The Official Former President Trump thread

[MyNameIsClarence]

11 hours ago, Theroadlesstravelled said:

Cubans hate left wing politics because they lived with communism and want nothing to do with it.

Cubans are generally very happy with their government, quite rightly considering how well they've done in spite of the pressures they've been placed under. Psycho gusanos living in Miami whose grandad was chief nail puller for the Batista regime or a foreman on a sugar plantation, less so. 

[Cheese]

The move towards normalising relations with Cuba is probably one of the best things Obama did during his presidency.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Herc said:

The move towards normalising relations with Cuba is probably one of the best things Obama did during his presidency.

USA has unilateral sanctions on Zimbabwe meaning they refuse to trade with Zimbabwe but other nations are free to. With Cuba that's not the case. Nobody is allowed to trade with Cuba unless they're willing to themselves be hit by US sanctions. This completely cripples Cuba as it leaves only a small band of nations, none of whom are major economies, for them to trade with. So when it comes to Cuba, USA sanctions not just Cuba but in effect the whole world. It farts in the face of every other nation's sovereignty and forces their policy on Cuba. This meant millions of people in the Global South were prevented from accessing Cuban Covid vaccines: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/06/01/pandemic-vaccines-cuba-who-planning/

Cuba has endured 50 years of US embargo, in effect global sanctions since 1991, it has a small population and little by way of natural resources. Mexico are in a free trade zone with USA, they have an abundance of natural resources and a huge population. Cuba places above Mexico in the Human Development Index.

Every single UN member nation votes every year to end the US embargo on Cuba with the exceptions of USA and Israel (Ukraine have abstained since 2022 but that's due to their new wartime dependence on USA, they had always voted to end the embargo prior).

Edited June 21, 2023 by FreedomFarter

[Granny Danger]

1 hour ago, FreedomFarter said:

USA has unilateral sanctions on Zimbabwe meaning they refuse to trade with Zimbabwe but other nations are free to. With Cuba that's not the case. Nobody is allowed to trade with Cuba unless they're willing to themselves be hit by US sanctions. This completely cripples Cuba as it leaves only a small band of nations, none of whom are major economies, for them to trade with. So when it comes to Cuba, USA sanctions not just Cuba but in effect the whole world. It farts in the face of every other nation's sovereignty and forces their policy on Cuba. This meant millions of people in the Global South were prevented from accessing Cuban Covid vaccines: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/06/01/pandemic-vaccines-cuba-who-planning/

Cuba has endured 50 years of US embargo, in effect global sanctions since 1991, it has a small population and little by way of natural resources. Mexico are in a free trade zone with USA, they have an abundance of natural resources and a huge population. Cuba places above Mexico in the Human Development Index.

Every single UN member nation votes every year to end the US embargo on Cuba with the exceptions of USA and Israel (Ukraine have abstained since 2022 but that's due to their new wartime dependence on USA, they had always voted to end the embargo prior).

If the EU countries collectively decided to trade with Cuba the US would be fucked.

[StellarHibee]

16 hours ago, Theroadlesstravelled said:

Cubans hate left wing politics because they lived with communism and want nothing to do with it.

I'm pretty sure they hate capitalist, corporate America tbh.

[Granny Danger]

On 15/06/2023 at 00:09, TxRover said:

No…and in a criminal trial the unwillingness to take the stand cannot be held against him, unlike civil trials. Quoting public statements is heresay in this context.

 

Not sure if that’s correct.  Trump is trying to get the judge in the ‘Stormy Daniel’s case’ to recuse himself, in their pleadings opposing this the Manhattan DA’s office has extensively quoted Trump’s public comments and social media posts.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Granny Danger said:

If the EU countries collectively decided to trade with Cuba the US would be fucked.

EU as a bloc is currently Cuba's largest foreign trading partner, albeit that trade is very limited by the sanctions. For obvious cultural reasons, Spain has always been Cuba's biggest advocate in Europe. The problem is that Republican governments in USA are quite happy to place tariffs on the EU. Both Bush and Trump did (Trump even put tariffs on UK post-Brexit, including on Scottish whisky). So if EU were to break US sanctions on Cuba and a Republican was in the White House, that'd definitely be used as an excuse to slap tariffs on EU exports.

The Republican Party does this to Cuba due to domestic considerations. Florida is a swing state so every vote is needed. Being as hard on Cuba as possible plays well with Miami Cuban-Americans. Current president Biden has done nothing to reverse Trump's deranged punishments on Cuba. I view that as Biden's failing although the viscous nature of the US Congress may be the underlying problem.

As a general point, in most cases sanctions are just cruelty for cruelty's sake. They don't bring about governmental change in the targeted society and all the evidence points to the opposite. Sanctions emmiserate the population which makes them more not less dependent on their government, shoring up government control.

[welshbairn]

22 minutes ago, FreedomFarter said:

EU as a bloc is currently Cuba's largest foreign trading partner, albeit that trade is very limited by the sanctions.

This confuses me. The EU is also the largest foreign investor in the Cuban economy, how can this be if the US won't allow it?

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

This confuses me. The EU is also the largest foreign investor in the Cuban economy, how can this be if the US won't allow it?

I think it means some trade can still be undertaken which doesn't fall foul of the sanctions and of that limited trade, EU is doing most. Tourism, for example, functions so must have some degree of exemption.

Edit: Spanish investment in the Cuban tourism industry seems to be a significant chunk of that EU investment.

( https://www.forbes.com/sites/anagarciavaldivia/2019/04/22/the-eu-stands-up-for-spanish-companies-in-cuba-against-trumps-sanctions/ ).

Edited June 22, 2023 by FreedomFarter

[TxRover]

5 hours ago, Granny Danger said:

Not sure if that’s correct.  Trump is trying to get the judge in the ‘Stormy Daniel’s case’ to recuse himself, in their pleadings opposing this the Manhattan DA’s office has extensively quoted Trump’s public comments and social media posts.

Oh, that’s perfectly fine for establishing context, because this isn’t a trial, at this point. In a trial, that is not admissible because it’s heresay. The judge(s) can consider all sorts of esoteric stuff, but once you get IN the courtroom, the rules are remarkable strict.

[Granny Danger]

3 hours ago, TxRover said:

Oh, that’s perfectly fine for establishing context, because this isn’t a trial, at this point. In a trial, that is not admissible because it’s heresay. The judge(s) can consider all sorts of esoteric stuff, but once you get IN the courtroom, the rules are remarkable strict.

Legal view in the last minute of this suggests otherwise:

https://www.msnbc.com/the-reidout/watch/trump-apparently-keeps-confessing-to-crime-of-unlawfully-retaining-u-s-defense-secrets-and-refusing-to-give-them-back-183965765872

[TxRover]

3 hours ago, Granny Danger said:

Legal view in the last minute of this suggests otherwise:

https://www.msnbc.com/the-reidout/watch/trump-apparently-keeps-confessing-to-crime-of-unlawfully-retaining-u-s-defense-secrets-and-refusing-to-give-them-back-183965765872

OK, so now this is different. Here you are dealing with an admission by the defendant, which has differing heresay standards. Here’s a simple primer (offered by a local law firm, but shortened). As you can see, defendants who keep yapping are a defence attorneys worst nightmare:

Hearsay statements are those comments that are made outside of a courtroom that are admitted to prove the truth of the matter that the statement asserts (the car was blue).

To argue that the out-of-court statement is not hearsay, you have to show that the statement is not being introduced to prove it’s truth (the witness car stated in Court the car was green, but the same witness previously made statements the car was green). 

There are a few exceptions, and in the case of a statement by the criminal-defendant, the prosecution can introduce hearsay statements made by the defendant (for instance, the prosecution can introduce evidence that the defendant confessed to the crime.)

On the other hand, the defendant is not allowed under the rules to introduce his own out-of-court statements. The rules view this as self-serving hearsay, and clearly it doesn’t fall under the party-opponent exception. Therefore, the defendant cannot introduce his own out-of-court statements (moral of the story: Be careful who you talk to and what you say–> if the defendant talks and it’s against him it’s allowed, but if the defendant talks and it favors him it’s not allowed).

[Granny Danger]

1 hour ago, TxRover said:

OK, so now this is different. Here you are dealing with an admission by the defendant, which has differing heresay standards. Here’s a simple primer (offered by a local law firm, but shortened). As you can see, defendants who keep yapping are a defence attorneys worst nightmare:

Hearsay statements are those comments that are made outside of a courtroom that are admitted to prove the truth of the matter that the statement asserts (the car was blue).

To argue that the out-of-court statement is not hearsay, you have to show that the statement is not being introduced to prove it’s truth (the witness car stated in Court the car was green, but the same witness previously made statements the car was green). 

There are a few exceptions, and in the case of a statement by the criminal-defendant, the prosecution can introduce hearsay statements made by the defendant (for instance, the prosecution can introduce evidence that the defendant confessed to the crime.)

On the other hand, the defendant is not allowed under the rules to introduce his own out-of-court statements. The rules view this as self-serving hearsay, and clearly it doesn’t fall under the party-opponent exception. Therefore, the defendant cannot introduce his own out-of-court statements (moral of the story: Be careful who you talk to and what you say–> if the defendant talks and it’s against him it’s allowed, but if the defendant talks and it favors him it’s not allowed).

So the best thing he could do in his own self interest is just keep quiet, and we all know that’s not going to happen.

[TxRover]

44 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

So the best thing he could do in his own self interest is just keep quiet, and we all know that’s not going to happen.

It’s always been the best thing, but in civil cases it’s doesn’t have the same consequences…and civil cases have always been what he ended up facing. However, given that he’s now facing new proceedings on defamation, his continuing statements, and possibly radically increased fines in a civil case, we’ll see if that worm has turned too.

[Zen Archer (Raconteur)]

 

 

[Granny Danger]

49 minutes ago, Zen Archer (Raconteur) said:

 

 

That’s a bit unfair, it’s not like he tried to hide it…

[TxRover]

Justice Department requested trial delay until Dec 11th, from Aug 14th. No objection from Trump lawyers, specifically mentioned was the time needed to get Trump’s lawyers security clearances and then for both sides to review submissions.

[Granny Danger]

1 hour ago, TxRover said:

Justice Department requested trial delay until Dec 11th, from Aug 14th. No objection from Trump lawyers, specifically mentioned was the time needed to get Trump’s lawyers security clearances and then for both sides to review submissions.

Jack Smith is playing a blinder here.  Preempting Trump’s lawyers, looking very reasonable, controlling (as best he can) the agenda.

Trump will bring in new/additional lawyers in early December and claim they need another five months for security clearance and to peruse the evidence.

 

[carpetmonster]

11 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

Jack Smith is playing a blinder here.  Preempting Trump’s lawyers, looking very reasonable, controlling (as best he can) the agenda.

Trump will bring in new/additional lawyers in early December and claim they need another five months for security clearance and to peruse the evidence.

 

That’s on the assumption he can find any new/additional lawyers prepared to work for him. 

[Granny Danger]

1 minute ago, carpetmonster said:

That’s on the assumption he can find any new/additional lawyers prepared to work for him. 

He will be scouring public benches and bus shelters soon enough.

 

 

Not sure if Saul Goodman is licensed to practice in Florida mind you…