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

Says it all about Trump and the political climate in the US that I'm somewhat indifferent to this news.

We all knew what he was up to, this hasn't changed. Realistically how long is it likely to be before this even gets to trial and when if it does, I don't for a second believe we will see Trump on the stand. Outcome will probably be to ban him from holding executive positions and the whole thing will be dismissed as only a political case by his supporters and right wing news channels.

Merrick Garland better push on with the espionage thing and get the fcuker that way. He'll never see a day in prison but it should exclude him from being a position to harm the US and elsewhere such as he did between 16 and 20.

Will he live long enough to see any of this happen or is it really just going to affect his kids? He's no spring chicken.

Merrick will have to be careful as his nomination by President Obama for Anthony Scalia's seat on the USSC in 2016 was refused by McConnell & Co. Mitch told Obama that the nomination for Scalia's vacant seat would have to be made by the next president, not Obama. Mitch would stick it to him again on grounds of bias.

The import of McConnell's action may have given the Dems strong incentive to update the USSC bench numbers while they control power.

Numbers. Sitting on a massive war chest and donating SFA to his hand picked candidates who are in very close races.

So

The background is the Jan 2010 USSC [5/4] decision that it was OK for billionaires/corporate America to make large donations to PACs as they could already put the same amount into supporting an Ad campaign for a candidate [freedom of expression] and it would not make any difference as the same aim was reached by the direct financial support given to the candidates campaign. This overturned the FEC act banning such direct contributions from 1971. In addition, the Court struck down limits on the amount a candidate could spend from their own personal funds and overall limits on the amount a candidate could spend during the course of their campaign. The USSC made a series of similar decisions letting the loose funding situation existing now to come about for candidates and promoters of candidates by persons using PAC funds for that purpose.

Flashback to the news that he was renting out accommodation to the secret service for his service detail at one of his resort hotels while on tour.

Well trump has definitely paid for an inflated rack before

Trump on Fox with Sean Hannity [after he talked about the drugs flowing into the country now and how things were great in the US when he was in charge] about the valuation of his properties: There's a disclaimer on the front page of the: sic [property] documents which tells them they have to get their own valuation on my properties: sic [when there's a deal done] and the management: sic [of my properties] sign the valuation documents: sic [on my behalf].

Another way of Trump saying that it's their fault if they didn't bother getting their own valuation done on my properties before they signed off on agreements about my properties and he is not responsible for their neglect or for the valuations put on his properties by the management companies, implying that he was not involved in signing off on the valuations submitted on his behalf. Its all a witch-hunt by Letitia, she doesn't know me, never heard of her until she said during her election campaign that she was coming after me.

It doesn't explain away any of his personal signatures on the documents that Letitia mentioned [unless of course he claims they are not his signatures].

I went to FoxNews to see if it gave Trump airtime to respond to Letitia's case against him and how he would respond. There was no tomato sauce thrown around in the large room they were seated in during the interview.

Saw that on RTE.

TBH, I'm not even surprised at it. Using desperate people for a nasty political stunt sounds like it's straight out of the current GOP playbook and their shitbag supporters probably thought that it was a great laugh altogether.

I wonder what Charlie Baker made of it.

I've just read a post on Rachel Maddow's F/B page, as follows: Looking at Donald Trump's weird, racist, maybe-death-threat screed pointed at Mitch McConnell on Friday night, it's hard not to revisit the past few days when Trump exhorted, “REPUBLICAN SENATORS SHOULD VOTE NO!” on new legislation to prevent another coup attempt like what Trump tried to pull off to reverse his 2020 election loss, and McConnell's statement on the same, "I’ll proudly support the legislation.". Is this the same piece of legislation?

This is not Donald's weekend. Following on from the USSC decision not to hear Trump's request for an emergency sitting, the DOJ has gone back to the 11th circuit appeal court and asked it to revoke the appointment of the special master appointed by Judge Canon on the basis that the appointment was outside her powers.

I'm minded to wonder if Trump decides to run for office again, will others [like De Santis] put their personal desires to step up as GOP candidates aside for his benefit or, if they choose to stand, will Trump end up splitting the GOP into two camps and give the Democrats an easier route to retaining the office? I'm minded to hope Trump does continue to put his wishes ahead of the party's wants.

I'm hoping that Don's narcissism will cause him to continue as his nature decrees. It's possible that he may be persuaded to be a decoy to distract Democrats attention from De Santis or another GOP candidate and throw in the towel at the right moment to maximise the vote for the GOP. The risk in that for the GOP is that those still into deep state conspiracies, or still faithful to him and angered by McConnell et al, would either choose to make their mark on the ballot paper for Trump even though they know he had stood down as a candidate or spoil the paper making it an invalid vote paper. There are topics other than Trump that the Democrats must use to maximise their vote turnout, like the actual right to vote and Abortion rights for women and girls.

His planned announcement on the 14th may have to be changed. TBF to Trump he really is a master of giving himself plenty of room. He teases things, without ever making a proper statement, which gives him plenty of leeways to change course without losing face.

Has the red wave materialised, and Trump was ready to announce his intention to run? That it didn't, and in large part due to the rejection of Trump-endorsed candidates, means that he is not in as strong a position as he would have anticipated.

Surely the GOP cannot be thinking any longer that Trump is a winner in 2024?

They didn’t want him in 2016 but they eventually were stuck with him.

JD Vance who had trumps backing reportedly never mentioned trump in his victory speech last night. After January 6th they assumed that trump had dug his own political grave but they changed course not soon after. It’s their own fault in that the GOP base of old and MAGA base is becoming harder to distinguish between. The will have to walk a fine line of keeping trump close so that the base will stay with them, but far enough away so that independents can hold their nose and vote for the GOP.

I kept a small on the PA primary, on reflection the guy who OZ pipped would have won. A generic Republican billionaire who did well with the rural turn out who actually hired plenty of the Trump team. He likely would have made it worthwhile for Trump also to endorse him but Trump went with the guy he knew from TV who he could relate to more as an oil snake salesman.

Hasan would have lost to any generic Republican in NH with a very popular GOP governor cruising to victory but they ended up with a stop the steal loon. Similarly I do think Kelly would be in huge bother if Masters had not got the nomination. Oh and yeah any slightly less awful Republican beats Warnock last night.

Trump deserves a lot of criticism for these picks, but Mc Connell deserves plenty of flack, plenty of the above could have been stopped in the primary if the establishment had not cleared the field. Masters for example only won his primary as it was crowded.

The smaller a majority they get the harder it will be for them,I imagine.Are there any new (or existing) Rep members of Congress who would work in any way with Biden I wonder.

Are they likely to dispense with Trump if they perceive him as a liability to reelection?(is it again in 2 years?)

He seems less likely to return as Pres after this (second) lacklustre result.

Boebert in the lead now. I believe Marjorie Taylor Greene is back too.

What makes you say the Reps are hugely unlikely to take the Senate in Nevada?

They are leading by a small (1.8%) amount with 16% left to count.

Do the Dems have an advantage in the final votes?

I think Jan 6th Committee has done a great job of showing to many that were probably of the mind that this was nothing more than a match-day rumble, that it was very coordinated and Trump was at the very core.

It wouldn't have changed of the Trump supporter's minds, which are given way too much prominence in the media, but for those sitting on the fence, it might well have swayed them to vote for Demo, even though their inclination would be aligned to GOP because democracy is worth more.

The abortion issue was massive. A bit like Brexit, it makes a great-sounding rally call. Up until the point that it actually comes to pass and reality hits. For many, the constant demand for the overturning of Roe v Wade would have been ignored, just noise when it would never really happen. When it did, then it was because reality and young women, in particular, were not impressed. It also took away a major reason to vote GOP. If abortion was a major part of your voting reason, well success was achieved there really was nothing else to drive you to vote.