Author Topic: Sexual Abuser Donald Trump Indicted  (Read 377157 times)

Offline Red Beret

  • Yellow Beret. Wants to sit in the Lobster Pot. Fat-fingered. Key. Boa. Rd. Kille. R. tonunlick! Soggy Knickers King. Bed-Exiting / Grunting / Bending Down / Cum Face Champion 2023.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 51,567
Re: Legal repercussions for Trump and his cabal
« Reply #2320 on: November 18, 2021, 12:09:56 pm »
From the look of him it seems like doughnuts and whiskey will get him in the end. Hopefully he's in clink by that time

Don't be fooled by how he looks. He's a roach. He'd probably survive a nuclear blast. Fuck, just look at Trump - he should have keeled over dead years ago, even before Covid.
I don't always visit Lobster Pot.  But when I do. I sit.

Popcorn's Art

Offline jambutty

  • The Gok Wan of RAWK. Tripespotting Advocate. Oakley style guru. Hardman St. arl arse, "Ridiculously cool" -Atko- Impending U.S. Civil War Ostrich. Too old to suffer wankers and WUMs on here.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 13,864
  • June 20, 2009. Still no justice for Neda
Re: Legal repercussions for Trump and his cabal
« Reply #2321 on: November 18, 2021, 12:27:44 pm »
Back in the day you could bond with someone who "smoke the same cigarettes as me". Trump really pulls the Yank KFC/MickeyD crowd.
Kill the humourless

Offline jambutty

  • The Gok Wan of RAWK. Tripespotting Advocate. Oakley style guru. Hardman St. arl arse, "Ridiculously cool" -Atko- Impending U.S. Civil War Ostrich. Too old to suffer wankers and WUMs on here.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 13,864
  • June 20, 2009. Still no justice for Neda
Re: Legal repercussions for Trump and his cabal
« Reply #2322 on: November 18, 2021, 06:03:03 pm »
The Guardian
Paul Gosar retweets same video aimed at AOC after House censures him – report
Gloria Oladipo  2 hrs ago


Just minutes after being censured by the US House, Republican congressman Paul Gosar of Arizona retweeted the violent video that depicts him murdering Democratic congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, US media reported.

While Gosar had previously deleted the video, after the House voted to censure him, Gosar retweeted conservative podcaster Elijah Schaffer’s tweet of the video that was captioned: “Really well done. We love @DrPaulGosar, don’t we folks?” The retweet appears to have since been undone.

Gosar also retweeted other Republican politicians and public figures, both on his personal and congressional Twitter accounts, that have called Gosar a political “martyr” and denounced his censorship.

Gosar has not apologized for the video and called the censure “kabuki theater” and a “hysterical mob” in a series of new tweets published after the vote.

Following the censure vote, Gosar also released a statement saying that his censure could incite violence, comparing the censure to the events that led up to the 2015 Charlie Hebdo massacre.

“I remind everyone that pretending to be upset over a cartoon is what happened to the Charlie Hebdo magazine in France,” said Gosar. “All right-thinking people condemned that then, and they should condemn the Democrats now for their violation of free speech.”

On Wednesday the House voted to censure Gosar, with 223 in favor and 201 against. While the vote occurred mostly along party lines, three Republicans broke with their party line. Congressman Adam Kinzinger of Illinois and Congresswoman Liz Cheney of Wyoming voted in favor of censuring Gosar, and Congressman David Joyce of Ohio voted “present”, the lone Republican member to do so.

Republican members have been called out in the past for threatening violence against Democratic representatives, particularly women of color. In February, the House stripped Georgia congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene from her committee assignments after her social media posts were flagged for supporting violence against Ocasio-Cortez, Minnesota congresswoman Ilhan Omar and Michigan congresswoman Rashida Tlaib.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/paul-gosar-retweets-same-video-aimed-at-aoc-after-house-censures-him-%e2%80%93-report/ar-AAQRzqr?ocid=mailsignout&li=BBnb7Kz


Clearly, being a scumbag is a requirement to be a Repugnantcan.
Kill the humourless

Offline Red Beret

  • Yellow Beret. Wants to sit in the Lobster Pot. Fat-fingered. Key. Boa. Rd. Kille. R. tonunlick! Soggy Knickers King. Bed-Exiting / Grunting / Bending Down / Cum Face Champion 2023.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 51,567
Re: Legal repercussions for Trump and his cabal
« Reply #2323 on: November 18, 2021, 06:25:38 pm »
Lauren Boebert's house speech during the censure vote should get a censure vote in and of itself by all accounts. Disgusting if what I've heard is accurate, but then, typical Republicnuts.
I don't always visit Lobster Pot.  But when I do. I sit.

Popcorn's Art

Offline Kekule

  • Not fussy.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 12,304
Re: Legal repercussions for Trump and his cabal
« Reply #2324 on: November 18, 2021, 10:06:57 pm »
Lauren Boebert's house speech during the censure vote should get a censure vote in and of itself by all accounts. Disgusting if what I've heard is accurate, but then, typical Republicnuts.

I saw a video of it. Disgraceful.

Projecting as well, as her campaign manager’s office got raided by the FBI around the exact same time she was suggesting a democratic congressman ought to be investigated by them. 


Offline jambutty

  • The Gok Wan of RAWK. Tripespotting Advocate. Oakley style guru. Hardman St. arl arse, "Ridiculously cool" -Atko- Impending U.S. Civil War Ostrich. Too old to suffer wankers and WUMs on here.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 13,864
  • June 20, 2009. Still no justice for Neda
Re: Legal repercussions for Trump and his cabal
« Reply #2326 on: November 19, 2021, 07:18:40 am »
CNN
Opinion: Why the tide may be turning on Trump
by Frida Ghitis  1 hr ago


What's that we hear? Is it the sound of prominent conservatives and Trump allies openly rebuking former President Donald Trump? Are these the early murmurs of a conservative backlash against Trump? And is it possible a political lane is opening for another Republican presidential candidate in 2024?

It's too soon to know, of course, and there's plenty of evidence that those who stand up against the vindictive Trump will end up crushed by either his bullying ways or by his loyal followers, with little support from the rest of the GOP. And yet, it is noteworthy that in the past few days we have heard from two major figures in the conservative camp telling Trump that he should stop whining about the election he lost and let the Republican Party focus on real issues, instead of his self-serving fantasies.

The statements from Rupert Murdoch -- who controls a media empire that includes, among other properties, the shamelessly pro-Trump Fox News -- and from former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie -- an adviser who worked with the former president and helped him prepare for the presidential debates during the 2020 election -- may serve as a test for Republicans who understand just how harmful Trump's dominance of the GOP is, and how it could ultimately sink the party.

It was startling when Murdoch, addressing his company at the annual shareholder meeting on Wednesday, said that the United States faces a number of major political decisions that conservatives will fail to shape unless Trump moves on. "The current American political debate is profound," he said, citing education, welfare and economic opportunity. "It is crucial that conservatives play an active, forceful role in that debate," he added, "but that will not happen if President Trump stays focused on the past."

Murdoch is not alone in arguing that Trump is a threat to conservatives. Christie, who has just published a new book that looks very much like his unofficial entry into the 2024 presidential race, is making the same case, only more forcefully.

Consider the title of Christie's book -- which effectively labels Trump a threat to the GOP: "Republican Rescue: Saving the Party from Truth Deniers, Conspiracy Theorists, and the Dangerous Policies of Joe Biden." Notice that Trump fits two of the three reasons the party needs saving (by Christie, presumably).

Murdoch and Christie are not the first Republicans who have stood up to the former president -- but their rebukes of Trump are markedly different. Trump's early critics, like Senators Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Lindsey Graham and others, melted into passionate defenders once their criticisms proved perilous to their own standing. Their reversals bring to mind a quote often attributed to Groucho Marx: "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them...well, I have others."

Christie says many in the GOP are frightened of Trump, whose "conduct is meant to instill fear." Conservative Republicans who refuse to fall in line, such as Rep. Liz Cheney, are being hounded out of a party that is increasingly remade into the former president's raging, iconoclastic and intolerant brand.

Sure, it's possible Murdoch and Christie's words may also fail to change the course of the GOP, but their criticism is different. They both helped Trump throughout his presidency, and it's significant that they are the ones now speaking out against him. Their plea that he stop complaining about the last election, however, will only fall on deaf ears, since Trump is simply incapable of admitting he lost. But Murdoch and Christie are sending an important message to other members of the party -- and the rest of the country -- that to continue supporting Trump is a dangerous folly.

Coincidentally or not, the chairwoman of the Republican National Committee, Ronna McDaniel, finally acknowledged Biden's win on Thursday, more than a year after the 2020 vote. "Painfully," she said, "Joe Biden won the election and it's very painful to watch. He's the President. We know that."

Murdoch and Christie undoubtedly have their own personal motives for speaking out against Trump in this moment, and there's plenty of evidence to warrant accusations of hypocrisy. Murdoch, whose Fox News -- home of Tucker Carlson, a purveyor of harmful lies and propaganda about everything from the Covid vaccine to American democracy -- is still serving Trump's goals. But Fox News now faces billion-dollar defamation lawsuits brought by two voting technology companies that allege the network spread false claims of election fraud.

Murdoch might be driven by a fear of liability and the potential damage additional lawsuits could inflict on his bottom line if Fox News continues to follow Trump down a rabbit hole of conspiracy theories and baseless claims. There is, also the possibility that he cares about the future of conservative politics, and genuinely fears the GOP might get trampled if Trump doesn't let up.

Christie, for his part, is trying to promote his book and his prospects of occupying the White House.

Still, it is remarkable that they have done the calculus and decided they can benefit from speaking out against the former president, even after other Republicans have been badly hurt by doing the same thing.

I think their calculation makes sense.

With President Joe Biden's ratings sinking, the conventional wisdom seems to be that Democrats are doomed. But it is Republicans who may be doomed if they continue to stick with the former president.

There's no doubt the Biden administration is terrible at messaging. The economy is booming and yet consumers are feeling pessimistic. Meanwhile, Biden is making important legislative progress, and the inflationary pressures that are creating the false impression that the economy is failing could be resolved in time to boost Democrats' fortunes.

Even if Democrats are still in the doldrums in 2024, it's hard to imagine that voters will be yearning for another four years of Trumpian chaos. Biden may look uninspiring now, but the former president, who had the most consistently poor approval ratings of any president in the modern era, remains highly unpopular and controversial.

Do Republicans want a candidate embroiled in endless -- and serious -- legal troubles? According to the New York Times, prosecutors are likely to impanel a grand jury in Georgia in the criminal investigation of the former president's attempt to overturn the 2020 election (In September, he suggested he was being unfairly targeted, saying, "Even the Fulton County DA, district attorney, is after me.") Meanwhile, prosecutors in New York have convened a second grand jury to hear evidence about Trump Organization's business practices, according to the Washington Post. (The first grand jury, which convened this spring, charged two Trump companies and an executive with tax evasion. Trump, who was not charged, blasted the indictment and called the investigation a "political witch hunt.")

A Pew poll conducted in September found that two-thirds of Republicans want Trump to remain a major force in the party, but only 44% want him to run again. One-third of Republicans and 92% of Democrats don't want him to be a major national political figure going forward. That's not the arithmetic of victory.

There's the potential for a post-Trump Republican Party to gain ground. It still seems like a long shot at this point, but if his critics are successful in persuading the GOP to move in a different direction, there's a chance American democracy can return some semblance of normality, where political leaders debate what policies are best for the country, without fear of upsetting the tender, explosive feelings of a very bad loser.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/opinion-why-the-tide-may-be-turning-on-trump/ar-AAQSMZX?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531
Kill the humourless

Offline Nobby Reserve

  • Onanistic Charades Champion Of Roundabouts. Euphemistic Gerbil Starver.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 11,984
  • Do you wanna build a snowman?
Re: Legal repercussions for Trump and his cabal
« Reply #2327 on: November 19, 2021, 12:03:30 pm »
The problem the Repugs have is if the fat, orange fraudster doesn't run, how do they keep all the crazed loon/racist/neo-Nazi followers on board and voting? Do they go with a Trump-lite running on a similarly hard-right ticket? That runs the risk of keeping swing voters who spurned Trump last time away, but also losing some of Trump's shitstains. Or do they try to lure back the swing voters with a less frenzied candidate and ticket, but see a lot of the Trump shitstains walk away?

Hopefully they cannot solve the conundrum.
A Tory, a worker and an immigrant are sat round a table. There's a plate of 10 biscuits in the middle. The Tory takes 9 then turns to the worker and says "that immigrant is trying to steal your biscuit"

Offline Kekule

  • Not fussy.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 12,304
Re: Legal repercussions for Trump and his cabal
« Reply #2328 on: November 19, 2021, 06:47:32 pm »
The problem the Repugs have is if the fat, orange fraudster doesn't run, how do they keep all the crazed loon/racist/neo-Nazi followers on board and voting? Do they go with a Trump-lite running on a similarly hard-right ticket? That runs the risk of keeping swing voters who spurned Trump last time away, but also losing some of Trump's shitstains. Or do they try to lure back the swing voters with a less frenzied candidate and ticket, but see a lot of the Trump shitstains walk away?

Hopefully they cannot solve the conundrum.

I don’t think they have anything to worry about on that count. There’s zero chance he doesn’t run, he’ll be there front and centre, abusing opponents, arguing that every vote cast against him in the primaries is fraudulent and getting his cronies to see if they can get those votes thrown out in a dry run for the presidential election, and with excuses being made for his behaviour all the way.


Offline Red Beret

  • Yellow Beret. Wants to sit in the Lobster Pot. Fat-fingered. Key. Boa. Rd. Kille. R. tonunlick! Soggy Knickers King. Bed-Exiting / Grunting / Bending Down / Cum Face Champion 2023.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 51,567
Re: Legal repercussions for Trump and his cabal
« Reply #2329 on: November 19, 2021, 07:28:47 pm »
If Trump seeks the nomination, he'll have a clear field. No one will dare stand against him.  They're working hard to cultivate his base and appeal to them in the hopes he doesn't run, but if they stood against him there'd be nothing down with them, even if they beat Trump to the nomination. They won't vote for the person who beat their idol.

Only reason Trump hasn't already announced it is his advisers telling him it's best to wait until after the midterms. He thinks it's so he can present himself as America's saviour, but Republicans know they'll suffer a massive backlash at the midterm polls if he does.
« Last Edit: November 19, 2021, 07:55:11 pm by Red Berry »
I don't always visit Lobster Pot.  But when I do. I sit.

Popcorn's Art

Online John C

  • RAWK Staff
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 42,261
Re: Legal repercussions for Trump and his cabal
« Reply #2330 on: November 19, 2021, 09:26:33 pm »
If Trump seeks the nomination, he'll have a clear field. No one will dare stand against him.  They're working hard to cultivate his base and appeal to them in the hopes he doesn't run, but if they stood against him there'd be nothing down with them, even if they beat Trump to the nomination. They won't vote for the person who beat their idol.

Only reason Trump hasn't already announced it is his advisers telling him it's best to wait until after the midterms. He thinks it's so he can present himself as America's saviour, but Republicans know they'll suffer a massive backlash at the midterm polls if he does.
There's a bit more too it I think. Firstly time is on his lazy arse side RB. He knows he's current favourite, but if the country shows any sort of turn towards the Dems in the mid-term he'll calculate whether to run. I know he's claim another fraud, but I'm not sure he can stomach losing again.

However, losing may be softened by a huge financial injection but there's a lot to consider you know.

There'll be a few contenders against him and if they defeat him they'll defeat him anyway, whether he announces now or in 2 years. He just needs to decide whether he wants a battle.

He's a thick c*nt, literally. But him and his advisors (not his sons) know when to decide whether the grift is worth further humiliation.

Online Billy The Kid

  • Out of the closet with a whiet shirt on, but would pay a fiver not to be gay...Would prefer to give his manliness to someone rather than receive theirs especially Amir in another life.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 19,941
  • I'm Your Huckleberry
Re: Legal repercussions for Trump and his cabal
« Reply #2331 on: November 21, 2021, 11:51:42 am »
How glorious would it be if he ran for the republican nomination, wound up losing it, claimed the RNC rigged the votes, cried conspiracy, got his base to turn on the entire party, made McConnell and McCarthy out to be traitors, then rode off leaving the entire party in tatters. Its precisely what republicans deserve for abandoning their constitutional duties to protect him

I can't think of anyone influential enough to beat him though. He'll be the republican candidate. Of that I'm pretty sure

 
When overtaken by defeat, as you may be many times, remember than mans faith in his own ability is tested many times before he is crowned with final victory. Defeats are nothing more than challenges to keep trying.” – Napoleon Hill.

Offline Red Beret

  • Yellow Beret. Wants to sit in the Lobster Pot. Fat-fingered. Key. Boa. Rd. Kille. R. tonunlick! Soggy Knickers King. Bed-Exiting / Grunting / Bending Down / Cum Face Champion 2023.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 51,567
Re: Legal repercussions for Trump and his cabal
« Reply #2332 on: November 21, 2021, 06:56:10 pm »
There's a bit more too it I think. Firstly time is on his lazy arse side RB. He knows he's current favourite, but if the country shows any sort of turn towards the Dems in the mid-term he'll calculate whether to run. I know he's claim another fraud, but I'm not sure he can stomach losing again.

However, losing may be softened by a huge financial injection but there's a lot to consider you know.

There'll be a few contenders against him and if they defeat him they'll defeat him anyway, whether he announces now or in 2 years. He just needs to decide whether he wants a battle.

He's a thick c*nt, literally. But him and his advisors (not his sons) know when to decide whether the grift is worth further humiliation.

The mid terms look set to be a blood bath for the Dems at the moment, unfortunately. But although Trump is a cert for the nomination if he stands, he might not be such an attractive prospect to the electorate at large in a presidential election.  But you're certainly right that Trump will grift as much as he can, and Republican controlled states - of which there may be sadly more of by this time next year - will do their best to gerrymander the opposition out of the polling booths.

That said, Biden will be on the defensive, and another three years of the presidency could have well worn him out.
I don't always visit Lobster Pot.  But when I do. I sit.

Popcorn's Art

Offline GreatEx

  • pectations. might be a cunt but isn't a capitalist cunt. Blissfully ignorant.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 8,319
Re: Legal repercussions for Trump and his cabal
« Reply #2333 on: November 22, 2021, 04:28:47 am »
The Guardian
Paul Gosar retweets same video aimed at AOC after House censures him – report


Just saw this in a link from the story of the NH governor rebuking his GOP colleagues. I've kind of expunged the Trump years from my memory - is this a ratcheting up of the misogynist (and racist, and classist, and...) violence of GOP rhetoric, or was it always this way? Disgraceful trampling of a man's First Amendment rights, giving him a mild slap on the wrist for simulating the murder of a political rival. Does freedom mean nothing to these leftist lunatics?

Offline jambutty

  • The Gok Wan of RAWK. Tripespotting Advocate. Oakley style guru. Hardman St. arl arse, "Ridiculously cool" -Atko- Impending U.S. Civil War Ostrich. Too old to suffer wankers and WUMs on here.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 13,864
  • June 20, 2009. Still no justice for Neda
Re: Legal repercussions for Trump and his cabal
« Reply #2334 on: November 22, 2021, 06:52:36 am »
The US is inadvertently presenting itself as a dichotomy of AOC (not Chambo) and David Duke.

Only one of them will be remembered as an icon for good.
Kill the humourless

Online John C

  • RAWK Staff
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 42,261
Re: Legal repercussions for Trump and his cabal
« Reply #2335 on: November 22, 2021, 08:36:15 pm »
But him and his advisors (not his sons) know when to decide whether the grift is worth further humiliation.
Michael Cohen confirmed today on CNN that Trump is basically involved in one huge grift presently, he's making millions. And he'll continue the scam right up to election day.

Offline Red Beret

  • Yellow Beret. Wants to sit in the Lobster Pot. Fat-fingered. Key. Boa. Rd. Kille. R. tonunlick! Soggy Knickers King. Bed-Exiting / Grunting / Bending Down / Cum Face Champion 2023.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 51,567
Re: Legal repercussions for Trump and his cabal
« Reply #2336 on: November 22, 2021, 09:38:52 pm »
Michael Cohen confirmed today on CNN that Trump is basically involved in one huge grift presently, he's making millions. And he'll continue the scam right up to election day.

That's another reason he's not announced his candidacy yet.  I recall Ring of Fire saying that his CPAC's can be very vague about what they do with the money they receive until Trump is an official candidate - after which, how much is donated and what it's spent on comes under far closer scrutiny.

Given the way Trump's business has suffered over the past two years, politics is probably the only thing keeping him afloat.
I don't always visit Lobster Pot.  But when I do. I sit.

Popcorn's Art

Offline Chakan

  • Chaka Chaka.....is in love with Aristotle but only for votes. The proud owner of some very private piles and an inflatable harem! Winner of RAWK's Carabao Cup captian contest.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 91,079
  • Internet Terrorist lvl VI
Re: Legal repercussions for Trump and his cabal
« Reply #2337 on: November 22, 2021, 09:43:49 pm »
That's another reason he's not announced his candidacy yet.  I recall Ring of Fire saying that his CPAC's can be very vague about what they do with the money they receive until Trump is an official candidate - after which, how much is donated and what it's spent on comes under far closer scrutiny.

Given the way Trump's business has suffered over the past two years, politics is probably the only thing keeping him afloat.

Jesus I hope he doesn't run, can you imagine the fume when he takes all their money and fucks off. It'll be delicious.

Offline jambutty

  • The Gok Wan of RAWK. Tripespotting Advocate. Oakley style guru. Hardman St. arl arse, "Ridiculously cool" -Atko- Impending U.S. Civil War Ostrich. Too old to suffer wankers and WUMs on here.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 13,864
  • June 20, 2009. Still no justice for Neda
Re: Legal repercussions for Trump and his cabal
« Reply #2338 on: November 24, 2021, 01:07:34 am »
CBS News
Proud Boys, Oath Keepers subpoenaed by January 6 committee
Melissa Quinn - 4h ago


Washington — The House select committee probing the January 6 assault on the U.S. Capitol issued another round of subpoenas Wednesday, targeting far-right extremist groups and their leaders who have been linked to the violence at the Capitol.

The panel is demanding documents from Proud Boys International and its leader Enrique Tarrio, as well as from the Oath Keepers and its chairman, Elmer Stewart Rhode. The 1st Amendment Praetorian, which the committee said provided security at rallies before January 6, also received a subpoena from the House select committee.

Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson, a Democrat from Mississippi, said in a statement announcing the five subpoenas that the panel believes the individuals and groups targeted "have relevant information about how violence erupted at the Capitol and the preparation leading up to this violent attack."

"The Select Committee is moving swiftly to uncover the facts of what happened on that day and we expect every witness to comply with the law and cooperate so that we can get answers to the American people," he said.

Multiple people affiliated with the Proud Boys have been charged for their role in the January 6 assault, and Tarrio, who was arrested in Washington, D.C., on January 4 and charged for conduct in December 2020, allegedly helped the Proud Boys prepare for the attack on the Capitol, according to the committee. Tarrio pleaded guilty in July to one count of destruction of property and one count of attempted possession of a large-capacity ammunition feeding device, and he was sentenced to more than five months in prison.

More than a dozen members of the Oath Keepers were indicted by a grand jury on charges including conspiracy, obstruction of an official proceeding and destruction of government property for their roles in the January 6 assault. Federal prosecutors allege the group wore paramilitary gear and used military-style tactics as part of a coordinated effort with other Oath Keepers before and during the assault.

The 1st Amendment Praetorian, meanwhile, suggested on its Twitter account on January 4 that there could be violence two days later, and its leader, Robert Patrick Lewis, was listed as a speaker on the permit for a rally in Washington on January 5.

The committee notified the extremist groups and leaders they are seeking both documents and depositions as part of its investigation into how various entities and individuals coordinated their activities in the run-up to January 6, as well as the "influencing factors that fomented such an attack on American representative democracy while engaged in a constitutional process."

The select committee has continued to ramp up its demands for documents and testimony, issuing more than 40 subpoenas so far to former White House aides, allies of former President Donald Trump and organizers of the rally that occurred outside the White House before the Capitol assault.

One target of the committee, former Trump political strategist Steve Bannon, was indicted by a federal grand jury after refusing to appear before lawmakers for a deposition. He pleaded not guilty.

The select committee was formed earlier this year and tasked investigating the events surrounding the January 6 assault, when a mob of Mr. Trump's supporters breached the Capitol in an effort to stop Congress from tallying state electoral votes and reaffirming President Biden's victory.

Hundreds of people have since been arrested and charged for their roles in the riots.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/proud-boys-oath-keepers-subpoenaed-by-january-6-committee/ar-AAR34BN?ocid=msedgntp
Kill the humourless

Offline jambutty

  • The Gok Wan of RAWK. Tripespotting Advocate. Oakley style guru. Hardman St. arl arse, "Ridiculously cool" -Atko- Impending U.S. Civil War Ostrich. Too old to suffer wankers and WUMs on here.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 13,864
  • June 20, 2009. Still no justice for Neda
Re: Legal repercussions for Trump and his cabal
« Reply #2339 on: November 24, 2021, 01:33:02 am »
The New York Times
Charlottesville Rally Trial: Jury Finds Far-Right Conspiracy
Neil MacFarquhar - 3h ago


CHARLOTTESVILLE, Va. — Jurors on Tuesday found the main organizers of the deadly right-wing rally in Charlottesville, Va., in 2017 liable under state law for injuries to counterprotesters, awarding more than $25 million in damages. But the jury deadlocked on two federal conspiracy charges.

The verdict in the civil trial, though mixed, was a rebuke for the defendants — a mix of white nationalists, neo-Nazis and Confederate sympathizers. They were found under Virginia law to have engaged in a conspiracy in the lead-up to the rally, which began as protest over the removal of a Confederate statue and resulted in a car attack that killed one counterprotester, 32-year-old Heather Heyer.

The case in U.S. District Court in Charlottesville was brought by nine plaintiffs, four men and five women, including four people injured in the car attack. In addition to their physical injuries from the crash, including three concussions and a skull fracture, the plaintiffs testified that they suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder, including insomnia, the inability to concentrate, flashbacks and panic attacks.

All were seeking compensatory and unspecified punitive damages, including payment for medical costs as well as $3 million to $10 million for pain and suffering depending on the degree of their injuries.

They said that in addition to holding march organizers responsible for the violence, they hoped to deter hate groups from mounting similar toxic spectacles in the future, relying on civil suits in the absence of decisive action by the criminal justice system.

The rally, which featured extremists carrying torches and chanting racist slogans, was organized as a protest against the removal of a statue of Robert E. Lee that has since been dismantled. But its broader aim was to move the far right from the internet fringes into the mainstream.

The federal charges on which the jury deadlocked related to whether the defendants had engaged in a race-based violent conspiracy, which is illegal under an 1871 federal law known as the Ku Klux Klan Act that was designed to prevent vigilantes from denying newly freed slaves their civil rights. The plaintiffs said they would consider seeking a retrial on the federal charges.

Numerous defendants readily admitted their racial animosity, but said they were exercising their First Amendment rights with a legal permit for the rally, not participating in a conspiracy to commit violence. They blamed the violence entirely on James Fields, a demonstrator who mowed down counterprotesters with his car, killing Ms. Heyer. A defendant in this case, he was already serving multiple life sentences.

The jury was asked to decide whether each of the defendants had engaged in a conspiracy, and, if so, what compensation should be paid to the plaintiffs.

The jury began deliberating on Friday. The 77 pages of instructions from the judge explained how engaging in a conspiracy did not require all participants to forge an agreement or meet in the same room, or even to know one another. Nor did a conspiracy require the participants to have caused the violence themselves. The main point was that they all shared an objective and could foresee the violence that occurred.

The plaintiffs drew a line from Mr. Fields through all the organizations that participated, linking him first to Vanguard America, the group that he marched with in Charlottesville, and then to the other organizations and their leaders. The defendants argued that it was all just a pile of online chatter that did not amount to strong connections, much less a conspiracy, among those involved. Nobody knew Mr. Fields beforehand, they stressed, and he was not involved in organizing the event.

The four-week trial, long delayed because of the coronavirus pandemic, underscored how much the rally organizers and their groups were already sidelined, squabbling among themselves and financially strapped in the wake of the violent debacle in Charlottesville. Richard Spencer, the most high-profile leader of the alt-right at that time, who defended himself during the trial, described the case in 2020 as “financially crippling.” Seven defendants ignored the proceedings and will be dealt with separately by the court.

The unspecified punitive damages were meant as a deterrent against any similar rally again, said Roberta Kaplan, the lead attorney who organized the case through a non-profit organization called Integrity First for America.

But if many players have been shunted aside, the ideology has not. In recent decades, whenever far-right groups have lost in court, the movement has rebounded.

“While some of the messengers have been eviscerated, the more mainstream versions of their hatemongering continue to have real currency, with broad exposure guaranteeing that the violence of the far-right fringes will unfortunately continue,” said Brian Levin, the director of the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University, San Bernardino.

In seeking to prove that the violence was foreseeable, the plaintiffs highlighted how often the idea of hitting protesters with cars came up beforehand.

Samantha Froelich, who was dating two of the main organizers simultaneously in the leadup to the rally, but who has since left the movement, testified that hitting protesters with cars was discussed at a party earlier that summer in the “Fash Loft,” short for fascist, the nickname for Mr. Spencer’s apartment in Alexandria, Va.

After the violence, Matthew Parrott — one of the leaders of the since disbanded Traditionalist Workers Party, which was modeled after the Nazi Party — and the others celebrated. “Charlottesville was a tremendous victory,” he said in a post. “The alt-right is not a pathetic and faceless internet fad, but a fearsome street-fighting force.”

While the plaintiffs’ case took three weeks and 36 witnesses, the defendants rested after a day and a half.

The defendants made four broad arguments. First, they argued that while others might deplore their views, the First Amendment allowed them. Second, that they acted in self-defense. Third, that the police were to blame for not keeping the opposing sides apart. Fourth, that none of them could anticipate what Mr. Fields did because none knew him.

The trial brought to life the hatred and anger espoused by the far-right groups, especially on the streets of Charlottesville. A torch-lit march on the eve of the rally, with hundreds of men chanting racist slogans, evoked Ku Klux Klan and Nazi marches. The testimony as well as the many videos and social media posts introduced were awash in the iconography of hate, with Nazi symbols and stiff-armed salutes, with admiration for Hitler and claims that nonwhite races were inferior.

Supporters of the defendants maintained a cheering section online full of expletive-laced rants against Black and Jewish people, while the defendants themselves weighed in with commentary. In an online interview, Michael Hill, 69, president of the League of the South, which seeks to establish a white ethno-state, called the courtroom a “front line” in the battle.

While testifying, Mr. Hill was asked to read part of a pledge that he had posted online. “I pledge to be a white supremacist, racist, antisemite, homophobe, a xenophobe, an Islamophobe and any other sort of phobe that benefits my people, so help me God,” he read with apparent enthusiasm. He added: “I still hold those views.”

Lawyers for the white supremacists had argued that such messages of hate were not enough to prove the plaintiffs’ case.

“They’ve proven to you that the alt-right is the alt-right — they are racists; they are antisemites,” James Kolenich, one of the defense lawyers, said in closing arguments. “But what does that do to prove a conspiracy?”

During the trial, Judge Norman K. Moon said that in a criminal case a jury would have to find guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt,” but that in this type of civil case they needed to determine that a “preponderance of evidence,” that is more than 50 percent, buttressed the accusations.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/charlottesville-rally-trial-jury-finds-far-right-conspiracy/ar-AAR3fHX?ocid=msedgntp
Kill the humourless

Offline jambutty

  • The Gok Wan of RAWK. Tripespotting Advocate. Oakley style guru. Hardman St. arl arse, "Ridiculously cool" -Atko- Impending U.S. Civil War Ostrich. Too old to suffer wankers and WUMs on here.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 13,864
  • June 20, 2009. Still no justice for Neda
Re: Legal repercussions for Trump and his cabal
« Reply #2340 on: November 26, 2021, 07:01:58 am »
The Atlantic
It Wasn’t a Hoax
David Frum - Yesterday 7:00 AM


If Donald Trump had been supported only by people who affirmatively liked him, his attack on American democracy would never have gotten as far as it did.

Instead, at almost every turn, Trump was helped by people who had little liking for him as a human being or politician, but assessed that he could be useful for purposes of their own. The latest example: the suddenly red-hot media campaign to endorse Trump’s fantasy that he was the victim of a “Russia hoax.”

The usual suspects in the pro-Trump media ecosystem will of course endorse and repeat everything Trump says, no matter how outlandish. But it’s not pro-Trumpers who are leading the latest round of Trump-Russia denialism. This newest round of excuse-making is being sounded from more respectable quarters, in many cases by people distinguished as Trump critics. With Trump out of office—at least for the time being—they now feel free to subordinate their past concerns about him to other private quarrels with the FBI or mainstream media institutions. On high-subscription Substacks, on popular podcasts, even from within prestige media institutions, people with scant illusions about Trump the man and president are nonetheless volunteering to help him execute one of his Big Lies.

The factual record on Trump-Russia has been set forth most authoritatively by the report of the Senate Intelligence Committee, then chaired by Richard Burr, a Republican from North Carolina. I’ll reduce the complex details to a very few agreed upon by virtually everybody outside the core Trump-propaganda group.

Dating back to at least 2006, Trump and his companies did tens of millions of dollars of business with Russian individuals and other buyers whose profiles raised the possibility of money laundering. More than one-fifth of all the condominiums sold by Trump over his career were purchased in all-cash transactions by shell companies, a 2018 BuzzFeed News investigation found.

In 2013, Trump’s pursuit of Russian business intensified. That year, he staged the Miss Universe pageant in Moscow. Around that time, Trump opened discussions on the construction of a Trump Tower in Moscow, from which he hoped to earn “hundreds of millions of dollars, if the project advanced to completion,” in the words of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Trump continued to pursue the Tower deal for a year after he declared himself a candidate for president. “By early November 2015, Trump and a Russia-based developer signed a Letter of Intent laying out the main terms of a licensing deal,” the Senate Intelligence Committee found. Trump’s representatives directly lobbied aides to Russian President Vladimir Putin in January 2016. Yet repeatedly during the 2016 campaign, Trump falsely stated that he had no business with Russia—perhaps most notably in his second presidential debate against Hillary Clinton, in October 2016.

Early in 2016, President Putin ordered an influence operation to “harm the Clinton Campaign, tarnish an expected Clinton presidential administration, help the Trump Campaign after Trump became the presumptive Republican nominee, and undermine the U.S. democratic process.” Again, that’s from the Senate Intelligence Committee report.

The Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos “likely learned about the Russian active measures campaign as early as April 2016,” the Senate Intelligence Committee wrote. In May 2016, Papadopoulos indiscreetly talked with Alexander Downer, then the Australian high commissioner to the United Kingdom, about Russia’s plot to intervene in the U.S. election to hurt Clinton and help Trump. Downer described the conversation in a report to his government. By long-standing agreement, Australia shares intelligence with the U.S. government. It was Papadopoulos’s blurt to Downer that set in motion the FBI investigation of Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election, a revelation authoritatively reported more than three years ago.

In June 2016, the Trump campaign received a request for a meeting from a Russian lawyer offering harmful information on Hillary Clinton. Donald Trump Jr. and other senior Trump advisers accepted the meeting. The Trump team did not obtain the dirt they’d hoped for. But the very fact of the meeting confirmed to the Russian side the Trump campaign’s eagerness to accept Russian assistance. Shortly after, Trump delivered his “Russia, if you’re listening” invitation at his last press conference of the campaign.

WikiLeaks released two big caches of hacked Democratic emails in July and October 2016. In the words of the Senate Intelligence Committee: “WikiLeaks actively sought, and played, a key role in the Russian intelligence campaign and very likely knew it was assisting a Russian intelligence influence effort.”

Through its ally Roger Stone, the Trump campaign team assiduously tried to communicate with WikiLeaks. Before the second WikiLeaks release, “Trump and the Campaign believed that Stone had inside information and expressed satisfaction that Stone’s information suggested more releases would be forthcoming,” according to the Senate Intelligence Committee. In late summer and early fall 2016, Stone repeatedly predicted that WikiLeaks would publish an “October surprise” that would harm the Clinton campaign.

At the same time as it welcomed Russian help, the Trump campaign denied and covered up Russian involvement: “The Trump Campaign publicly undermined the attribution of the hack-and-leak campaign to Russia and was indifferent to whether it and WikiLeaks were furthering a Russian election interference effort,” the Intelligence Committee found.

In March 2016, the Trump campaign accepted the unpaid services of Paul Manafort, deeply beholden to deeply shady Russian business and political figures. “On numerous occasions, Manafort sought to secretly share internal Campaign information” with a man the Intelligence Committee identified as a Russian intelligence officer. “Taken as a whole, Manafort’s high-level access and willingness to share information with individuals closely affiliated with the Russian intelligence services … represented a grave counterintelligence threat,” the committee found. Through 2016, the Russian state launched a massive Facebook disinformation program that aligned with the Trump campaign strategy.

At crucial moments in the 2016 election, Trump publicly took positions that broke with past Republican policy and served no apparent domestic political purpose, but that supported Putin’s foreign-policy goals: scoffing at NATO support for Estonia, denigrating allies such as Germany, and endorsing Britain’s exit from the European Union.

Throughout the 2016 election and after, people close to Trump got themselves into serious legal and political trouble by lying to the public, to Congress, and even to the FBI about their Russian connections.

All of these are facts that would be agreed upon even by the latter-day “Russia hoax” revisionists and, for that matter, anybody this side of Breitbart or One America News Network.

The confirmed Trump-Russia record leaves many mysteries and uncertainties unresolved. Even now, the U.S. public still does not have a full and final picture of his business dealings with Russia before and even during his presidency.

The confirmed record may not add up to a criminal conspiracy either, not as that concept is defined by U.S. law. Special Counsel Robert Mueller and his team stated that they could not prove any such conspiracy. But the confirmed record suggests an impressive record of cooperation toward a common aim—even if the terms of the cooperation were not directly communicated by one party to the other.

Since Donald Trump declared for president in 2015, it’s seldom been possible to get to the bottom of one scandal before Trump distracts attention with a bigger and worse scandal. For more than a year, the United States has been convulsed by Trump’s frontal assault on election integrity and the peaceful transfer of power. He has, one by one, eliminated from politics Republicans who upheld the rule of law, and urged their replacement by stooges who repeat his Big Lie. Republican candidates for office talk more and more explicitly about taking power by violence if necessary. These dark threats have understandably overwhelmed the effort to fill in the blanks of the Trump-Russia scandal of yesteryear.

Christopher Steele was a former British intelligence officer working for a firm that was hired first by anti-Trump Republicans, then by Democrats, to collect opposition research on Trump’s Russia connections. As his dossier circulated behind the scenes, experts on Russian disinformation warned of its dubious reliability. But it found an audience anyway within parts of the U.S. government and U.S. law enforcement, and in January 2017, BuzzFeed published it.

That decision was strenuously criticized by many. As our David Graham wrote then, “the reporter’s job is not to simply dump as much information as possible into the public domain … It is to gather information, sift through it, and determine what is true and what is not.” The veteran Russia correspondent David Satter warned in National Review that the dossier’s more lurid allegations reminded him of “the work of the ‘novelists’ in the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) whose job it is to come up with stories to discredit individuals without much regard for plausibility.” (Satter wrote the definitive account of FSB involvement in the 2000 apartment bombings that helped bring to power Vladimir Putin, and was booted from Russia in 2014 by the Putin regime for his reporting.)

The Steele dossier undertook to answer the question “What the hell is going on with Trump and Russia?” The Senate Intelligence Committee found that the FBI investigation gave the Steele dossier “unjustified credence.” But the disintegration of the dossier’s answers has not silenced the power of its question.

It was to silence that question that the outgoing Trump administration appointed a special counsel of its own to investigate its investigators. John Durham has now issued three indictments, all for lying to the FBI about various aspects of the Steele dossier. None of these indictments vindicate Trump’s claims in any way. It remains fact that Russian hackers and spies helped his campaign. It remains fact that the Trump campaign welcomed the help. It remains fact that Trump’s campaign chairman sought to share proprietary campaign information with a person whom the Senate report identified as a “Russian intelligence officer.” It remains fact that Trump hoped to score a huge payday in Russia even as he ran for president. It remains fact that Trump and those around him lied, and lied, and lied again about their connections to Russia.

Outright pro-Trump people remain deeply invested in those lies. But Trump’s media effort has often relied heavily on people who are not pro-him, but anti-anti-him. And the secret to successful anti-anti-Trumping has always been to fasten onto side issues and “whatabouts.”

Anti-anti-Trump journalists want to use the Steele controversy to score points off politicians and media institutions that they dislike. But as media malpractice goes, credulous reliance upon the Steele dossier is just a speck compared with—for example—the willingness of the top-rated shows on Fox News to promote the fantasy that the Democratic Party hacked itself, then murdered a staffer named Seth Rich to cover up the self-hack. (Some versions of this false claim include suggesting that Rich himself committed the crime.) Fox News ultimately settled with Rich’s family for an undisclosed sum even as the Fox host who had done most to promote the false story insisted on his radio show that he had retracted nothing. The story was crazy and cruel. But the story protected Trump, and that was proof enough for a media organization much more powerful than any of those that accepted the Steele dossier.

Not every journalist has to work on every story. Smaller abuses and lesser failures also demand attention alongside the greater abuses and larger failures. But if you choose, as a journalist or a consumer of journalism, to focus on smaller issues, you need to retain your perspective about what is bigger and what is smaller.

So by all means, follow the trail on Steele. But be mindful that much of that trail was prepared by people who want to misdirect and mislead. Take care how far you step along that trail. Be alert to how the twists of the trail block your view of the surrounding landscape. Otherwise, you may discover too late that you have also been misdirected and misled, and that in setting out to explore a small truth, you have become a participant in the selling of a greater lie.


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/it-wasnt-a-hoax/ar-AAR7Efc?li=BBnb7Kz
Kill the humourless

Offline GreatEx

  • pectations. might be a cunt but isn't a capitalist cunt. Blissfully ignorant.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 8,319
Re: Legal repercussions for Trump and his cabal
« Reply #2341 on: November 26, 2021, 07:46:00 am »
Yep, I've been frustrated by the number of American (in particular) friends who seem to have decided there was nothing in the Russia story at all, even though they seemed quite involved with it as it was unfolding. It seems to be this weird reflex that as soon as the Democrats are in power, you have to shit all over them and exonerate the previous Republican administration for all its misdeeds, in order to "stay centered", or whatever. No wonder the country keeps shooting itself in the foot.

Online John C

  • RAWK Staff
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 42,261

Offline jambutty

  • The Gok Wan of RAWK. Tripespotting Advocate. Oakley style guru. Hardman St. arl arse, "Ridiculously cool" -Atko- Impending U.S. Civil War Ostrich. Too old to suffer wankers and WUMs on here.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 13,864
  • June 20, 2009. Still no justice for Neda
Re: Legal repercussions for Trump and his cabal
« Reply #2343 on: November 29, 2021, 07:45:41 am »
Newsweek
Intelligence Analysts 'Didn't Understand Donald Trump, How Far He Would Go' [maybe they should watch Bill Maher]
William M. Arkin - Yesterday 5:00 AM


On Saturday November 28, according to the local news site New Jersey.com, a "Stop the Steal" caravan involving dozens of demonstrators traveled around the state for several hours to support Donald Trump and his election claims. The caravan ended at Governor Phil Murphy's home, where the protestors shifted to criticizing COVID shutdowns, calling for the reopening of New Jersey. Festooned with Trump flags and signs, the caravan moved to the sound of honks of encouragement.

It was just one protest, not worthy of national attention. According to MSA Security," a private security company, eight protests were planned for that Saturday, in California, New York, and Oregon. "Federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies are reportedly warning officials of the increased chances of political violence amid ongoing election disputes," the company said. "Calls for civil unrest and possible violence have flooded social media," the company said.

There is no tangible evidence that anyone was being warned. Neither the FBI nor the Department of Homeland Security kept a nationwide list of demonstrations. The FBI's effort focused on specific acts of potential terrorism, particularly bombings and other catastrophic attacks. The DHS served the nationwide network of state and urban-level fusion centers, funneling them open-source and investigative information. The primary focus was forecasting threats to law enforcement and "critical infrastructure, but also obsessions with new threats, such as countering unmanned aerial systems (drones)."

"DHS doesn't report on first amendment demonstrations per se," a contractor who works in the domestic intelligence world told Newsweek. He requested anonymity because he was not authorized to speak about government intelligence gathering and reporting. The first amendment label, the contractor said, isn't concocted or immaterial. "Balancing monitoring and protecting people's rights to protest is a constant struggle. So the intelligence system naturally gravitates towards the safer and less controversial subjects."

One organization that does focus on nationwide protests and tracks trends is the U.S. Crisis Monitor at Princeton University. Their Regional Overview: The United States, 22-28 November 2020 reported that demonstrations decreased by half for the week, when compared with the previous week. "Demonstrations have declined overall in the weeks since the election," Crisis Monitor reported. With Donald Trump officially authorizing the transition process to begin, the report said, "the total number of election-related demonstrations significantly decreased." Election-related demonstrations declined from a high of over 300 during the week of the election "to less than a tenth of that number over the past week."

Crisis Monitor reports that the majority of demonstration around the country (just over half) didn't relate at all to the elections but were focused on COVID. Even there, though, coronavirus-related events remained below levels seen earlier in the year. More than half of these COVID demonstrations, the report said, were against government regulations and state-level restrictions. Demonstrations in support of government measures accounted for 40 percent of all COVID-related demonstration events.

The "Stop the Steal" demonstrations, the report said, "seem to have lost momentum." Groups like the Proud Boys and Three Percenters were increasingly visible, with the group present in more than a quarter of election-related demonstrations. "Other armed militia groups"—including the New York Watchmen and Patriot Prayer—were present at various demonstrations across the country.

"Almost two dozen demonstrations associated with the BLM [Black Lives Matter] movement were recorded during the week," the report said, also a significant decrease.

When presented with these numbers, the homeland security contractor said that much of the decline probably related to the Thanksgiving holiday and didn't reflect an actual longer term threat. He said the November 14 rally in Washington was dismissed by most observers and analysts, that the demonstration itself was "a bust," and was also dominated by a few violent agitators. "I don't think we could say that any insurrection or seditious activity was yet forming."

Did the FBI or homeland security ignore the right-wing protestors because there were analysts who were sympathetic to their cause? The contractor didn't subscribe to that idea. "Did half vote for Donald Trump?" he asked rhetorically. "Maybe so and perhaps even more." But he felt that in the ranks, the workers were scrupulously impartial, interested as much in identifying a right-wing as a left-wing threat to the government.

"I can't say the same for the homeland security leadership," he said, "and that certainly influenced how far preparations could go." But then, he said, "the intelligence and law enforcement analysts also didn't understand Donald Trump, how far he would go. Because when it comes to threats to governance and the Constitution by those actually in power, no one in the federal government really bears any responsibility for thwarting that."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/intelligence-analysts-didn-t-understand-donald-trump-how-far-he-would-go/ar-AARdFFI?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531
Kill the humourless

Offline jambutty

  • The Gok Wan of RAWK. Tripespotting Advocate. Oakley style guru. Hardman St. arl arse, "Ridiculously cool" -Atko- Impending U.S. Civil War Ostrich. Too old to suffer wankers and WUMs on here.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 13,864
  • June 20, 2009. Still no justice for Neda
Re: Legal repercussions for Trump and his cabal
« Reply #2344 on: November 29, 2021, 09:11:50 am »
Rolling Stone
Trump Was ‘Fact Free’ During Briefings, Says Former National Intelligence Director
Peter Wade - Yesterday 3:22 PM


During intelligence briefings, former President Donald Trump was “fact free” and prone to “fly off on tangents,” said James Clapper, former director of national intelligence.

Clapper’s comments come from a recently released CIA publication, Getting to Know the President, which chronicles the relationship between the intelligence community and U.S. presidents during their transition and administration. Written by retired intelligence officer John L. Helgerson, the latest chapter covers Trump and reveals how unprepared and unconventional Trump was. It is important to note, however, that this is not a neutral account, given Trump’s rocky history with the intelligence agencies.

“Briefing Trump presented the IC with the most difficult challenges it had ever faced,” Helgerson wrote. According to the report, the intelligence community struggled large part because Trump “doubted the competence of intelligence professionals and felt no need for regular intelligence support.” Not since Nixon, nearly 50 years earlier, did the nation’s intelligence staff have such a difficult time with a president, Helgerson said.

Trump’s public and vocal criticism of the intelligence community created tension between them. Which is why, during one of his first intelligence briefings while he was still a candidate, Helgerson reported that briefers “were surprised” when Trump “assured them that ‘the nasty things he was saying’ publicly about the intelligence community ‘don’t apply to you.’ ” Then, in a televised debate with Hillary Clinton on Sept. 7, Trump claimed that briefers’ “body language” had suggested they were “not happy” with Obama’s policies.

After he was elected, Trump delayed receiving intelligence briefings by a week because his team was “not fully prepared to launch transition operations, apparently having not expected to win the election.”  “Some awkwardness developed,” Helgerson wrote, when CIA personnel wanted to share printed classified information with Trump at Trump Tower, but no one on his staff wanted to be responsible for it and they had no way to store it securely. To solve the problem, the CIA installed a safe.

Even once Trump started receiving the President’s Daily Brief (PDB), a daily summary of high-level national security and intelligence issues, Trump chose not to read it, according to Ted Gistaro, a career CIA analyst who frequently briefed Trump. This backed up earlier reports that Trump did not read the PDB. “He touched it,” Gistaro said when asked how closely Trump read the briefs. “He doesn’t really read anything.”

Clapper agreed with Gistaro, telling Helgerson, “Trump doesn’t read much; he likes bullets.” Instead, during the Trump administration, the briefer would summarize aloud key points since the last briefing and provide three documents (none more than a page) about new developments abroad. This was all part of an effort to make the PDB “shorter and tighter, with declarative sentences and no feature-length pieces.”

“Trump had his own way of receiving intelligence information—and a uniquely rough way of dealing publicly with the IC,” Helgerson wrote, “but it was a system in which he digested the key points offered by the briefers, asked questions, engaged in discussion, made his own priority interests known, and used the information as a basis for discussions with his policy advisers.”

Russia represented “the most problematic aspect of the 2016 transition” for the intelligence community, and those problems would continue to be a source of tension during his administration. According to Hegelson, Russia was “central” to three separate issues at play: Russia’s hacking the DNC and leaking stolen emails to influence the election; the Steele dossier that allegedly contained compromising information on Trump; and contacts between Trump’s first national security advisor, Michael Flynn, and the Russian ambassador to the United States. Flynn later pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his contacts with the ambassador. Each of these issues “unfolded within the larger context of Trump’s very positive view and repeated public defenses of Russian President Vladimir Putin,” which complicated matters even more.

Trump’s repeated public attempts to discredit the intelligence community further fanned the flames. He speculated in a tweet that the IC was ill-prepared and didn’t know what they were talking about at a transition briefing, and he told the media that he didn’t believe Russia tried to interfere with the election to boost his chances of winning. “I don’t believe it. These are the same people that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction,” Trump said publicly, disparaging the IC.

Like Nixon, Helgerson wrote, Trump was “suspicious and insecure about the intelligence process.” But unlike Nixon, Trump didn’t just shut the IC out. He “attacked it publicly.” These and other difficulties agencies encountered under Trump led Helgerson to conclude that, “The system worked, but it struggled.”

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-was-fact-free-during-briefings-says-former-national-intelligence-director/ar-AARejrl?ocid=msedgntp
Kill the humourless

Offline jambutty

  • The Gok Wan of RAWK. Tripespotting Advocate. Oakley style guru. Hardman St. arl arse, "Ridiculously cool" -Atko- Impending U.S. Civil War Ostrich. Too old to suffer wankers and WUMs on here.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 13,864
  • June 20, 2009. Still no justice for Neda
Re: Legal repercussions for Trump and his cabal
« Reply #2345 on: November 29, 2021, 09:30:21 am »
POLITICO
No one seems to like the Lincoln Project anymore
By Christopher Cadelago and Meridith McGraw - Yesterday 6:54 AM


It was the darling of the resistance for savagely attacking Donald Trump. But now, everyone keeps rolling their eyes at the Lincoln Project and fears they may be clearing a path for the former president’s reemergence.

With fewer allies and Trump off the ballot, the Lincoln Project has suffered financially.
The outside political organization headed by disaffected Republicans and other top Democratic operatives has experienced caustic blowups, internal disputes over beach house-level paydays, and disturbing allegations involving a disgraced co-founder. A recent campaign stunt evoking the march on Charlottesville to close the Virginia governor’s race earned them near universal scorn. And one of the organization's most recognized members is facing blowback for rooting for another Trump nomination on grounds that he’d be the easiest Republican to beat in the general election.

“Read the room,” said Zac Petkanas, a Democratic strategist and former senior aide to Hillary Clinton. “They sound like me in 2016.”

“It is incredibly important that we all head into the upcoming elections with a level of humility and fresh eyes about what the political landscape is going to look like,” Petkanas added. “It would be a mistake to know for certain who is easier to beat than somebody else. We’ve all seen this movie before and they occasionally have a twist ending.”

Officials working for the Lincoln Project contend they’re simply being practical — even shrewd — about the new political climate, in which Trump is likely to be the GOP nominee anyway and brass-knuckle tactics are now the norm.

But a year after delighting liberals with their insistence on bringing guns to a gunfight, operatives across the spectrum now say the group is, at best, ineffective and prodigal, at worst, counterproductive. In particular, fellow never-Trumpers and moderate Republicans have recoiled at Lincoln Project co-founder Rick Wilson’s recent encouragement of a Trump presidential run in 2024.

“I think this is the mother of bad ideas,” said conservative commentator and Trump critic Charlie Sykes. “But also the father, brother, sister, and cousin of a truly bad idea. [It] ignores the fact that Trump could actually be elected again, and you would’ve thought we had all learned our lesson from playing games with that possibility the last time.”

Sarah Longwell, a Republican strategist and Trump critic who started Defending Democracy Together, joined in a chorus of other anti-Trump Republicans baffled by Wilson’s strategy.

“It would be a high impact event on our democracy if Trump were reelected and you want to do everything you can to keep him from getting one step closer,” Longwell said. “The best way to ensure Trump doesn't win the election 2024 is to make sure he doesn’t become the nominee.”

In an interview with POLITICO, Wilson defended his position by arguing that Trumpism was a greater problem now than just Trump himself. He pointed to his response on Twitter and added that the idea that he actually wants the 45th president to run again is “risible.”

“It’s not that I want [Trump] to be here, I’d love for him to be eaten by a shark tomorrow,” Wilson said. “I want Trump to run to destroy the people who are more sophisticated than Trump. I want to use Trump’s psychological problems to weaken him because I think the most dangerous thing we face is Trump with an Ivy League degree. All the abrasive authoritarianism and nationalism and none of the obvious deficits.”

The Lincoln Project was started in 2019 by a number of prominent Republican operatives who opposed Trump’s presidency and feared the direction their party was taking. They faced charges of self-dealing and ineffectualness — both of which they heartedly dismissed. And along the way, the group raised tens of millions of dollars, in large part because of the splashy web and TV ads it ran going after the sitting president and his family in visceral, personal ways.

The post-Trump presidency has been a more difficult era. The group was rocked by the allegations that co-founder John Weaver sexually harrassed young men, and finger-pointing over the fallout has lasted for months. A law firm, Paul Hastings LLP, hired by the Lincoln Project found “no evidence that anyone at The Lincoln Project was aware of any inappropriate communications with any underage individuals at any time prior to the publication of those news reports.” Critics have questioned the independence of that inquiry.

There are questions about who remains in the group and directs day to day strategy. There have been internal frustrations over resources being put towards things like an online streaming show. After the scandal involving Weaver went public, one of the co-founders, Jennifer Horn, as well as fellow officials or advisers Kurt Bardella, Ron Steslow, Mike Madrid, and George Conway all resigned, with some publicly calling for the group to be permanently shuttered.

Currently, the group’s website names co-founders Rick Wilson and Reed Galen, Tara Setmayer, Stuart Stevens and Steve Schmidt as involved in the project, although it is unclear how involved some remain. Two people close to the group said there have been internal tensions and disputes with Schmidt, who resigned from the board of the Lincoln Project after the sexual misconduct charges against Weaver surfaced.

Schmidt reappeared months later vowing for the group to fight on. But he also tore into the organization for being “recklessly stupid,” and “dishonest” for the stunt involving actors posing as Charlottesville white nationalist protesters at a stop made by incoming Virginia governor Glenn Youngkin.

A McAuliffe adviser conceded that the Lincoln Project’s ads in the governor’s race were solid, but echoed Schmidt’s assessment, saying the Charlottesville stunt backfired so spectacularly — at least in the cable news-social media bubble — that the group’s involvement was altogether unhelpful.

More broadly, Democrats who once saw the Lincoln Project as a helpful compliment to their efforts to defeat Trump now view the group as a distraction and a drain of broader campaign funds.

“When it first started, I was like, ‘This is so great. I love it,’” said Tim Lim, a veteran Democratic digital strategist. Now, Lim added, “most of the left is not sure why they're still around. That’s the prognosis in story after story, and it’s been brutal for them.”

With fewer allies and Trump off the ballot, the Lincoln Project has suffered financially. In the first half of 2021, the most recent figures available, the group raised $4.8 million and spent $8.7 million, an exceedingly high burn rate. But digital strategists predicted that the organization, with its robust email list, could survive down cycles. The idea that it’s so far been able to withstand so much scandal and infighting has surprised people familiar with the dynamics, including several who believe the Lincoln Project long exceeded its expiration point.

Still, the group has a formidable online following, boasting just as many Twitter followers as the Republican National Committee at 2.7 million followers, for example. And those involved with the group say their daily work and mission is simply different without Trump on the ballot right now.

The group has made the case for its relevance by getting involved in down ballot races. It tried, unsuccessfully, to tie Youngkin to Trump and has gone after lawmakers who have spread election fraud lies. But they’ve also continued going after the 45th president as part of a campaign it often describes as political psych ops. The group also aired ads in Trump’s getaways of Bedminster, N.J., and Palm Beach, Fla. taunting Trump, and they have plans to play an active role in the upcoming midterm elections.

Even though Trump has not officially announced any plans to jump in the 2024 race, Wilson said the group remains relevant because they understand “how to attack the vertical power structure of Trump in the Republican party.”

“No one is here because it’s comfortable and fun or a great way to make new friends, we work a hard job against very tough people and bad guys who spend a lot of money attacking us and the individuals inside the Lincoln Project,” Wilson said. “Are we perfect? Of course not and we own those mistakes but what we do is fill a gap in the pro-democracy movement and we show people how to fight.”

In interviews, two big Republican donors to the organization defended its work, both contending that the mere threat of Trump returning to the national stage — and the likely impacts on American democracy itself — make their support worthwhile. One stressed that Lincoln Project’s work on so-called “moveable” voters — college-educated people and suburban women — went far beyond the TV and digital ads. But two operatives with insight into its operations said it’s mostly surviving off of small-dollar donors, thanks to that massive email list and its ability to generate internet buzz.

Despite the intense focus on rattling Trump, people close to the former president say he hasn’t been moved by Lincoln Project’s recent attacks. But he and his allies still delight in taking digs at the organization.

In a statement, a spokesperson for Trump said the Lincoln Project was a “sad group.” “Democrats are abandoning the group not just because they’ve been terribly ineffective, but because they are worried that the last shoe has not dropped. Yikes!”

There is an obvious self-interest to Trump world’s gloating over Lincoln Project’s troubles. But the general criticism—that the organization has veered from its overall mission and is beset by controversy—is shared elsewhere, including by those once involved with it. Now, some Never Trumpers wonder where their efforts fit in the broader Republican party.

“As far as Never Trumpers are concerned, it’s a problem, people like us are without a home, we don’t have influence in the party, and even the best people who are taking a stand are taking huge political risks, like Liz Cheney, who wasn’t even a Never Trumper until Jan 6,” said former Lincoln Project leader and vocal Trump critic George Conway. “Forming a third party is a non-starter because the research has all shown a third party would help Trump. So it’s a conundrum, and I don't know how it’s going to play out.”
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/no-one-seems-to-like-the-lincoln-project-anymore/ar-AARdoU6?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531
Kill the humourless

Offline KillieRed

  • Jaro a.k.a. goatjumpingqueuefucker
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 8,251
  • Nemo me impune lacessit.
Re: Legal repercussions for Trump and his cabal
« Reply #2346 on: November 29, 2021, 01:36:54 pm »
That last article is really just Politico doesn’t like The Lincoln Project. Let them eat each other, both are full of dubious folks, but at least TLP loathes Trump. Not so sure about Politico: either some are of their writers back him, go overboard trying to show “both sides” when they really shouldn’t or they just love the chaos (and clicks) the orange deviant brings.
The best way to scare a Tory is to read and get rich” - Idles.

Offline WhereAngelsPlay

  • Rockwool Marketing Board Spokesman. Cracker Wanker. Fucking calmest man on RAWK, alright? ALRIGHT?! Definitely a bigger cunt than YOU!
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 26,463
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Legal repercussions for Trump and his cabal
« Reply #2347 on: November 29, 2021, 04:33:27 pm »
I like the cut of their jib.


<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/vns6DpmYUbU" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">https://www.youtube.com/v/vns6DpmYUbU</a>
My cup, it runneth over, I'll never get my fill

Offline jambutty

  • The Gok Wan of RAWK. Tripespotting Advocate. Oakley style guru. Hardman St. arl arse, "Ridiculously cool" -Atko- Impending U.S. Civil War Ostrich. Too old to suffer wankers and WUMs on here.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 13,864
  • June 20, 2009. Still no justice for Neda
Re: Legal repercussions for Trump and his cabal
« Reply #2348 on: November 30, 2021, 01:54:12 am »
Newsweek
'Defeated' Mike Lindell Ends 96-hour TV Marathon After Failing to Gain Support
Gerrard Kaonga - 11h ago


Mike Lindell's 96-hour TV marathon ended in failure.

The MyPillow CEO has long been a fervent supporter of former President Donald Trump and has continued to make baseless claims that the 2020 election was rigged in favour of President Joe Biden and that he would file a lawsuit.

Despite providing no evidence for widespread election fraud, Lindell claimed he would have the support of multiple states' attorneys in general as he hoped to take this issue to the Supreme Court.

The 60-year-old claimed he would have this support by Thanksgiving, a deadline he set himself, but he did not receive it and the lawsuit was not filed.

By the end of the marathon, Mike Lindell appeared defeated, according to viewers, and in his final words asked the people to take action.

The brief clip has been posted to Twitter and viewed over 150,000 times with many viewers remarking how tired and defeated Lindell appears.

The clip, shared by attorney Ron Filipkowski, was posted to Twitter with the caption: "As Mike Lindell concludes his 96-hour marathon to convince America to rise up and demand the Supreme Court accept his case. He sounds pretty damn beaten down and defeated. Poor guy."

He said: "If you have a voice you have got to speak out, we are going to be that voice."

Lindell then started to say he would be back before trailing off and looking down away from the camera. He then stopped speaking as he tapped a pen on the desk before continuing.

He said: "Everybody watching, it depends on all of you now. We have got the tools and we are going to be back and talk about the pathway forward."

During the stream, Newsweek also reported on the low number of viewers despite the claim by Lindell that millions were watching. On the Youtube stream of the event, only a dozen people were watching the event.

Posted on Lindell's Youtube channel, Freedom Patriot Network, the stream ended with 9,164 views.

The exact viewing figures are unclear as the event was also being streamed on Lindell's own platforms, Frank Speech, and Lindell TV where viewing figures are not shared publicly.

On Wednesday, Lindell held a protest outside the Fox News headquarters in Manhattan in the hopes the network would start covering his election fraud case. Only a handful of protesters joined the pillow salesman in the rally, where they could be seen on camera chanting ""Shame on Fox, shame on Fox."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/defeated-mike-lindell-ends-96-hour-tv-marathon-after-failing-to-gain-support/ar-AARg6w3?ocid=undefined
Kill the humourless

Offline jambutty

  • The Gok Wan of RAWK. Tripespotting Advocate. Oakley style guru. Hardman St. arl arse, "Ridiculously cool" -Atko- Impending U.S. Civil War Ostrich. Too old to suffer wankers and WUMs on here.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 13,864
  • June 20, 2009. Still no justice for Neda
Re: Legal repercussions for Trump and his cabal
« Reply #2349 on: November 30, 2021, 07:51:38 am »
The Guardian
Trump called aides hours before Capitol riot to discuss how to stop Biden victory
Hugo Lowell in Washington - 29m ago


Hours before the deadly attack on the US Capitol this year, Donald Trump made several calls from the White House to top lieutenants at the Willard hotel in Washington and talked about ways to stop the certification of Joe Biden’s election win from taking place on 6 January.

The former president first told the lieutenants his vice-president, Mike Pence, was reluctant to go along with the plan to commandeer his largely ceremonial role at the joint session of Congress in a way that would allow Trump to retain the presidency for a second term.

But as Trump relayed to them the situation with Pence, he pressed his lieutenants about how to stop Biden’s certification from taking place on 6 January, and delay the certification process to get alternate slates of electors for Trump sent to Congress.

The former president’s remarks came as part of strategy discussions he had from the White House with the lieutenants at the Willard – a team led by Trump lawyers Rudy Giuliani, John Eastman, Boris Epshteyn and Trump strategist Steve Bannon – about delaying the certification.

Trump on the afternoon of 6 January. Multiple sources described Trump’s involvement in the effort to subvert the election result.

Multiple sources, speaking to the Guardian on the condition of anonymity, described Trump’s involvement in the effort to subvert the results of the 2020 election.

Trump’s remarks reveal a direct line from the White House and the command center at the Willard. The conversations also show Trump’s thoughts appear to be in line with the motivations of the pro-Trump mob that carried out the Capitol attack and halted Biden’s certification, until it was later ratified by Congress.

The former president’s call to the Willard hotel about stopping Biden’s certification is increasingly a central focus of the House select committee’s investigation into the Capitol attack, as it raises the specter of a possible connection between Trump and the insurrection.

Several Trump lawyers at the Willard that night deny Trump sought to stop the certification of Biden’s election win. They say they only considered delaying Biden’s certification at the request of state legislators because of voter fraud.

The former president made several calls to the lieutenants at the Willard the night before 6 January. He phoned the lawyers and the non-lawyers separately, as Giuliani did not want non-lawyers to participate on legal calls and jeopardise attorney-client privilege.

Trump’s call to the lieutenants came a day after Eastman, a late addition to the Trump legal team, outlined at a 4 January meeting at the White House how he thought Pence could usurp his role in order to stop Biden’s certification from happening at the joint session.

At the meeting, which was held in the Oval Office and attended by Trump, Pence, Pence’s chief of staff Marc Short and his legal counsel Greg Jacob, Eastman presented a memo that detailed how Pence could insert himself into the certification and delay the process.

The memo outlined several ways for Pence to commandeer his role at the joint session, including throwing the election to the House, or adjourning the session to give states time to send slates of electors for Trump on the basis of election fraud – Eastman’s preference.

Then– acting attorney general Jeff Rosen and his predecessor, Bill Barr, who had both been appointed by Trump, had already determined there was no evidence of fraud sufficient to change the outcome of the 2020 election.

Eastman told the Guardian last month that the memo only presented scenarios and was not intended as advice. “The advice I gave the vice-president very explicitly was that I did not think he had the authority simply to declare which electors to count,” Eastman said.

Trump seized on the memo – first reported by Washington Post journalists Bob Woodward and Robert Costa in their book Peril – and pushed Pence to adopt the schemes, which some of the other lieutenants at the Willard later told Trump were legitimate ways to flip the election.

But Pence resisted Trump’s entreaties, and told him in the Oval Office the next day that Trump should count him out of whatever plans he had to subvert the results of the 2020 election at the joint session, because he did not intend to take part.

Trump was furious at Pence for refusing to do him a final favor when, in the critical moment underpinning the effort to reinstall Trump as president, he phoned lieutenants at the Willard sometime between the late evening on 5 January and the early hours of 6 January.

From the White House, Trump made several calls to lieutenants, including Giuliani, Eastman, Epshteyn and Bannon, who were huddled in suites complete with espresso machines and Cokes in a mini-fridge in the north-west corner of the hotel.

On the calls, the former president first recounted what had transpired in the Oval Office meeting with Pence, informing Bannon and the lawyers at the Willard that his vice-president appeared ready to abandon him at the joint session in several hours’ time.

The former president is said to have enjoyed watching the insurrection unfold from the dining room

“He’s arrogant,” Trump, for instance, told Bannon of Pence – his own way of communicating that Pence was unlikely to play ball – in an exchange reported in Peril and confirmed by the Guardian.

But on at least one of those calls, Trump also sought from the lawyers at the Willard ways to stop the joint session to ensure Biden would not be certified as president on 6 January, as part of a wider discussion about buying time to get states to send Trump electors.

The fallback that Trump and his lieutenants appeared to settle on was to cajole Republican members of Congress to raise enough objections so that even without Pence adjourning the joint session, the certification process would be delayed for states to send Trump slates.

It was not clear whether Trump discussed on the call about the prospect of stopping Biden’s certification by any means if Pence refused to insert himself into the process, but the former president is said to have enjoyed watching the insurrection unfold from the dining room.

But the fact that Trump considered ways to stop the joint session may help to explain why he was so reluctant to call off the rioters and why Republican senator Ben Sasse told conservative talk show host Hugh Hewitt that he heard Trump seemed “delighted” about the attack.

The lead Trump lawyer at the Willard, Giuliani, appearing to follow that fallback plan, called at least one Republican senator later that same evening, asking him to help keep Congress adjourned and stall the joint session beyond 6 January.

In a voicemail recorded at about 7pm on 6 January, and reported by the Dispatch, Giuliani implored Republican senator Tommy Tuberville to object to 10 states Biden won once Congress reconvened at 8pm, a process that would have concluded 15 hours later, close to 7 January.

“The only strategy we can follow is to object to numerous states and raise issues so that we get ourselves into tomorrow – ideally until the end of tomorrow,” Giuliani said.

A spokesperson for Trump did not respond to requests for comment on this account of Trump’s call. Giuliani did not respond to a request for comment. Eastman, Epshteyn and Bannon declined to comment.

Trump made several calls the day before the Capitol attack from both the White House residence, his preferred place to work, as well as the West Wing, but it was not certain from which location he phoned his top lieutenants at the Willard.

The White House residence and its Yellow Oval Room – a Trump favorite – is significant since communications there, including from a desk phone, are not automatically memorialized in records sent to the National Archives after the end of an administration.

But even if Trump called his lieutenants from the West Wing, the select committee may not be able to fully uncover the extent of his involvement in the events of 6 January, unless House investigators secure testimony from individuals with knowledge of the calls.

That difficulty arises since calls from the White House are not necessarily recorded, and call detail records that the select committee is suing to pry free from the National Archives over Trump’s objections about executive privilege, only show the destination of the calls.

House select committee investigators last week opened a new line of inquiry into activities at the Willard hotel, just across the street from the White House, issuing subpoenas to Eastman and former New York police commissioner Bernard Kerik, an assistant to Giuliani.

The chairman of the select committee, Bennie Thompson, said in a statement that the panel was pursuing the Trump officials at the Willard to uncover “every detail about their efforts to overturn the election, including who they were talking to in the White House and in Congress”.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-called-aides-hours-before-capitol-riot-to-discuss-how-to-stop-biden-victory/ar-AARhMDe?ocid=msedgntp
Kill the humourless

Offline BarryCrocker

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 17,129
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Legal repercussions for Trump and his cabal
« Reply #2350 on: December 4, 2021, 11:07:21 am »

Nine pro-Trump lawyers ordered to pay $175,000 for sham election lawsuit
Money will cover legal costs of defending against the suit, which were over $153,000 for Detroit and nearly $22,000 for Michigan

Nine lawyers allied with Donald Trump were ordered on Thursday to pay Detroit and Michigan a total of $175,000 in sanctions for abusing the court system with a sham lawsuit challenging the 2020 election results.

The money, which must be paid within 30 days, will cover the legal costs of defending against the suit, which were more than $153,000 for the city and nearly $22,000 for the state.

US district judge Linda Parker, who agreed to impose sanctions in August in a scathing opinion, rejected most of the attorneys’ objections to Detroit’s proposed award, but she did reduce it by about $29,000.

Those sanctioned include Sidney Powell, L Lin Wood and seven other lawyers who were part of the lawsuit filed on behalf of six Republican voters after Joe Biden’s 154,000-vote victory over Trump in what officials have called the most secure election in US history.

“Plaintiffs’ attorneys, many of whom seek donations from the public to fund lawsuits like this one … have the ability to pay this sanction,” Parker wrote.

She previously ordered each of the lawyers to undergo 12 hours of legal education, including six hours in election law.

Michigan’s top three elected officials, the governor, Gretchen Whitmer, state attorney general Dana Nessel and Michigan secretary of state Jocelyn Benson, all Democrats, are seeking the disbarment of four of the nine attorneys, including Powell. She is licensed in Texas.

The other three are admitted to practice in Michigan.

Powell could not be reached for comment. Wood said he will appeal the order.

“I undertook no act in Michigan and I had no involvement in the Michigan lawsuit filed by Sidney Powell,” he said in an email.

Wood’s name was on the lawsuit, but he has insisted he had no role other than to tell Powell he would be available if needed.

Powell is best known for saying she would “release the kraken”, a mythical sea creature, to destroy Biden’s claim on the White House.

But baseless lawsuits in Michigan and elsewhere went nowhere.

“There are consequences to filing meritless lawsuits to grab media attention and mislead Americans,” Benson, the state’s chief election official, said in a statement.

“The sanctions awarded in this case are a testament to that, even if the dollar amounts pale in comparison to the damage that’s already been done to our nation’s democracy.”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/dec/03/donald-trump-lawyers-election-lawsuit-sanctions
And all the world is football shaped, It's just for me to kick in space. And I can see, hear, smell, touch, taste.

Offline GreatEx

  • pectations. might be a cunt but isn't a capitalist cunt. Blissfully ignorant.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 8,319
Re: Legal repercussions for Trump and his cabal
« Reply #2351 on: December 5, 2021, 12:08:00 am »
Sidney Powell, there's a fucking name I hadn't heard for a while and wish I'd forgotten.

Offline BarryCrocker

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 17,129
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Legal repercussions for Trump and his cabal
« Reply #2352 on: December 7, 2021, 09:32:32 am »
Double Negative Donnie.

And all the world is football shaped, It's just for me to kick in space. And I can see, hear, smell, touch, taste.

Offline KillieRed

  • Jaro a.k.a. goatjumpingqueuefucker
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 8,251
  • Nemo me impune lacessit.
Re: Legal repercussions for Trump and his cabal
« Reply #2353 on: December 7, 2021, 03:25:45 pm »
Always with the projection with that crook. I can’t wait til he croaks his last, I can only imagine the look of surprise on his face. I think he starts off knowing that he’s spewing bullshit, but after a while he gets so much affirmation from his stable of lickspittles that he starts to believe what he’s said is true. That’s 100% the case with his election fraud lies. When he does pop off it won’t solve all of America’s problems but it will be a good start.
The best way to scare a Tory is to read and get rich” - Idles.

Offline Red Beret

  • Yellow Beret. Wants to sit in the Lobster Pot. Fat-fingered. Key. Boa. Rd. Kille. R. tonunlick! Soggy Knickers King. Bed-Exiting / Grunting / Bending Down / Cum Face Champion 2023.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 51,567
Re: Legal repercussions for Trump and his cabal
« Reply #2354 on: December 7, 2021, 07:11:55 pm »
Always with the projection with that crook. I can’t wait til he croaks his last, I can only imagine the look of surprise on his face. I think he starts off knowing that he’s spewing bullshit, but after a while he gets so much affirmation from his stable of lickspittles that he starts to believe what he’s said is true. That’s 100% the case with his election fraud lies. When he does pop off it won’t solve all of America’s problems but it will be a good start.

Odds on when he dies his supporters will be convinced he's been quietly done away with. Never mind that he's 75 years old and in terrible condition.
I don't always visit Lobster Pot.  But when I do. I sit.

Popcorn's Art

Offline KillieRed

  • Jaro a.k.a. goatjumpingqueuefucker
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 8,251
  • Nemo me impune lacessit.
Re: Legal repercussions for Trump and his cabal
« Reply #2355 on: December 7, 2021, 09:07:03 pm »
Him & JFK will probably be due to reappear together before too long.
The best way to scare a Tory is to read and get rich” - Idles.

Offline Nobby Reserve

  • Onanistic Charades Champion Of Roundabouts. Euphemistic Gerbil Starver.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 11,984
  • Do you wanna build a snowman?
Re: Legal repercussions for Trump and his cabal
« Reply #2356 on: December 7, 2021, 09:46:26 pm »
Him & JFK will probably be due to reappear together before too long.


I think most of us look forward to the day this fat, orange piece of shit gets to meet JFK.


Just been watching that Qanon documentary on 4.had to turn it off because I just cannot comprehend the bellendery on display.
A Tory, a worker and an immigrant are sat round a table. There's a plate of 10 biscuits in the middle. The Tory takes 9 then turns to the worker and says "that immigrant is trying to steal your biscuit"

Offline jambutty

  • The Gok Wan of RAWK. Tripespotting Advocate. Oakley style guru. Hardman St. arl arse, "Ridiculously cool" -Atko- Impending U.S. Civil War Ostrich. Too old to suffer wankers and WUMs on here.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 13,864
  • June 20, 2009. Still no justice for Neda
Re: Legal repercussions for Trump and his cabal
« Reply #2357 on: December 8, 2021, 01:28:23 am »
Business Insider
Jan. 6 committee says it will recommend criminal contempt charges against Mark Meadows if he doesn't appear for his scheduled deposition
ssheth@businessinsider.com (Sonam Sheth) - 4h ago


The Jan. 6 committee said it is prepared to recommend criminal contempt charges against Mark Meadows.
Meadows' lawyer said he will not appear for a deposition scheduled for tomorrow.

The committee said if he doesn't appear, it'll recommend that "the body in which Mr. Meadows once served refer him for criminal prosecution."

The chair and vice chair of the House select committee investigating the January 6 Capitol riot said it is prepared to recommend criminal contempt charges against former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows.

Meadows' attorney said in a letter to the panel Tuesday that Meadows' deposition, scheduled for Wednesday, is "untenable" because the committee "has no intention of respecting boundaries" related to former President Donald Trump's broad assertions of executive privilege regarding the Capitol riot investigation.

Rep. Adam Schiff of California, a member of the January 6 investigatory panel, said last week that Meadows undermined his own argument for withholding information from the committee because he wrote about matters related to the Capitol riot in his new memoir.

"Tomorrow's deposition, which was scheduled at Mr. Meadows's request, will go forward as planned," committee chairman Rep. Bennie Thompson and vice chairwoman Rep. Liz Cheney said in their Tuesday statement. "If indeed Mr. Meadows refuses to appear, the Select Committee will be left no choice but to advance contempt proceedings and recommend that the body in which Mr. Meadows once served refer him for criminal prosecution."

Meadows is the third Trump ally that the committee has advanced or is prepared to advance contempt proceedings against. Last month the Justice Department indicted former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon on two criminal contempt charges after Congress referred him. And the panel last week moved forward to recommend criminal contempt charges against Jeffrey Clark, a former top Trump appointee at the Justice Department.

The department has previously declined to bring criminal contempt charges against those who defy congressional subpoenas. But lawmakers on the bipartisan select committee have said they hope that will change under the Biden administration and allow the committee to fully investigate the Capitol riot.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/jan-6-committee-says-it-will-recommend-criminal-contempt-charges-against-mark-meadows-if-he-doesn-t-appear-for-his-scheduled-deposition/ar-AARzHLI?ocid=msedgntp
Kill the humourless

Offline Sheer Magnetism

  • RAWK Scribe
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 6,057
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Legal repercussions for Trump and his cabal
« Reply #2358 on: December 8, 2021, 09:10:30 am »
Him & JFK will probably be due to reappear together before too long.
A lot of Q Anon supporters believe JFK Jr is still alive and secretly working with him, so you might be a generation out!

Incidentally, the Trump Media & Technology Group announced a few days back it had secured subscription agreements for $1bn in funding for when it goes public through a reverse merger deal, but didn't disclose who it was provided by. Which means it's probably a) from Russian or Chinese investors, or b) isn't real. I believe the second option would fall under securities fraud while the first would end his political career.

Offline KillieRed

  • Jaro a.k.a. goatjumpingqueuefucker
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 8,251
  • Nemo me impune lacessit.
Re: Legal repercussions for Trump and his cabal
« Reply #2359 on: December 8, 2021, 12:16:45 pm »
The problem with Trump & his cronies developing their own social media platform is that they will (thankfully) be preaching to the converted. With Twitter he could spread his hate to everyone. Decent human beings with more than 1 brain cell are not going to sign up to it.
The best way to scare a Tory is to read and get rich” - Idles.