Topic: Sexual Abuser Donald Trump Indicted

[reddebs]

The majority (all Dems plus 5 Reps.) voted that it was constitutional.

Ah right I mistook the posts about McConnell voting against it to mean the whole thing had been thrown out.

That'll teach me to not jump to conclusions [emoji848]

Sent from my Pixel 4a (5G) using Tapatalk

[So… Howard Philips]

Ah... I hadn’t realised that...

But don’t you have the right not to give evidence at any trial?  Why would this be any different?  He could just sit there and take the fifth over and over even if they did couldn’t he?

Take the fifth like all the other mob bosses

[Zlen]

He probably could in theory just ignore all the questions, but in reality you just have to get him in the room, put him under oath and black hole gravity of his ego will do the rest. You might not even have to ask him questions, just present evidence to the room and he wont be able to keep his fat mouth shut.

[oldfordie]

BOOM!

The Lincoln Project               @ProjectLincoln

The Lincoln Project’s legal response to the false and defamatory statements made by Rudy Giuliani.

https://www.twitter.com/ProjectLincoln/status/1355618315570393090

Fantastic. Giuliani must believe the damage is already done so best way to defend himself is to keep the mob onside in the hope they back off in fear,  nope, I think they are going out of their way to let Giuliani know they relish the fact he's been stupid enough to leave himself so wide open to defamation. this will hopefully make irresponsible lying Republican politicians think twice before smearing people etc with vicious lies.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4ZE1xN6gEA

[Eeyore]

The only reason Trump didn't take the stand last time is because the Senate voted on the rules of the trial - and the Republicans controlled the Senate.

This time the rules maybe quite different.

The other thing is that last time he had at least a year, and he probably thought he was going to have 5 years of legal protection as President. He also thought that he controlled the GOP. The legal protection has gone and in his mind he thinks the GOP has betrayed him.

Trump may think that he is going to have to take the stand sooner or later so why not get his message out there in an environment in which the odds are massively stacked in his favour. Use the impeachment trial to continue to peddle the narrative that this is a witch hunt and that he is the aggrieved party.

Much better to be heard by his peers when he knows that the GOP senators will stick to party lines.

[12C]

Ah... I hadn’t realised that...

But don’t you have the right not to give evidence at any trial?  Why would this be any different?  He could just sit there and take the fifth over and over even if they did couldn’t he?

But didn’t the orange genius declare that only crooks take the 5th. 🤔

[Red Beret]

Ah... I hadn’t realised that...

But don’t you have the right not to give evidence at any trial?  Why would this be any different?  He could just sit there and take the fifth over and over even if they did couldn’t he?

I don't know whether Trump can be "forced" to take the stand, but as people are fond of saying, it's not a criminal trial. As Zlen said though, Trump's ego knows no bounds.

Like Al suggested, Trump will probably try to turn the whole thing into a circus, and use it as a focal point to try and rally his people.  There's no telling how effective that strategy might be though. We all know Trump is not as smart as he thinks he is.

[oldfordie]

He probably could in theory just ignore all the questions, but in reality you just have to get him in the room, put him under oath and black hole gravity of his ego will do the rest. You might not even have to ask him questions, just present evidence to the room and he wont be able to keep his fat mouth shut.

Yep.I think it would be pretty easy to wind up Trump to force him to respond.
How he spent years grooming millions of gullible people to do his bidding only to betray them when he is threatened with the legal consequences for inciting them to break the law, how he is no hero, he is a coward who is now trying to save his own skin, keep hammering for being a coward who has deserted everyone who has been loyal to him in the hope of saving his own skin.

[Jiminy Cricket]

The Senate has the power of subpoena. Refuse a subpoena and they can order your arrest (by a US marshal). As for being forced to testify: only if he is offered immunity. They can imprison him until he testifies. The potential fly in the ointment is that Trump could attempt to invoke the 5th anyway, claiming that his testimony could incriminate him for crimes not covered by the immunity agreement. In which case - as I understand it - it court go to court for them to decide if his invocation of the 5th is reasonable. The Senate could offer him a blanket immunity (all crimes past) - thus, forcing his testimony. But they will not (and should not) do that. They should offer Trump no immunity - not that I think they would.

As others have commented, there is every chance he will not be able to stop himself from talking. Just get him chatting about golf, say, and he'll go full Giuliani.

[Red Beret]

The Senate has the power of subpoena. Refuse a subpoena and they can order your arrest (by a US marshal). As for being forced to testify: only if he is offered immunity. They can imprison him until he testifies. The potential fly in the ointment is that Trump could attempt to invoke the 5th anyway, claiming that his testimony could incriminate him for crimes not covered by the immunity agreement. In which case - as I understand it - it court go to court for them to decide if his invocation of the 5th is reasonable. The Senate could offer him a blanket immunity (all crimes past) - thus, forcing his testimony. But they will not (and should not) do that. They should offer Trump no immunity - not that I think they would.

As others have commented, there is every chance he will not be able to stop himself from talking. Just get him chatting about golf, say, and he'll go full Giuliani.

Remember: an impeachment trial is not the same as a criminal trial.  In terms of the criminal charges Trump might face from any of the multitude of investigations currently happening, they almost certainly do not need any testimony from Trump at all.

Trump is not going to go on the stand in his own impeachment trial only to take the 5th.  Apart from the fact it would look cowardly in the eyes of his own people, I just don't think he's capable of keeping his gob shut.  That's why Republicans are desperate to avoid calling witnesses altogether.

Nobody is going to bribe Trump with immunity from criminal liability re the insurrection for his own impeachment trial; nor will they, I think, go to the effort of subpoenaing him to testify.  That would slow the whole trial down as the subpoena would end up being argued in a criminal court.  The Democrats can't force Republicans to convict Trump, even if it's for their own good politically.  Getting them on record as supporting an insurrectionist president would have to do.

[Eeyore]

Remember: an impeachment trial is not the same as a criminal trial.  In terms of the criminal charges Trump might face from any of the multitude of investigations currently happening, they almost certainly do not need any testimony from Trump at all.

Trump is not going to go on the stand in his own impeachment trial only to take the 5th.  Apart from the fact it would look cowardly in the eyes of his own people, I just don't think he's capable of keeping his gob shut.  That's why Republicans are desperate to avoid calling witnesses altogether.

Nobody is going to bribe Trump with immunity from criminal liability re the insurrection for his own impeachment trial; nor will they, I think, go to the effort of subpoenaing him to testify.  That would slow the whole trial down as the subpoena would end up being argued in a criminal court.  The Democrats can't force Republicans to convict Trump, even if it's for their own good politically.  Getting them on record as supporting an insurrectionist president would have to do.

I think the last point is the key. I think it is unlikely that the Dems will get enough Republican Senators to vote for impeachment. What they are doing is pushing those GOP Senators into a corner. They either vote for impeachment and risk the wrath of Trump's MAGA mob, or they go on record backing a man who is likely to become toxic very soon.

Given that background abstaining or not even turning up must seem desirable. The biggest issue for them GOP Senators is that they do not know what is about to unfold in the investigation of the attempted coup, the upcoming legal cases or probably the most difficult to gauge who will turn on Trump and what kompromat they have.

Will Trump do the sensible thing and let this play out and rely on others or will he double down and think he can bluff and bluster his way out of this. In his head, he will think he has already been let down by the likes of Pence and the GOP and it is time to lash out.

[John C]

The other thing is that last time he had at least a year, and he probably thought he was going to have 5 years of legal protection as President. He also thought that he controlled the GOP. The legal protection has gone and in his mind he thinks the GOP has betrayed him.

Trump may think that he is going to have to take the stand sooner or later so why not get his message out there in an environment in which the odds are massively stacked in his favour. Use the impeachment trial to continue to peddle the narrative that this is a witch hunt and that he is the aggrieved party.

Much better to be heard by his peers when he knows that the GOP senators will stick to party lines.

You're right. And he needn't even pay for legal representation because it's highly unlikely he'll be found guilty. He could either plead the 5th or he could openly repeat the lies on the huge stage that is an impeachment trial making the people who he wants to be angry even angrier. He doesn't give two fucks who gets hurt or locked up for the Trump cause.

[Red Beret]

It's really hard to judge once you get into the detail.  Trump still has political ambitions for 2024; he poses a threat to every Republican thinking about running for the nomination.  Trump also wants to punish the Republicans who he feels have gone against him; and that might go far beyond those who have sided with Democrats on impeachment.  He may inadvertently harm his own ambitions in his rush to hurt Republicans - which would be par for the course for Trump as we know he's incapable of long term planning and is always looking to satisfy his immediate desires.

It's a lot simpler for Democrats.  The impeachment is simply about barring Trump from running for office again.  Losing this particular battle hurts the GOP more than them - although they see Trump as an existential threat to the republic itself, there are so many pending legal cases against him he will struggle to keep his head above water.

A lot might depend on whether rioters - either at the impeachment trial or in their own court cases - start saying they were there, doing what they were doing, because they felt Trump told them to. Trump's people and his senate cronies can claim he didn't literally mean them to do what they did all day long; if it turns out people took Trump at his word then he has to take the blame.

[Riquende]

What they are doing is pushing those GOP Senators into a corner. They either vote for impeachment and risk the wrath of Trump's MAGA mob, or they go on record backing a man who is likely to become toxic very soon.

Unfortunately not. We've already seen that the establishment GOP plan to fight this on a technical detail of 'you can't impeach an ex-President', neatly avoiding support or criticism of his actions.

[Red Beret]

Unfortunately not. We've already seen that the establishment GOP plan to fight this on a technical detail of 'you can't impeach an ex-President', neatly avoiding support or criticism of his actions.

In the same manner that they weren't trying to contest election results - they were just trying to disenfranchise millions of voters by getting their votes thrown out on the tiniest of technicalities.

The Republicans can make any claim they want.  They can claim that they voted to acquit, not because they thought Trump was innocent, but because he has left office and they consider impeachment unconstitutional all they want.  It might wash with the hard right and the more right leaning conservatives; I think most people will see it as them being spineless though.

[Jiminy Cricket]

Unfortunately not. We've already seen that the establishment GOP plan to fight this on a technical detail of 'you can't impeach an ex-President', neatly avoiding support or criticism of his actions.

There is no chance that the courts would entertain deciding whether of not Senate can convict an ex-President. They would tell the Senate that it is for them to decide. As it happens, the Senate had a vote on this matter and decided that, yes, they can impeach an ex-President.

[oldfordie]

Unfortunately not. We've already seen that the establishment GOP plan to fight this on a technical detail of 'you can't impeach an ex-President', neatly avoiding support or criticism of his actions.

They will still have to vote on it otherwise Trump will be impeached so their technicality unconstitutionally protests won't save them from sitting on the fence.
Trump also showing he's intending to fight his Impeachment with a defence rather than a technicality. the election was stolen from him. sorry stolen from us isn't it. 

[Riquende]

The point is that they will vote to acquit under the guise of the trial being constitutionally improper owing to Trump's status as no longer in office. All public statements will point to that across almost the entire caucus. Too often in this thread people look at this through a partisan lens rather than how it will be presented across right-leaning media. Whether you're a full on Maga idiot or just a conservative worried about guns, god and government (more, more, and less), you'll find that you can nod along to the "not our place to decide" narrative without feeling aggrieved that they've either explicitly rebuked or defended Trump (delete as appropriate).

Incidentally, Trump himself might be the fly in the ointment if he forces the issue on the voter fraud thing. But ultimately, the defendant undermining their own case doesn't mean much in the face of the case not being valid in the first place.

It's a watershed moment. I don't believe enough GOP senators have the backbone to do the right thing (and I think would also be true of a lot of Democrats in a similar situation - there are too many explicit 'career politicians' these days whose first loyalty is to their own job prospects because ever-higher office is all they've ever trained for). Whatever the excuse, their vote to acquit will one day be looked on in history books as one of the 'key causes' of whatever is coming next for the US.

[Red Beret]

The point is that they will vote to acquit under the guise of the trial being constitutionally improper owing to Trump's status as no longer in office.

We know this.  My own opinion on the matter, which is hardly definitive I know, is that such an excuse will not fly with the vast majority of the general public.  It will satisfy the extremists, perhaps, but it's still too raw; people have eyes, and the evidence is undeniable.  They want accountability.

A lot will depend on whether the trial has witnesses.  As I see it, only a straight majority vote is required to fix the "rules" for the trial. Even if Manchin switches sides, I think Romney has been pretty consistent when it comes to Trump and impeachment; he'll vote for witnesses. The majority of Republicans will vote to acquite, but their excuses wont be bought.

[Chakan]

We know this.  My own opinion on the matter, which is hardly definitive I know, is that such an excuse will not fly with the vast majority of the general public.  It will satisfy the extremists, perhaps, but it's still too raw; people have eyes, and the evidence is undeniable.  They want accountability.

Do they? I’ve seen nothing from the majority of republicans that still voted for trump 70m+ that they want accountability ?

[oldfordie]

The point is that they will vote to acquit under the guise of the trial being constitutionally improper owing to Trump's status as no longer in office. All public statements will point to that across almost the entire caucus. Too often in this thread people look at this through a partisan lens rather than how it will be presented across right-leaning media. Whether you're a full on Maga idiot or just a conservative worried about guns, god and government (more, more, and less), you'll find that you can nod along to the "not our place to decide" narrative without feeling aggrieved that they've either explicitly rebuked or defended Trump (delete as appropriate).

Incidentally, Trump himself might be the fly in the ointment if he forces the issue on the voter fraud thing. But ultimately, the defendant undermining their own case doesn't mean much in the face of the case not being valid in the first place.

It's a watershed moment. I don't believe enough GOP senators have the backbone to do the right thing (and I think would also be true of a lot of Democrats in a similar situation - there are too many explicit 'career politicians' these days whose first loyalty is to their own job prospects because ever-higher office is all they've ever trained for). Whatever the excuse, their vote to acquit will one day be looked on in history books as one of the 'key causes' of whatever is coming next for the US.

The truth isn't partisan. they will not be fooling the majority of American voters who will know they are presenting a lie as a excuse to prevent them being forced to defend Trumps incitement charge.
I agree about history leaving no doubt on the issue, the vote to impeach a past politician in this case the previous president is constitutional but the point is this will be seen for what it by most voters come the Senate elections. having said that there is no defence they could mount to defend Trump so arguing a s.. argument they don't believe themselves as excuse to prevent them having to defend the indefensable might be the best political option for many of the Republicans in safe seats.

[Red Beret]

Do they? I’ve seen nothing from the majority of republicans that still voted for trump 70m+ that they want accountability ?

Trump left office with the lowest approval rating of any president.  And although he still enjoys a relative high of Republican voter support, it's actually quite low by those standards.  I saw one video suggesting it had dropped to 70%.  He's turned a lot of Republican voters off.

I found this article: https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/01/15/donald-trump-leaves-white-house-lowest-ever-approval-rating/4173571001/

Driving the decline, only 60% of Republicans and voters who lean Republican approve of Trump's job performance, the poll found, a drop from 77% in August. Trump's positive marks from Democrats – already near rock bottom – dropped one percentage point to 4% from 5%

Bear in mind that as recently as a year ago, Trump was enjoying high 80s to low 90s support amongst Republican leaning voters.  This is a serious drop.

I think this is another reason why Democrats want witnesses though. People need reminding about what happened.  Even though it's still fresh, it was so stunning as to quickly become numb from it, especially with Trump's exit. Having video evidence, people being questioned and saying, "yes we were there because our President asked us to", will further impact public opinion.

That's how I see things anyway. It's a question of how well Democrats can marshal public opinion with Trump being on mute and unable to set or drive the narrative himself, having to relay on proxies like Cruz or Graham.

[Red Beret]

The truth isn't partisan. they will not be fooling the majority of American voters who will know they are presenting a lie as a excuse to prevent them being forced to defend Trumps incitement charge.
I agree about history leaving no doubt on the issue, the vote to impeach a past politician in this case the previous president is constitutional but the point is this will be seen for what it by most voters come the Senate elections. having said that there is no defence they could mount to defend Trump so arguing a s.. argument they don't believe themselves as excuse to prevent them having to defend the indefensable might be the best political option for many of the Republicans in safe seats.

I guess the litmus test is to ask a Republican senator whether they believe Trump committed an impeachable offence, regardless of whether they think it's constitutional or not to proceed with an impeachment now.  McConnell certainly thought so two weeks ago for example.

Ask them if it had happened six months ago would they vote to impeach - then watch them squirm as they say they're not going to discuss hypothetical situations.

[Chakan]

Trump left office with the lowest approval rating of any president.  And although he still enjoys a relative high of Republican voter support, it's actually quite low by those standards.  I saw one video suggesting it had dropped to 70%.  He's turned a lot of Republican voters off.

I found this article: https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/01/15/donald-trump-leaves-white-house-lowest-ever-approval-rating/4173571001/

Bear in mind that as recently as a year ago, Trump was enjoying high 80s to low 90s support amongst Republican leaning voters.  This is a serious drop.

I think this is another reason why Democrats want witnesses though. People need reminding about what happened.  Even though it's still fresh, it was so stunning as to quickly become numb from it, especially with Trump's exit. Having video evidence, people being questioned and saying, "yes we were there because our President asked us to", will further impact public opinion.

That's how I see things anyway. It's a question of how well Democrats can marshal public opinion with Trump being on mute and unable to set or drive the narrative himself, having to relay on proxies like Cruz or Graham.

I guess the larger question will be how will voting to not impeach trump affect the voters for those GOP Senators. I hazard a guess but i'd say it wouldn't impact the people voting for them?

Or would it?

[Red Beret]

I guess the larger question will be how will voting to not impeach trump affect the voters for those GOP Senators. I hazard a guess but i'd say it wouldn't impact the people voting for them?

Or would it?

It becomes a question of how blindly Republicans will vote for anything with a red sticker.  Everything the GOP are doing seems designed to dampen their voters down and just get them to forget everything that happened. Whether it works remains to be seen.

In any case, they gain nothing from continuing to support Trump.

[oldfordie]

I guess the litmus test is to ask a Republican senator whether they believe Trump committed an impeachable offence, regardless of whether they think it's constitutional or not to proceed with an impeachment now.  McConnell certainly thought so two weeks ago for example.

Ask them if it had happened six months ago would they vote to impeach - then watch them squirm as they say they're not going to discuss hypothetical situations.

I don't think the opinions of the Republican Senators who are trying to wriggle out of publicly passing a opinion on Trumps incitement charges really matter that much to be honest. the headlines can hardly say, Republicans claim the Impeachment is unconstitutional every night.
I don't there's a chance of getting Trump convicted by the Senate, not much chance of convincing the loyal Trump fanatics either, I don't underestimate just how fanatically stupid many of these Trump areas are, they are a lost cause.
This is more about exposing Trump for what he is in front of the millions of decent voters who do make up the majority of voters in the US,  I thought the Republicans would argue we have to unite and move on blah blah and this may well still happen, decent voters might well swallow that argument. so I hope the democrats have a counter argument ready and waiting,  How this will all be a big part of US history which will be remembered for hundreds of years. history is judging us all, take the easy way out and ignore Trumps crimes and History will judge them all badly blah blah.

Think the rules and the length of the trial and whether Trump gives evidence will be the most important points to look for next week, who gets subpoenaed and what evidence is allowed as a lot of witnesses could be the rioters themselves. I was watching a couple of the rioters lawyers talking about the defence they will be making when they face the courts. many are leaving no doubt. Trump told them to do what they did. attack the Senate and stop the Senators from stealing the election. be interesting to hear if any now feel Trump used them.

[Chakan]

It becomes a question of how blindly Republicans will vote for anything with a red sticker.  Everything the GOP are doing seems designed to dampen their voters down and just get them to forget everything that happened. Whether it works remains to be seen.

In any case, they gain nothing from continuing to support Trump.

Disagree with that, by supporting trump you get his base. Assuming he can’t run again and get the base himself.

[Eeyore]

I guess the larger question will be how will voting to not impeach trump affect the voters for those GOP Senators. I hazard a guess but i'd say it wouldn't impact the people voting for them?

Or would it?

It has already impacted people voting for GOP senators. The reason that the Dems won both Georgia Senate races is because telling your supporters that an election has been stolen disenfranchises your voters.

The more the GOP tell their supporters that the election was stolen the less likely they are to go out and vote. Trump has created a climate that decimates his vote just because he couldn't accept losing the popular vote 4 years ago. 

[Qston]

I don't know whether Trump can be "forced" to take the stand, but as people are fond of saying, it's not a criminal trial. As Zlen said though, Trump's ego knows no bounds.

Like Al suggested, Trump will probably try to turn the whole thing into a circus, and use it as a focal point to try and rally his people.  There's no telling how effective that strategy might be though. We all know Trump is not as smart as he thinks he is.

And in a strange twist of irony cause a mob insurrection as he is providing evidence of his involvement in the previous one !  Some republicans still wouldn`t convict him

[Red Beret]

And in a strange twist of irony cause a mob insurrection as he is providing evidence of his involvement in the previous one !  Some republicans still wouldn`t convict him

I'd love to see that line of questioning thrown to Trump by Senate Democrats.

"President Trump, do you think your supporters should march into this building right now and stop these proceedings?"

"YEEEEeeeeess...........nnnnnnooooooo....??"

[Red Beret]

Disagree with that, by supporting trump you get his base. Assuming he can’t run again and get the base himself.

Their whole plan hinges on the legal system taking down Trump so he can't stand in 2024. They're gambling on not having to vote to bar him from office themselves, and so keep his base on side.

Like I said before,  Republicans don't want to go through the growing pains of modernising their party and moving back to the centre right, so they don't HAVE to rely on these lunatics to stay in power. They're wedging themselves into a cul-de-sac

[leroy]

You'll all no doubt be shocked to learn that some of the idiots who attacked the capitol building didn't vote.

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/02/01/us/capitol-rioters-non-voters-invs/index.html

Many involved in the insurrection professed to be motivated by patriotism, falsely declaring that Trump was the rightful winner of the election. Yet at least eight of the people who are now facing criminal charges for their involvement in the events at the Capitol did not vote in the November 2020 presidential election, according to an analysis of voting records from the states where protestors were arrested and those states where public records show they have lived. They came from states around the country and ranged in age from 21 to 65.

[John C]

This should probably have been done years ago.
The Scottish Parliament are to consider investigating how Trump financed his golf courses in Scotland.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/trump-scotland-golf-parliament-investigation-b1795774.html

A deep dive in to the background to those transactions could be very interesting. It would be tremendous if these are examples of him being sloppy in any alleged money laundering schemes and the Scots nabbed him.

[12C]

You'll all no doubt be shocked to learn that some of the idiots who attacked the capitol building didn't vote.

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/02/01/us/capitol-rioters-non-voters-invs/index.html

There seems to be a theme emerging with these guys.

“His mother said he had become increasingly angry...”

Didn’t the Shaman live with his mommy, and another one was driven there by his mommy.

Blame the parents?

[12C]

This should probably have been done years ago.
The Scottish Parliament are to consider investigating how Trump financed his golf courses in Scotland.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/trump-scotland-golf-parliament-investigation-b1795774.html

A deep dive in to the background to those transactions could be very interesting. It would be tremendous if these are examples of him being sloppy in any alleged money laundering schemes and the Scots nabbed him.

Given the fact that both of his idiot sons were boasting about Russian finance of his golf courses, it is a little ironic that The Independent is running this.
As you say though, it is about time they looked closely at where the money came from.

[Red Beret]

This should probably have been done years ago.
The Scottish Parliament are to consider investigating how Trump financed his golf courses in Scotland.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/trump-scotland-golf-parliament-investigation-b1795774.html

A deep dive in to the background to those transactions could be very interesting. It would be tremendous if these are examples of him being sloppy in any alleged money laundering schemes and the Scots nabbed him.

Best thing about such an investigation is that it's basically immune from Republican political pressure. I guess the MAGA crowd can boycott Scottish products in protest though.

[Elmo!]

This should probably have been done years ago.
The Scottish Parliament are to consider investigating how Trump financed his golf courses in Scotland.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/trump-scotland-golf-parliament-investigation-b1795774.html

A deep dive in to the background to those transactions could be very interesting. It would be tremendous if these are examples of him being sloppy in any alleged money laundering schemes and the Scots nabbed him.

Unfortunately even if it passes it has no legal force, it is just a motion. The power to order such and investigation sits with the Lord Advocate, indpendent from Government - as it should.

[liverbloke]

This should probably have been done years ago.
The Scottish Parliament are to consider investigating how Trump financed his golf courses in Scotland.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/trump-scotland-golf-parliament-investigation-b1795774.html

A deep dive in to the background to those transactions could be very interesting. It would be tremendous if these are examples of him being sloppy in any alleged money laundering schemes and the Scots nabbed him.

they usually cover their tracks or lay false ones

there was a BBC documentary on about this years ago and some poor little fuck had his home - i think trumpy referred to it as a horrible eyesore - blocked off with high screens all so fucking rich twats could play with their sticks and balls

it seemed unbelievable then but then it's maybe not trumpy that should be investigated but the scots that allowed this to happen

[leroy]

There seems to be a theme emerging with these guys.

“His mother said he had become increasingly angry...”

Didn’t the Shaman live with his mommy, and another one was driven there by his mommy.

Blame the parents?

You missed the second part of that mate which is pretty telling in my book.

She said he had become increasingly angry during the Obama administration

So much of this garbage is just reactionary racism to seeing a black guy making his way to the top of the pile.  So many times during the BLM protests I saw variations on the quote "racism wasn't a problem before Obama" from comments by white Americans with no trace of self-awareness.   The right-wing media pushed it all in language that couched it as "anti-left" rather than "anti-black" directly and it just kept boiling.

[Red Beret]

The term people are looking for is "radicalisation".

Trump's the old, white version of Bin laden.