Advertisement
We've partnered up with Nixers.com to offer a space where you can talk directly to Peter from Nixers.com and get an exclusive Boards.ie discount code for a free job listing. If you are recruiting or know anyone else who is please check out the forum here.
If you have a new account but can't post, please email Niamh on [email protected] for help to verify your email address. Thanks :)

Donald Trump discussion Thread IX (threadbanned users listed in OP)

1777880828396

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 2,317 ✭✭✭ amandstu


    Not following this(head in hands) but is it possible to prosecute the SC for dereliction of duty if they seem likely to abett the falsification of elections?



  • Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 27,230 Mod ✭✭✭✭ pixelburp


    Jesus, the country swirls around the plug hole, the water level dropping a millimetre at a time. Kinda seeing why there are those screaming at the Democrats to fight fire with fire; they're going to wake up and realise they've lost power for 50 years thanks to the GOP stealing democracy from right under their watch.

    Christ they can't even get their act together to kill off the filibuster, a mechanic by now everyone recognises as a pox upon linear governance.



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,022 ✭✭✭✭ aloyisious


    If Clarence Thomas sticks with his decision that the USSC should leave state matters in state hands and NOT make precedent decisions which affect the states, he theoretically should will not interfere with the NC court decision, letting it stand.



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,022 ✭✭✭✭ aloyisious


    On from the USSC decision that the prior Roe V Wade ruling was wrong and set it aside as the right to abortions were not in the constitution, it interfered with matters best left to state legislators, Alabama's AG is using it to argue for a transgender medication ban as; quote. gender confirmation treatments are not “deeply rooted in our history or traditions,” and therefore should be banned.

    Law cases are so interlinked in the US due to how the USSC ruling in one case can then used to overturn other dis-similar cases. I looked for info on the Alabama AG's decision and was referred on to the Dobbs [a Mississippi abortion clinic] ruling on abortions in Mississippi in 2018 whereby other courts overturned state legislation. He's using the Mississippi case to affirm last weeks ruling operates as a precedent across all the US states.



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,022 ✭✭✭✭ aloyisious


    It seems that things remain the same in the inner circle.

    Rudy Giuliani on his twitter account earlier today: The January 6 Witch Hunt Cabal has now exceeded even its prior fraudulent. The last witness was a reckless liar. Contrary to her false testimony she was never present when I asked for a pardon. Actually I told the president I did not want or need one.

    Giuliani later deleted that tweet, adjusted his account settings so only people he follows or mentions can reply and followed it up with another: Rudy W. Giuliani @rudygiuliani. I NEVER asked for a pardon. I didn't need one. I NEVER lied nor did anything wrong. Friends suggested anyone in the inner circle should because the lying radical left try to frame innocent people.



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 16,885 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Sam Russell


    It is very Bart Simpson.

    'She was never present when I asked for a pardon' followed by 'I never asked for a pardon'. Oh, Rudi - that is the Bart Simpson denial - 'I never did it, no-one saw me!'

    Now one of those two Judi Giuliani tweets is a contradiction of the other - or vice versa.



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,022 ✭✭✭✭ aloyisious


    Sometimes the text message sails by me. Rudy admitted, inter alia, that Trump [his client] offered him a pardon and he declined it. That is what is readable from Rudy saying he never asked Trump for a pardon. Rudy also stated in the written text friends suggested anyone in the inner circle should because the lying radical left try to frame innocent people. Trump made references to pleading the 5th implies guilt in the past "the mob take the fifth". Trump making the pardon offer to Rudy looks very similar.



  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 18,627 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Brian?


    As I said before. They won. They’ve packed the court and the statehouses. They had a plan and it worked. 2024 could be the culmination of it all. They’ve torn the system to pieces and rebuilt it so they can’t really lose.


    Time to watch it burn to the ground and hope we can stay safe.

    they/them/theirs


    And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek




  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 18,627 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Brian?


    If anyone wants to hear my rant about US styles Liberals, let me know. They brought a knife to a gun fight and lost

    they/them/theirs


    And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 11,022 ✭✭✭✭ aloyisious


    For light relief, if Trump is getting you down, watch Buzz Aldrin's expression as he stands beside Don at a July 2017 speech by Don about outer space. BTW, Buzz is a republican and he has confirmed as fake the tale that he said not punching Don Trump was his greatest achievement.



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,022 ✭✭✭✭ aloyisious


    CNN is reporting on the testimony of Attorney Cipollone before the house committee for 8 hours without apparently contradicting the testimony of earlier witnesses AND also running an interview with the FBI director Chris Wray in which he said its investigation will follow the trail regardless of whom it upsets [or words to that effect].

    It seems some person has gotten word to CNN of a strange tale that Don Trump is considering withdrawing executive privilege from Steve Bannon where it comes to the committee meeting Bannon for interview and/or testimony. I'm minded to treat this tale with scepticism even though I'd like to see if Trump's executive privilege wall was crumbling an he was going to throw Bannon under the bus.

    Another strange tale on CNN is that one of the major militia members who supported the Capitol insurgency bid is supposed to be talking to the committee about testifying in OPEN SESSION before it. I'd be very sceptical about allowing such a person access to a public stage to make a political statement to justify that bid regardless to any right to put forward a defence to one's illegal actions as the committee hearing are not trial proceedings and definitely not something similar to that given to Hitler and Co during their trial after their Munich Putsch bid in 1923, just over a century ago.



  • Registered Users Posts: 36,128 ✭✭✭✭ ohnonotgmail


    There is no way they will give a platform to that Oath Keepers guy. He will have plenty of time to talk when he is in the witness box at his trial



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,022 ✭✭✭✭ aloyisious


    The Irish Times and various US media outlets [incl Fox News] have reported in the past few hours that Steve Bannon's lawyer sent the committee a letter on Saturday to the effect that Bannon will testify before it. This is after former president Trump said he would withdraw the executive privilege claim both claimed exists AFTER Trump fired Bannon BEFORE they consulted in the run-up to the attack on the Capitol, meaning Bannon was a private citizen as a result of said firing. Mr Trump sent a different letter for Bannon's attention [in the possession of Bannon's lawyer] containing a statement that he would waive that executive privilege claim because he was angered with the way the committee was presenting the hearings. Mr Trump, according to the reports, wrote in his letter to Bannon "If you reach an agreement on a time and place for your testimony, I will waive executive privilege for you, which allows for you to go in and testify truthfully and fairly, as per the request of the unselect committee of political thugs and hacks". The next committee hearings are planned for Tuesday [tomorrow] and Thursday. I suppose the crux of any testimony from Bannon will be what one defines as truthful and fair testimony.



  • Registered Users Posts: 9,458 ✭✭✭ duploelabs


    They'll interview and record him beforehand, as they have with all witnesses, if he contradicts himself whilst giving testimony then he'll be charged with perjury



  • Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 10,619 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Quin_Dub




  • Registered Users Posts: 11,022 ✭✭✭✭ aloyisious


    Is this "fake news" as usual from the extended Trump group - with a Bannon lawyer sending a letter to the committee containing a message from former president Trump to the effect that Trump will be withdrawing any executive privilege Trump claimed covered any conversation Trump had with Bannon? Embarrassing for the Bannon lawyers firm for it to turn out the Trump letter and other letters the Bannon lawyer claimed to have in possession on behalf of Bannon DO/DID NOT, IN FACT, EXIST.


    Definitely "oh dear" for the lawyer to get caught out in disseminating false information which the law societies will be reading about in the papers.



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,022 ✭✭✭✭ aloyisious


    Judge Carl Nichols has refused to delay Bannon's trial for contempt of Congress [which the DOJ is prosecuting] next Monday after Bannon's lawyers sought a weeks adjournment from that date to allow them prepare a defence. The judge also threw out Bannon's claim of executive privilege. The judge ruled that the prosecutors only needed to prove that Bannon acted "deliberately" and "intentionally" to defy the select committee - not that he knew it was wrong or illegal. That [IMO] lessens the burden of proof for the prosecutors.

    Judge Nichols also ruled "Bannon cannot present evidence that he relied on internal DOJ opinions or assertions of executive privilege". I'm reading that to refer to opinions or assertions of former Trump era AG's, Deputy & Assistant AG's from within the DOJ about executive privilege covering things discussed between Trump and former staffers like Bannon.

    Allegedly Bannon's lawyer made a statement asking "what's the point of going to trial" after the judge made his rulings.



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,022 ✭✭✭✭ aloyisious


    Fulton County Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney has ordered Senator Lindsey Graham to obey the County's Special Criminal Grand Jury order to appear before it and testify on 02 August despite his claims of executive privilege, apparently covering his asking Georgia Secretary of State Raffensperger to re-examine certain absentee ballots cast in Georgia to explore the possibility of a more favourable vote result for former president Trump there. It's fairly obvious that the Senator will try to get the judge's order overturned in some higher court.



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,022 ✭✭✭✭ aloyisious


    The discussion between the CNN panel after the public transmission of todays committee hearing and testimony showings seems to indicate the intent of the hearings is to sway the voters of both parties towards a verdict on Trump [should he signal an intent to stand again] in the next election AND not a verdict of a trial jury. Let's say the hearings seek a de facto, not a de jure, estimate be made in the minds of the US electorate on whether it would be safe for the US to vote for him again, given his political platform and the kind of strange close confidants he keeps as personal campaign advisers, extra to the group inclusive of his campaign manager.

    The inclusion of Senator Mitch McConnell shown on tape during the hearing declaring Joe Biden to be the newly elected President before the coup bid is clearly meant to be a guiding light for the regular voters in the next election.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 11,022 ✭✭✭✭ aloyisious


    Who is the Trump attorney who claimed Trump never gave Bannon executive privilege coverage over their conversations?



  • Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 10,619 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Quin_Dub


    Seems to be have been Justin Clark

    Department of Justice prosecutors revealed that former President Trump’s lawyer Justin Clark was interviewed by FBI investigators on June 29. According to Politico, the DOJ revealed the interview had taken place early Monday through a court filing related to the criminal contempt case against former Trump advisor Steve Bannon.


    According to Assistant U.S. Attorney Amanda Vaughn, Clark has contradicted statements made by Bannon, who has long claimed that his correspondence with Clark allows Trump to invoke executive privilege over Bannon’s testimony.


    Vaughn told Politico that Clark testified “that the former President never invoked executive privilege over any particular information or materials,” and “that [Bannon’s] attorney misrepresented to the Committee what the former President’s counsel had told” him. Clark allegedly went on to say that “the former President’s counsel made clear to [Bannon’s] attorney that the letter provided no basis for total noncompliance.”



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,022 ✭✭✭✭ aloyisious


    Umm, so it's either down to A: two lawyers and their two clients muddying the pre-appearance waters or B: me giving Mr Clark the benefit of the doubt in respect of him doing his honest duty as a lawyer and not giving the same benefit to Mr Trump, Mr Bannon and MR Bannon's lawyer. I won't do much head scratching on my choice.



  • Registered Users Posts: 271 ✭✭ RavenBea17b


    A silly question perhaps, but if you are no longer in a role, such as President, how can a former President withdraw a Presidential executive privilege. surely only a current President can do such a thing? I am just wondering. Truly not a clue about the processes in the US.



  • Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 10,619 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Quin_Dub


    In the case of Trump , he still thinks he's President and also thinks that being President is the same as being Emperor such that whatever he says is the law.

    However like almost everything Trump says or does , he is wrong.

    As a former President you do have some degree of ability to request/apply privilege but that is superceded by the sitting President.

    I believe the flow is that the former person is asked their opinion and given some time to provide the reasons behind why they agree/disagree but the current person can decide to overrule them - This has already happened regarding some of the information around January 6th where Biden revoked privilege for various records.

    Ultimately any final decision resides with the current President , but they do have to be careful about setting precedent even if they really want to release info from a previous administration.



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,022 ✭✭✭✭ aloyisious


    It's probable that Trump think's, as he made the offer, he's the only one who can withdraw it and definitely not the one who "stole" the elected office from him.

    On the issue of theft of elected public office, given what he tried to do on the 06th, the offence of attempted theft could be laid at his door.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,317 ✭✭✭ amandstu


    Or just a calculation that by pretending to exercise presidential prerogatives it will keep his followers believing the rest of his arsical pronouncements (pun intended and a cure for such now patented)



  • Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 27,230 Mod ✭✭✭✭ pixelburp


    The follow-up to Roe v. Wade keep coming; the latest? In Missouri, pregnant women can't file for divorce: because Missouri now says the unborn child is a person, a divorce proceeding must wait until birth when custody can officially take place. Obviously this may only effect a very small percentage of women but that is hardly the point. I'm reading an increasingly hostile dogmatism that's refusing to allow any exceptions - the most disgusting being the recent refusal to acknowledge rape victims as valid exceptions - even 10 year old ones.

    Meanwhile, some IVF patients are moving their embryos across state lines; why? Cos of a legitimate worry that if anti-abortion really kicks into high gear, even embryos will be considered "human" - at which point IVF providers enter the fray given they will be the ones storing - and destroying - those embryos. Kentucky are apparently trying to push for a law to do just this; recognising anything post-fertilisation as a person. Effectively shuttering IVF clinics there. It's madness unravelling in real-time.




  • Registered Users Posts: 11,022 ✭✭✭✭ aloyisious


    One might assume there is a whiff of "ethics" from the thought processes of those coming up with these law changes. It sounds a bit unfair if one partner in a marriage on the rocks cannot divorce because of an unborn person but the other partner may be in an effort to avoid child support etc. Re IVF and embryos, I hadn't even give a thought about that, let alone surrogacy.

    As for the actuality of the rape case, it seems there is a degree of opportunism behind what are basically crude statements from three sources. It would serve justice well if the doctor's legal agents make the A.G concerned pay dearly for his misspoken words and intent, whatever could be done about the media troll.

    The moving across state lines seems to be a thing of the here and now, with the USSC decision destroying privacy thereby allowing state agencies to attempt to pursue people across state lines, possibly using mobile phone data to find out what locations the people visited/were in while out of state. The Ads offering free camping/tourist accommodation with good intent to out-of-state visitors seem likely to multiply, though I've no doubt the "ethical" people will try to use that idea to engage with pregnant women and girls to ensure abortion time limits will elapse before abortion services can be used.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 11,022 ✭✭✭✭ aloyisious


    Melania Trump said in an interview with Fox News earlier today that she was not aware of the violence at the Capitol on the 06th Jan as she was performing her 1st Lady duties in the White House, as other 1st ladies did before her time, taking archive photos of the house interior with a photo crew following works on the house. She said her COS, Stephanie Grisham, was not in the White House on January 6, and her behavior in her role as Chief of Staff ultimately amounts to dereliction of duty. "In fact, Ms. Grisham failed to provide insight and information into the events surrounding January 6 as she had abandoned her post in Washington, D.C.". "Shamefully, this behavior has only partially become public knowledge; yet was consistent for Ms. Grisham."

    She added: "It is evident that Grisham’s recent betrayals are a last-ditch attempt to resuscitate her ruined career and reputation."

    An accusation by a Trump that the COS was guilty of dereliction of duty on the 06th while the Capitol insurgency was ongoing is refreshing to hear.



Advertisement