Nicker on 6/10/2023 at 14:46

---

Another day, another self-inflicted wound to the ego and wallet of Agent Orange.

Drumph dismisses the half-a-billion dollar lawsuit he filed against Michael Cohen. Its intention was to frighten M.C. into staying silent about Drumph's criminal business practices and to punish him for growing a spine. After refusing to be deposed in the suit, on the legal argument that doing so might expose him to criminal peril, Dictator Magazine's runner-up for Most Vile Tyrant Of The Year, ran away, whimpering, rather than face the man he tried to bully.

And some still call him President.

[video=youtube;yE6skTvrNjM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yE6skTvrNjM[/video]

Nicker on 6/10/2023 at 22:44

---

So much gold, he could start a real estate empire with it.

But to be fair, it might not be self incriminating evidence of illegal business practices. It could be inculpatory evidence about one of a myriad of other and sundry crimes.

At this point, Rump might as well take that gun he did/didn't buy, shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and see if he still gets the nomination. What does he have to lose?

mxleader on 11/10/2023 at 15:53

---

Trump supporters are calling for Trump to help with the situation in Israel. I think that they are misinformed about what Trump can do now or did when he was president. What they really should be asking for is someone like Marine Corp General Mattis to be appointed Chairman of Joint Chief's of Staff.

mxleader on 12/10/2023 at 01:57

---

:laff::laff::laff:

demagogue on 28/10/2023 at 22:56

---

There are questions of fact and questions of law. The way a judge can end a case with a summary judgment is if, on the facts already granted by the defendant, the defendant is automatically guilty as a matter of law (e.g., there could still be a dispute on the facts, but the judge might decide that the resolution of those factual questions are immaterial, and the person would be guilty anyway), then the judge can do that. But if there are any material questions of fact, then the defendant is entitled to have those questions resolved by a jury.

There are scenarios when the evidence becomes so overwhelming that the defendant's lawyer may advise their client to take a plea bargain deal and get a better outcome than what they can expect 95% if it goes to a jury. But that's for the defendant to choose, it's not forced on them, and they can choose not to do that and roll the dice anyway.

I think Trump has been screwed on the facts ever since the obstruction charges in the first few months he was in office, and it's only been a matter of time getting over some procedural hurdles (like immunity during his term and then building the strongest case on the strongest facts) to actually bring charges against him and let the process roll forward. He was never going to get off, one way or another, without some loophole.

I'm not sure exactly what will happen if a process is still rolling forward and he gets reelected, or even if he's found guilty and still gets reelected, but I imagine the default is it'd be tolled with immunity unless a charge is considered legal treason and it triggers the 14th Amendment, or some other thing like that.