Re: Charges
Posted: Mon May 06, 2024 10:33 am
i wonder what the cost to tax payers would be per hour
Page 95 of 111
Re: Charges
Posted: Mon May 06, 2024 11:43 am
Wonder if the judge really means it. This time.
Re: Charges
Posted: Mon May 06, 2024 12:08 pm
Worth every penny until he is no longer a threat.KUTradition wrote: ↑Mon May 06, 2024 10:33 am i wonder what the cost to tax payers would be per hour
Re: Charges
Posted: Mon May 06, 2024 1:37 pm
Re: Charges
Posted: Mon May 06, 2024 1:55 pm
Not that I think this is the primary impediment, but it's a logistical nightmare, what with his secret service detail, etc., etc. Plus, for multiple reasons no judge wants to be the one and only person who has ever sent a former president to jail, not to mention the precedent it creates.
Separate from that, like fascists before him, it will feed Trump's victimization/grievance meme. "I'm taking a bullet but I'm willing to do it for you because the Dems have weaponized the Justice Department, the Deep State is out to get us with their immigration replacement plan, etc., etc., blah, blah, blah."
Wash, rinse, repeat, ad nauseam.
Re: Charges
Posted: Mon May 06, 2024 3:00 pm
This is all true.Shirley wrote: ↑Mon May 06, 2024 1:55 pmNot that I think this is the primary impediment, but it's a logistical nightmare, what with his secret service detail, etc., etc. Plus, for multiple reasons no judge wants to be the one and only person who has ever sent a former president to jail, not to mention the precedent it creates.
Separate from that, like fascists before him, it will feed Trump's victimization/grievance meme. "I'm taking a bullet but I'm willing to do it for you because the Dems have weaponized the Justice Department, the Deep State is out to get us with their immigration replacement plan, etc., etc., blah, blah, blah."
Wash, rinse, repeat, ad nauseam.
But so is this: letting all of this stuff result in applying the law differently to Trump than to other defendants is, itself, corrosive to the rule of law.
Dead horse, but - this is what's so heartbreaking over 14A-3 getting swept away by a "conservative" Court. The whole POINT of it was to cover the exact scenario where a traitorous madman has enough people under his spell to have a shot at being elected to office again.
Our forebears tried to protect us, and we pissed on the Constitution and all who've died for it.
Re: Charges
Posted: Tue May 07, 2024 6:21 am
”Mr. Trump its important you understand the last thing I want to do is put you in jail. You are the former president of the United States and possibly the next president as well," Judge Juan Merchan says.”
Re: Charges
Posted: Tue May 07, 2024 6:57 am
I kinda wonder if both pubs and dems have some strategic desire to keep Trump around and just viable enough, in some “useful idiot” kinda way.
Re: Charges
Posted: Tue May 07, 2024 8:11 am
Whoa, Stormy is going to testify this morning. Wish there was video.
Re: Charges
Posted: Tue May 07, 2024 8:13 am
Re: Charges
Posted: Tue May 07, 2024 8:13 am
Re: Charges
Posted: Tue May 07, 2024 8:15 am
Re: Charges
Posted: Tue May 07, 2024 8:20 am
Trump posted this earlier this morning, left it up for ~ 30 minutes, then deleted it:
Re: Charges
Posted: Tue May 07, 2024 8:20 am
dangit.
I thought more pubs in the sense they don't have anyone else among the GOP with the kind of cult-of-personality celebrity star appeal who can rile up the folks at the mall quite like Trump
and dems in the sense they view Trump as easier to defeat than some potential other candidate
but if there's validity to your imperial boogeymen theory, it makes it even more mind boggling that no American authorities have actually brought the hammer down on Trump yet
Re: Charges
Posted: Tue May 07, 2024 8:22 am
but, largely related to the imperial boogeymen thing, and this thread generally...I found this tweeter thread interesting:
https://x.com/SethAbramson/status/1787543910509666332
https://x.com/SethAbramson/status/1787543910509666332
Re: Charges
Posted: Tue May 07, 2024 8:53 am
Re: Charges
Posted: Tue May 07, 2024 8:55 am
...you might look around, you know, this very thread.ousdahl wrote: ↑Tue May 07, 2024 8:20 amdangit.
I thought more pubs in the sense they don't have anyone else among the GOP with the kind of cult-of-personality celebrity star appeal who can rile up the folks at the mall quite like Trump
and dems in the sense they view Trump as easier to defeat than some potential other candidate
but if there's validity to your imperial boogeymen theory, it makes it even more mind boggling that no American authorities have actually brought the hammer down on Trump yet
Re: Charges
Posted: Tue May 07, 2024 9:15 am
Linking to an author of Seth Abramson's quality helps to rehabilitate your credibility.ousdahl wrote: ↑Tue May 07, 2024 8:22 am but, largely related to the imperial boogeymen thing, and this thread generally...I found this tweeter thread interesting:
https://x.com/SethAbramson/status/1787543910509666332
This is a brief thread from a NYT-bestselling Trump biographer on what everyone—literally everyone—is missing about the 34 felonies Donald Trump committed to win the 2016 presidential election. This will change how you understand the 2016 election cycle.
Re: Charges
Posted: Tue May 07, 2024 9:30 am
Correct me if I'm wrong, but after reading back through this thread, I can't find anywhere that Mich or 99 deny having had a relationship with Stormy Daniels. On the other hand, Donald Trump does.
Coincidence?
Coincidence?
Re: Charges
Posted: Tue May 07, 2024 9:35 am
Should be required reading.Shirley wrote: ↑Tue May 07, 2024 9:15 amLinking to an author of Seth Abramson's quality helps to rehabilitate your credibility.ousdahl wrote: ↑Tue May 07, 2024 8:22 am but, largely related to the imperial boogeymen thing, and this thread generally...I found this tweeter thread interesting:
https://x.com/SethAbramson/status/1787543910509666332
This is a brief thread from a NYT-bestselling Trump biographer on what everyone—literally everyone—is missing about the 34 felonies Donald Trump committed to win the 2016 presidential election. This will change how you understand the 2016 election cycle.