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

To protect his assets, Rudy Giuliani has filed a petition for bankruptcy in US Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, court documents showed. In the filing, Giuliani said he had between $100 million and $500 million in liabilities and $1 million to $10 million in assets.

Giuliani said he owed $148 million to Ruby Freeman and Wandrea Moss, the two former Georgia election workers.

The filing also listed President Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden, as a creditor, without specifying the amount Giuliani owed him. Hunter Biden in September sued Giuliani for violating his privacy over data allegedly taken from his laptop.

Giuliani listed the Internal Revenue Service and New York State Department of Taxation and finance among his creditors.

If Rudy does not get a miracle or a friend to help him out of his "sudden" bankruptcy and financial liquidity problems without legal complications, the value of his friendship with the last republican president will have to be recognized and accepted at more than face value. Trump will have some problem being the source of a hand-out to Rudy, given the interest prosecutors have in his financial interests and standings.

He (and the Republicans) won't be bothered one bit by the irony. Its just another example of Republican hypocrisy:

Restricting access to abortions for all while paying for abortions in your personal life.

Banging on about cancel culture and freedom of speech while banning books.

Decrying homosexual behaviour while secretly engaging in homosexual behaviour.

Championing states' rights while also shutting them down.

Whenever it comes to something involving themselves, it is never about any standing up for the general principles that they espouse and wish to apply to society. It is always about what position benefits them most on a case-by-case basis.

It would be good for other state supreme courts to rule against Trump being on the ballot in their states and publishing their opinions leading to said decisions ASAP, to accentuate that the reasoning behind their decisions were based on HOME STATE law and not favouritism or party affiliation. Hopefully Colorado state's supreme court will publish the opinion-piece behind it's decision.

Not withstanding the USSC decision to deny the prosecutors request for the rapid hearing, I suspect Trump would have liked the issue of his culpability of insurrection to be heard fast and denied fast in his favour instead of having it hanging around toward election time so he could trumpet more of his fake news lies about being the victim of a witch-hunt.

If the USSC has not heard Trumps case against the different state SC's which [may] decide to delete him from the election ballot papers, then theoretically he would be likely to invite his followers to again rise on his part to overturn the next election result as he would be the runner-up, on the basis that the other candidate would have been on the ballot papers in all the states.

That election result would probably force the hand of the USSC to rule on the validity of the election result [and the validity of the amendment's use in it] because the loser was denied an equal chance in the election in order for it [the USSC] to make a stand with the constitution and what it [the USSC] holds to be true [inclusive of - implicitly - the insurrection amendment].

If the USSC still declined to hear any appeal from the loser on the use of the amendment, then it would have de facto, and even de jure, sided against his appeal.

@spacecoyote: Where it comes to some cases being statute barred [if they are directly related to the election and not state or civil claim law suits against him] he'll probably do his nut about the USSC being disloyal to him, a 2nd-time sore loser.

Following on from the Colorado State Supreme Court decision to overturn a lower district court judge decision who found that Trump incited an insurrection for his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, but had said he could not be barred from the ballot because it was unclear that U.S. Constitution’s insurrection clause was intended to cover the presidency.

The state’s highest court didn’t agree, siding with attorneys for six Colorado Republican and unaffiliated voters who argued that it was nonsensical to imagine that the framers of the amendment, fearful of former confederates returning to power, would bar them from low-level offices but not the highest one in the land.

The court stayed its decision until Jan. 4, or until the U.S. Supreme Court rules on the case. Colorado officials say the issue must be settled by Jan. 5, the deadline for the state to print its presidential primary ballots.

The above information is contained in an AP report on incidents involving the SC judges after they made their ruling. DENVER (AP) — Police said Tuesday they are investigating incidents directed at Colorado Supreme Court justices and providing extra patrols around their homes in Denver following the court's decision to remove former President Donald Trump from the state's presidential primary ballot.

Trump won't be winning Maine in the next election

Trump's former lawyer, Michael Cohen [according to a response he made to Judge Furman questions about a motion he and his lawyer made to the judge to end his supervision by the court] in Manhattan Federal court told the judge that he didn't know the case citations he researched online through Google Bard were AI computer generated and did not exist in law or in fact. Mr Cohen gave the research he got online to his own lawyer to help the case that lawyer presented to Judge Furman not realising it was fake.

It's probably electoral hope moves that the other two lesser leading candidates to Trump for the GOP candidacy slot have said that, if elected, they would pardon him [of any federal charges]. DeSantis and Haley have both signalled they would grant clemency to the former president because it would be in the nation’s “interest” to do so.

“A leader needs to think about what’s in the best interest of the country,” Ms Haley said in New Hampshire on Thursday. “What’s in the best interest of the country is not to have an 80-year-old man sitting in jail, that continues to divide our country. What’s in the best interest of our country is to pardon him so that we can move on as a country and no longer talk about him.”

The next day in Iowa, Mr DeSantis said: “We got to move on as a country”. “Like Ford did to Nixon, because the divisions are just not in the country’s interest,” said the Florida governor, referencing Gerald Ford’s 1974 pardon of Richard Nixon.

I get a sense that both DeSantis and Haley are playing to "wavering" Trump voters in GOP land with their statements hoping to draw those voters into their folds while "offering" an olive-leaf branch to Trump's section of the GOP, maybe hoping that section might get him to change his mind on a run for office again. They would of course have to be genuine in their offers to give Trump clemency if elected in order to get the Trump-fans in office on the hill to stay peaceful after election. The problem for them is Trump being unlikely to agree to such a deal if people would no longer talk about him, just forget about him as an office-holder.