Trump to speak tonight.
Tucker also speaking tonight.
Expect the Left to be butt-hurt about this.
Tucker also speaking tonight.
Expect the Left to be butt-hurt about this.
The Trump Card...
- Thread starter muttly
- Start date
Why would they be, he has a bad habit of incriminating himself, more to use against him.
His lawyers are going to need a few drinks before he opens his mouth, this should be good.....
danthewolf00
Veteran Expediter
danthewolf00
Veteran Expediter
It bothers them immensely that scenes like these humanize their contrived monster.
Last edited:
A good, concise article that makes the point in understandable language. In spite of all the fancy trimmings, the Mar-a-Lago case is political persecution - pure and simple.
"The Presidential Records Act gives former president Donald Trump the right under law to maintain custody and control of papers, classified or not. That’s the controlling, governing statute. And its civil, not criminal...
It’s pretty clear what’s happening. Garland is interfering in a presidential election. He’s trying to knock out his boss’s opponent with manufactured charges while working overtime to protect Biden in his bribery and influence peddling scandals. It’s not just unequal application of the law, it’s crooked justice."
thegreggjarrett.com
"The Presidential Records Act gives former president Donald Trump the right under law to maintain custody and control of papers, classified or not. That’s the controlling, governing statute. And its civil, not criminal...
It’s pretty clear what’s happening. Garland is interfering in a presidential election. He’s trying to knock out his boss’s opponent with manufactured charges while working overtime to protect Biden in his bribery and influence peddling scandals. It’s not just unequal application of the law, it’s crooked justice."
Presidential Records Act Is Not A Criminal Statute | Gregg Jarrett
The Presidential Records Act gives former president Donald Trump the right under law to maintain custody and control of papers, classified or not. That’s the
thegreggjarrett.com
Garland is a mere figurehead. An easy pushover for his deputies in the DOJ that are really running the show.
This action all comes straight from the White House; Biden had to authorize the NARA request to the DOJ for their Mar-a-Lago raid on his main political opponent. Also, Garland probably still holds a grudge against any and all Republicans for keeping him off SCOTUS.
If Stupidity Was a Crime, Trump is a Repeat Offender
Yesterday's big news was Trump's arraignment in Miami. Lower in the headlines was the Jeane Carroll story, in which a judge allowed her to amend her second lawsuit to add Trump's most-recent defamation offense.
The jury found Trump liable in the first Carroll v. Trump case and ordered him to pay Carroll $5 million in damages. Words he stupidly said under oath in a previous deposition provided the plaintiff's attorney's with ammunition that was highly effective against Trump.
Less than 24 hours after Trump lost that case, Trump was on national TV and he again stupidly defamed Carroll. That produced this new charge, which could very well result in Trump paying Carroll millions more in punitive damages.
I don't think this will go well for Trump. The offense is brand new. Unlike the previous case which Carroll won, there is no long history to go back through. This offense was recent. Because it's on news-reel tape, no witnesses are needed. The jury need only view the tape. The offense was clearly done by Trump ... it's on CNN video! It is clearly intentional. The jury will see no one forced or tricked Trump into saying what he said. He meant what he said and wanted to say it. And he said what he said with malice. The jury will see the words and tone he used are malicious on their face. It will be impossible for Trump to obfuscate the deed. What Trump did is clear as day. When he recently defamed Carroll, Trump was not president, which means he does not have the protections that office might otherwise provide.
How stupid do you have to be to be found liable in court for defamation, and then go on national TV less than 24 hours later, and viciously defame the same person again?
Months will pass before the documents case goes to trial. That leaves a lot of time and many opportunities for Trump to blunder again. Trump's attorney's have presumably told him that "what you say can be used against you in a court of law." And if they haven't, numerous TV commentators from the left and right -- commentators Trump watches -- have said the same.
Trump may heed that advice for a while, but I don't think it is in him to heed it as he should. In the many speeches and posts Trump will make in the future, I think he's more likely to hurt himself than help.
There is the court of public opinion and the court of law. As a criminal defendant now charged, Trump would do well to note the difference and act accordingly.
www.politico.com
Yesterday's big news was Trump's arraignment in Miami. Lower in the headlines was the Jeane Carroll story, in which a judge allowed her to amend her second lawsuit to add Trump's most-recent defamation offense.
The jury found Trump liable in the first Carroll v. Trump case and ordered him to pay Carroll $5 million in damages. Words he stupidly said under oath in a previous deposition provided the plaintiff's attorney's with ammunition that was highly effective against Trump.
Less than 24 hours after Trump lost that case, Trump was on national TV and he again stupidly defamed Carroll. That produced this new charge, which could very well result in Trump paying Carroll millions more in punitive damages.
I don't think this will go well for Trump. The offense is brand new. Unlike the previous case which Carroll won, there is no long history to go back through. This offense was recent. Because it's on news-reel tape, no witnesses are needed. The jury need only view the tape. The offense was clearly done by Trump ... it's on CNN video! It is clearly intentional. The jury will see no one forced or tricked Trump into saying what he said. He meant what he said and wanted to say it. And he said what he said with malice. The jury will see the words and tone he used are malicious on their face. It will be impossible for Trump to obfuscate the deed. What Trump did is clear as day. When he recently defamed Carroll, Trump was not president, which means he does not have the protections that office might otherwise provide.
How stupid do you have to be to be found liable in court for defamation, and then go on national TV less than 24 hours later, and viciously defame the same person again?
Months will pass before the documents case goes to trial. That leaves a lot of time and many opportunities for Trump to blunder again. Trump's attorney's have presumably told him that "what you say can be used against you in a court of law." And if they haven't, numerous TV commentators from the left and right -- commentators Trump watches -- have said the same.
Trump may heed that advice for a while, but I don't think it is in him to heed it as he should. In the many speeches and posts Trump will make in the future, I think he's more likely to hurt himself than help.
There is the court of public opinion and the court of law. As a criminal defendant now charged, Trump would do well to note the difference and act accordingly.
Judge lets E. Jean Carroll add Trump’s post-verdict remarks to original defamation case
Following the verdict that found Trump liable for defamation, the former president called Carroll a "whack job."
www.politico.com
Last edited:
Clinton judge. They don’t even try to appear to be objective and fair.
Yes, ultimately it comes from the top. Biden and Garland make the final decisions, but the prodding and hen pecking at them to go Defcon 1 on Trump reportedly comes from the more radical underlings like Lisa Monaco. It probably doesn’t take much effort though, because Biden is compromised and Garland holds a grudge and is considered to be a weak fish.
danthewolf00
Veteran Expediter
Well it's kind of one sided.....all Democrat no Republican district attorney is going after trump....maybe if there was one it might not look like the law is weaponized against trump.
danthewolf00
Veteran Expediter
No the farce was the pride day at the White House where several people decided to take off their tops and show off their breast implants......
A lot of men walk around in public without a shirt on, whats the big deal????? That was sarcasm just to make it clear......
I dont get the whole pushing the pride thing, catering to less than 1% of the population but you are going to tick off at least 30% of people. It does not affect or bother me but they have the right to do what they want.
I dont get the whole pushing the pride thing, catering to less than 1% of the population but you are going to tick off at least 30% of people. It does not affect or bother me but they have the right to do what they want.
danthewolf00
Veteran Expediter
The fact is the left use race and sexual orientation as a club to beat down anyone that objects to how they run things.....heck they use it for every topic that they can not win.
danthewolf00
Veteran Expediter
At least under trump the freight rates were not this bad and you can't blame him for it because it's been almost 3 years now.
In her first act regarding this trial, Judge Cannon moved to speed things along. She did not have to do that. She could have helped Trump delay things by letting time pass before she issued this order. But she did not do nothing. Without prompting from either side, she acted to speed things along.
That's encouraging.
CNN: Judge Cannon Jumpstarts oversight ...
Last edited:
danthewolf00
Veteran Expediter
Because she knows the 11th will just over ride anything she does.