Giuliani actually had serious doubts that what he was saying was true, but said it anyway ie you need to be able to prove what he was thinking. 

Unfortunately it doesn't look like the case will be the slamdunk I first assumed it would be - not that it's an impossible win, but it's not as simple as pointing at RG and going, "I mean, c'mon tae f**k your honour FFS. I rest my case." 

It does strike me as bizarre that you can just choose a random company, publicly lambast them for a bunch of shit that you've literally just made up (but know will hurt them financially), but they have to prove that you did so maliciously. You'd think the accusations and the total lack of evidence would be enough.

Could Coca-Cola get away with slipping Alex Jones a few bucks to tell everyone that Pepsi is made from the bodies of dead kids that Hillary Clinton has finished draining the adrenochrome from?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, madwullie said:

According to a tweet mentioned in the blog post above, the difficulty will be in proving that Giuliani actually had serious doubts that what he was saying was true, but said it anyway ie you need to be able to prove what he was thinking. 

Unfortunately it doesn't look like the case will be the slamdunk I first assumed it would be - not that it's an impossible win, but it's not as simple as pointing at RG and going, "I mean, c'mon tae f**k your honour FFS. I rest my case." 

Edit: actually I wonder if that's a reason they don't seem to be going after Trump - after all it's perfectly credible that he believed 100% all the shit he was coming out with (altho it's probably something more boring to do with him being president now I think about it.) 

Prosecuting a former president would be remarkably short sighted stuff for anyone with ambitions to do the same at some point especially given the possible trajectory of the Republican Party.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, madwullie said:

According to a tweet mentioned in the blog post above, the difficulty will be in proving that Giuliani actually had serious doubts that what he was saying was true, but said it anyway ie you need to be able to prove what he was thinking. 

I'd have thought that he never used the potential dynamite of the Dominion accusations in his many court cases would be evidence enough that he didn't believe it, or at least that he had nothing to base them on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, madwullie said:

According to a tweet mentioned in the blog post above, the difficulty will be in proving that Giuliani actually had serious doubts that what he was saying was true, but said it anyway ie you need to be able to prove what he was thinking. 

Unfortunately it doesn't look like the case will be the slamdunk I first assumed it would be - not that it's an impossible win, but it's not as simple as pointing at RG and going, "I mean, c'mon tae f**k your honour FFS. I rest my case." 

Edit: actually I wonder if that's a reason they don't seem to be going after Trump - after all it's perfectly credible that he believed 100% all the shit he was coming out with (altho it's probably something more boring to do with him being president now I think about it.) 

I’m kinda the other way, I’m surprised they’re serving Powell and Giuliani at (roughly) the same time; I figured it would be better to do one case first and take whatever precedents come out of that for the future suits, which may well include Trump. If you have more than one accused at the same time it’ll also allow them to co-ordinate on their defense....and given that it’s Powell and Giuliani, Dominion may be betting that they come up with something so fucking stupid that their briefs will be able to win the case with ‘come on tae f**k your honor’

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Day of the Lords said:

I assume even an idiot like Giuliani realises that if he loses this and is ruined, that Trump won't even take his calls begging for help. 

Not much he could do now anyway, surely.

Even if Trump stumped up some money for BWAHAHAHA sorry I couldn't finish that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, welshbairn said:

I'd have thought that he never used the potential dynamite of the Dominion accusations in his many court cases would be evidence enough that he didn't believe it, or at least that he had nothing to base them on.

Yeah, seemingly that's whst they're implying going by the opening paragraph of their claim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Day of the Lords said:

I assume even an idiot like Giuliani realises that if he loses this and is ruined, that Trump won't even take his calls begging for help. 

Maybe the better question is, what will Giuliani spill if he sees that he's being hung out to dry? Cutting off the head of the snake is quick but when Nixon got done it was achieved by working from the other end and following the trail to his door. The evidence seemed overwhelming against him as it does Trump but getting confirmation from those in the room will make a difference. Ideally one of his weans will drop the c**t in if they see their inheritance potentially disappearing before their eyes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Highland Capital said:

Apparently Kellyanne Conway tweeted a topless photo of her 16 year old daughter for some reason.

That whole story is weird. The Mail covers it their inimical style with a pic of the 16 year old in a vest. The daughter has 1.6 million followers, and the cops went to the house to check it out. I suspect the daughter posted it herself to get at her mum, but who knows?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9188129/Kellyanne-Conway-accused-posting-topless-photo-daughter-Claudia-16-Twitter.html 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/27/proud-boys-leader-enrique-tarrio-fbi-informant

Seems a tad unfortunate. Are the Feds letting their informants actually batter on with destabilising the regime to look less suspicious? Didn't work out too well for the old Russian Okhrana in the end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Highland Capital said:

Apparently Kellyanne Conway tweeted a topless photo of her 16 year old daughter for some reason.

The power of make-up. That lassie looks about sixteen in the pictures that aren't staged, then looks like Kat Slater's forgotten sister in others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/27/proud-boys-leader-enrique-tarrio-fbi-informant
Seems a tad unfortunate. Are the Feds letting their informants actually batter on with destabilising the regime to look less suspicious? Didn't work out too well for the old Russian Okhrana in the end.


Some of those that work forces, are the same that lie in dumpsters
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 27/01/2021 at 22:28, virginton said:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/27/proud-boys-leader-enrique-tarrio-fbi-informant

Seems a tad unfortunate. Are the Feds letting their informants actually batter on with destabilising the regime to look less suspicious?

Quote

Enrique Tarrio, the leader of the Proud Boys extremist group, has a past as an informer for federal and local law enforcement, 

The Guardian are adamant it's all in the past so there's no need to worry!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, welshbairn said:

Trump's impeachment lawyers have walked out after meeting him. Looks like Rudi might have to step up to the plate after all. :lol:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/31/donald-trumps-impeachment-defence-in-disarray-as-lead-lawyers-quit-reports

He’ll act for himself “No-one can defend Donald Trump like Donald Trump”.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...