Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Donald Trump - MAGAtwat news and discussion

The four criminal indictments involve 91 charges against Trump. Yes, that's right, 91.

View attachment 387331

Carroll is one of the dozens of women Trump has sexually abused and raped. After she successfully sued him for raping her he then defamed her and now she's suing him again.

The most recent charges are almost certainly not going to court until after the Nov. 2024 election.

I still don't think he'll ever see the inside of a prison. It does make me feel like the US may eventually survive him. I haven't always felt that it would.
 
Last edited:
The most recent charges are almost certainly not going to court until after the Nov. 2024 election.

I still don't think he'll ever see the inside of a prison. It does make me feel like the US may eventually survive Trump. I haven't always felt that it would.
Afraid to say going the other way
 
Defendants Donald John Trump, Rudolph William Louis Giuliani, John Charles Eastman, Mark Randall Meadows, Kenneth John Chesebro, Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Jenna Lynn Ellis, Ray Stallings SmithIII, Robert David Cheeley, Michael A. Roman, David James Shafer, Shawn Micah Tresher Still, Stephen Cliffgard Lee, Harrison William Prescott Floyd, Trevian C. Kutti, Sidney Katherine Powell, Cathleen Alston Latham, Scott Graham Hall, Misty Hampton
… your boy took a HELL of a beating
 
This is the opening paragraph of Georgia indictment:



Come on, let he or she who has not with nineteen co-defendants and thirty unindicted co-conspirators plus sundry others engaged in various related criminal activities including, but not limited to, false statements and writings, impersonating a public officer, forgery, filing false documents, influencing witnesses, computer theft, computer trespass, computer invasion of privacy, conspiracy to defraud the state, acts involving theft, and perjury cast the first stone 🥸
 
Ill put a cock and Hen on the twat not going down, it would destroy too many big hitter's egos.... not to mention the damage to the whole 'merrika hell yeah' thing
Nah not ever gonna be allowed
 
1692124981278-jpeg.387373
Don’t be so sure….View attachment 387373
View attachment 387381
Orange is the new orange
 
ah just because you want it to
when owning the libs takes you down a daft path :hmm:
Nope.

Am Lib. (Most defo in relation to US thinking)

Bidonomics.
Thems with a horse in the race can soap box , I'll stick to respecting sovereignty.
 
Again - I dont think anyone can say "hes not going to go to prison" cos ... it wont be "allowed" . Its clear there is a large chunk of the american judicial system who clearly belive that he has committed a gross assualt on the the fundemental prinicples of american democracy and are going after him with everything they have. Because people like judges, DAs, and State prosecuters belive very very much in the sacntiy of the rule of law and the constiution and that is what is driving them. They are in no way synonymous with "the democrats" or "liberal opinion". I suspect those principles are far more important to them than the consequcnes of putting trump on trial. They have basically gone shit or bust on this.
What is scary and dangerous is how big a chunk of amerian opinion, the republican party and the media see this as a poltical prosecution. Becasue no matter what he does, how blatantly he shits on the constiution or how rock solid the evidence of his cuntytude, his base will not abandon him and they will carry a big chunk of the media and repulican party with them and they will weaponsie it to the point where widespread poltical violence is inevtiable . This will inevitably result in an authoritarian crack down on the wing nuts. Then you get into the realms of how organsied that poltical violence is and the loyalty of the police and army and a self fufilling prophecy of the federal sate going to war with its own people.
What may help trump - but perhaps not the USA - is their is maybe a widespread belief beoyond his base that going after trump is not worth the pain, that its OTT - and this results in the fucker walking. But nobody is in control of this process and there is no clear mechanism for how that pressure would prevent a very very pissed off judicial system locking him up. And of course none of this precludes the possbiltiy of him winning the next election.
Best for all concerned is if the fucker suffers a fatal heart attack ASAP - it wont solve the underlying fault lines and toxic resnetment festering within america - but might prevent a civil war - for now.
 
I think the consequences of letting Trump walk away from this are going to be worse for the US as a political entity than actually bringing the hammer down on him. The MAGA terrorists might throw a violent strop over their shitty orange god being punished, but if the alternative is to signal to every other country in the world that the US can be easily manipulated every time a narcissistic fascist becomes President and that they'll get away with it, it will happen again, and every time it does will bring a non-trivial chance that the US ends up being fucked for good.

It'd be one thing if he was just fucking with the little people, but if the US state apparatus has any sense of self-preservation left in it, then they'll have to make some kind of example out of Trump.
 
to add to what I put earlier about how the US judicial establishment want to nail the bastard - its similar to how the paliamentary standards lot went after johnson - its cos he's shat on everything they hold dear.
 
So Fox's 'defence' of Trump basically amounts to 'He was allowed to ask, right? It's all allowed because he just wanted to stay in power and that's a totally legitimate reason to do it isn't it?'

 
The "insurrection indictment" even says that he's got First Amendment rights to say he thought the election was rigged. It's everything else he's in the shit for.
 
The "insurrection indictment" even says that he's got First Amendment rights to say he thought the election was rigged. It's everything else he's in the shit for.
But of course, he presents it to his fans as a free speech issue, because then they can identify themselves with it. Which they can't do with rigging elections and stealing sensitive national security documents.
 
Have we had this yet, about Section Three?
“No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States” if they have previously “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof”.
Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment was passed in 1866. Two conservative law professors argue that it automatically disbars Trump.

Abstract
Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids holding office by former office holders who then participate in insurrection or rebellion. Because of a range of misperceptions and mistaken assumptions, Section Three’s full legal consequences have not been appreciated or enforced. This article corrects those mistakes by setting forth the full sweep and force of Section Three.

First, Section Three remains an enforceable part of the Constitution, not limited to the Civil War, and not effectively repealed by nineteenth century amnesty legislation. Second, Section Three is self-executing, operating as an immediate disqualification from office, without the need for additional action by Congress. It can and should be enforced by every official, state or federal, who judges qualifications. Third, to the extent of any conflict with prior constitutional rules, Section Three repeals, supersedes, or simply satisfies them. This includes the rules against bills of attainder or ex post facto laws, the Due Process Clause, and even the free speech principles of the First Amendment. Fourth, Section Three covers a broad range of conduct against the authority of the constitutional order, including many instances of indirect participation or support as “aid or comfort.” It covers a broad range of former offices, including the Presidency. And in particular, it disqualifies former President Donald Trump, and potentially many others, because of their participation in the attempted overthrow of the 2020 presidential election.


This will be interesting, as in the Chinese curse.
 
Have we had this yet, about Section Three?

Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment was passed in 1866. Two conservative law professors argue that it automatically disbars Trump.

Abstract



This will be interesting, as in the Chinese curse.

I don't know anything about that constitutional rule or how its been interpreted, but that argument looks plausible. If it is used to bar Trump from running though, I can't imagine that the present US Supreme Court would not overturn such a decision. It's a hyper-conservative supermajority which includes three judges appointed by Trump and one judge who is married to a MAGA insurrectionist.
 
Back
Top Bottom