The Trump downfall thread

[Retro]

This is a rather depressing article on how Trump could still win the presidency in November despite being weighed down with so many lawsuits and that time is running out to stop him.

Personally, I'm very pessimistic now that the Supreme Court will strike him off the ballot in February over his insurrection which would stop him once and for all. Main reasons being that he's stuffed the nine judges with three of his cronies making it a 6-3 Republican majority and that they'll be afraid of rocking the boat, ie the public's reaction across the whole country, which could turn violent, plus all the secret conversations with those judges that we never hear about where bribes and threats are made, making the trial a farce to be played out to the media while the result is a foregone conclusion.

I'm predicting the following result:

6 Republican judges voting to keep him on the ballot.
3 Democrat judges voting to remove him from the ballot.

Yup, I think it's going to go precisely along party lines like that. Perhaps they might have a token Republican voting "against" Trump so that it doesn't look quite so obvious. We'll soon see.

As the article says, this is the cult of Donald Trump and unfortunately cults are very powerful in shaping the hearts and minds of the gullible whom they've duped.

The few Republicans who have not succumbed to the cult of Donald Trump cling to one last hope. They are crossing their fingers that on Tuesday night the ex-president’s march to his party’s nomination will be halted, or at least delayed, by a defeat in the New Hampshire primary at the hands of the former governor of South Carolina, Nikki Haley. But it is a thin hope.

Even if Haley wins a famous victory in this snowbound state, the battles ahead are on terrain far more tricky for her and congenial to him.

There is still a way to stop Donald Trump – but time is running out

No Republican can out-Trump Trump. Opponents need to target his flaws: a bloody insurrection and a record of broken promises, says Guardian columnist Jonathan Freedland

uk.news.yahoo.com

 

[Retro]

Trump's empire could be shut down in days, depending on the verdict of the trial judge.

"Yay!" Say Trump haters (including me)... but, what about all the innocent employees on ordinary wages who have been caught in the middle of all this through no fault of their own and will now be out of a job? As usual, the fallout when any big enterprise is taken down, no matter how corrupt, will have innocent victims as collateral and this I'm not comfortable with. I'd actually be in favour of tax payer funding to see them right, if necessary. The exact details would have to be worked out and perhaps not in every case, but you get the principle.

Within days, Donald Trump could potentially have his sprawling real estate business empire ordered “dissolved” for repeated misrepresentations on financial statements to lenders, adding him to a short list of scam marketers, con artists and others who have been hit with the ultimate punishment for violating New York’s powerful anti-fraud law.

Taking away Trump’s business empire would stand alone under New York fraud law

 

[Retro]

Why did this idiot do it? The article doesn't explain what his motivation was. What a stupid way to throw your life away. Now he's got 5 years of wearing the fetching orange jumpsuit.

A former Internal Revenue Service consultant who pleaded guilty to leaking the tax records of former President Donald Trump to The New York Times drew a five-year prison sentence from a federal judge Monday.

Charles Littlejohn received the maximum sentence allowed by law from U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes, who agreed with prosecutors that his actions in leaking Trump's records, along with others involving thousands of the nation's wealthiest people, deserved stiff punishment.

Littlejohn, 38, of Washington, D.C., pleaded guilty to one count of disclosing tax return information without authorization in October.

Former IRS consultant who leaked Donald Trump's tax records draws 5-year sentence

A former Internal Revenue Service consultant who pleaded guilty to leaking the tax records of former President Donald Trump to the New York Times drew a five-year prison sentence from a federal judge Monday.

uk.yahoo.com

 

[Tiffany]

You don't have to worry....Taylor Swift has now endorsed Biden.

I don't even know why that guy shared Trumps tax records. That was stupid and now he gets to go to jail.

 

[Retro]

In fact, one of the last things Carroll attorney Roberta Kaplan did before resting her defamation case against Trump was to hit play on a video of him bragging about his stacks of cash.

It was as good as parading Trump before the jury with a "kick me" sign taped to his back.

omg that last sentence is too funny! I can so picture it and the consequence is that they gave him a huge fine, cuz he can afford it, right?

How Trump's 'I'm rich!' boasts are coming back to bite him in court

Donald Trump can't help bragging about his wealth. But his boasts helped fuel the $83.3M E. Jean Carroll verdict and may hurt in his NY fraud case.

uk.yahoo.com

 

[Retro]

For all the twists and turns with Trump and his setbacks like having to pay E Jean Carroll $83.3m, he seems to be winning the key battles like this one, unfortunately. Those delaying tactics are frustratingly effective.

District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan announced Friday that the federal trial of former President Donald Trump on charges related to his efforts to steal the 2020 election is no longer set to begin on March 4.

And there's no new date yet. That's it, kicking it into the long grass is what Trump wants.

If he manages to evade justice, as seems increasingly likely, it will be a travesty.

Judge Delays Start For Donald Trump’s Federal Trial On Jan. 6 Charges

Trump’s efforts to delay his trials are working.

uk.news.yahoo.com

 

[Retro]

So, Trump doesn't have presidential immunity after all. Who knew? Incredibly though, this still gives him a boost due to the trial delay that it leads to, potentially allowing him to nullify it if he becomes president. Infuriating, isn't it?

Donald Trump's failed immunity appeal is still a win for his delay strategy

The time it took to issue the decision has indefinitely delayed Mr Trump's election subversion trial.

www.bbc.co.uk

Donald Trump does not have presidential immunity, US court rules

The former president loses a landmark legal bid to shield him from charges of election fraud.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Retro]

Trump seems to be dodging all the critical bullets somehow with his trial delaying tactics and bent judges, however, here's a piece of good news: he's running out of money which might prove more decisive at stopping him than all the rest that's going on with him. Crtiically, he's running out even with the support of his "base" supporters, so there's hope yet. Paying out over $83m in that defamation case will really hurt his finances now, too.

Donald Trump will likely drain his war chest for legal fees this summer, leaving the GOP frontrunner crunched for cash just as his presidential campaign ramps up spending for an expected rematch with President Joe Biden.

Trump spent $51.2 million in 2023 on legal expenses, and can tap another $26.6 million stashed in an allied super political action committee that he can use to pay his lawyers. But as his four criminal cases ramp up, those funds are expected to run out at a critical time — around July, when the Republican National Convention triggers the official start to the general election campaign.

That leaves Trump with only a few — unappealing — options to keep paying for his defense.

Oh boy, if only a small fraction of that money was donated to myself, I'd be set up for life and wouldn't have to work again, yet he needs it all and more to stay out of jail. The contrast couldn't be wider, lol.

Trump On Pace to Drain Legal Funds by July, With Only $27 Million Left

(Bloomberg) -- Donald Trump will likely drain his war chest for legal fees this summer, leaving the GOP frontrunner crunched for cash just as his presidential campaign ramps up spending for an expected rematch with President Joe Biden.Most Read from BloombergThe Brutal Reality of Plunging Office...

uk.news.yahoo.com

 

[live627]

how do they know that he's down to 27mil?

 

[Retro]

That's a good question, but I'm sure it's correct.

Also, if his property empire is dismantled due to the extensive fraud over many years that has been found, this will finish him as he'll have no money left at all to fight his cases.

 

[Retro]

Here's the BBC's take on his fraud verdict.

The bad news is that the Trump empire was spared from the equivalent of the corporate death penalty - the cancellation of its business licences. However, it's still a massive hit for him and doesn't have the readies in cash, which will cause him problems, especially as he's gotta cough up the full amount initially, even to appeal the ruling. The law also prevents him from using any campaign money to pay for it, so he's between a rock and a hard place.

Donald Trump hit where it hurts most in New York fraud ruling

A scathing judgment limits the former president's ability to do business in the city where he made his name.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Retro]

CNN's analysis is pretty good.

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/02/17/politics/trump-fraud-trial-defeat-breaking-rules/index.html

 

[Retro]

This MSNBC article really explains the pickle that Trump is in. He might finally be a busted flush due to being unable to afford to pay the fine, or do business in New York, which will also prevent him from funding his election campaign. That's great, so even if he stays on the ballot, it may not do him any good. Good.

It may seem like Trump’s money problem can't get worse. It can.

Trump’s business genius façade is crumbling. And that may be the outcome he feared most.

www.msnbc.com

 

[Retro]

The first quote below is what it all hinges on whether Trump gets to be disqualified from the ballot by the Supreme Court or not. It's frankly ridiculous as there's no difference. Taking the "office of the presidency" obviously makes the president an officer of said presidency, duh! Also, being the guy who rules over all the other "officers" who are part of the machinery of government, makes him the "head officer" as he's at the top of the hierarchy, not just some random bloke without responsibility. He's actually the most responsible officer in the whole organisation as the buck stops with him!

Put another way, how can someone take the office of an organisation without being an officer, ie the person who executes the functions of that office? It's absurd and lawyers should be clever enough to point this out if I can do it as an informed layman.

Think of companies where you have top positions such as Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and so on, where they're all "officers" of the company right there in their job titles, just like all the minions of whom they lord it over. It's so clear and obvious that he's an officer, yet in section 3, there's just that little bit of apparently ambiguous wording (it's not actually ambiguous when read carefully) since the Founding Fathers left it to implication, that Trump is now trying to exploit and the SC looks likely to cop out over. It would be a travesty if they did so, and unfortunately it looks likely to happen.

There were times when other justices seemed skeptical of the “office ... under the United States” / “as an officer of the United States” distinction Mitchell offered, but their side-eye wasn’t nearly as intense as what the conservative justices had for Murray, the Colorado voters’ lawyer. Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch were more than willing to press him on why the president but not the speaker of the House counted as an “officer of the United States” under the 14th Amendment’s wording. Murray said the speaker doesn’t take a special constitutional oath outside of that sworn as a member of Congress, but the justices seemed unconvinced.

Here's section 3 in full:

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, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

The bold bit clearly covers the presidency by implication as anyone who works for the US is an officer, including the top guy, so it's absurd, as I explained above, to suggest that the president is not an "officer" of the office that he's holding. Yet, this is exactly what Trump's argument hangs on, so it should be struck down immediately for the falsehood that it is and Trump struck off the ballot.

Finally, whichever way this decision goes, I think it would be wise to revise the Constitution's wording to explicitly include the president as an officer of the office of which they hold. Ridiculous that it should be necessary, but look at what happens otherwise. If Trump gets away with this, it would open the floodgates for other corrupt people to do the same.

Opinion | The 15 words that will decide whether Trump is eligible to be president again

How the justices choose to parse the 14th Amendment's Section 3 will determine whether Donald Trump will be allowed on the ballot.

www.msnbc.com

@Tiffany as my American friend with similar views on Trump, I think you'll be interested in this post, especially if you find yourself in an argument with someone who tries to say that Trump should stay on the ballot based on him allegedly not being an officer.

@Mars @TheURL I think you'll be interested in this clarification too.

 

[Tiffany]

The first quote below is what it all hinges on whether Trump gets to be disqualified from the ballot by the Supreme Court or not. It's frankly ridiculous as there's no difference. Taking the "office of the presidency" obviously makes the president an officer of said presidency, duh! Also, being the guy who rules over all the other "officers" who are part of the machinery of government, makes him the "head officer" as he's at the top of the hierarchy, not just some random bloke without responsibility. He's actually the most responsible officer in the whole organisation as the buck stops with him!

Put another way, how can someone take the office of an organisation without being an officer, ie the person who executes the functions of that office? It's absurd and lawyers should be clever enough to point this out if I can do it as an informed layman.

Think of companies where you have top positions such as Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and so on, where they're all "officers" of the company right there in their job titles, just like all the minions of whom they lord it over. It's so clear and obvious that he's an officer, yet in section 3, there's just that little bit of apparently ambiguous wording (it's not actually ambiguous when read carefully) since the Founding Fathers left it to implication, that Trump is now trying to exploit and the SC looks likely to cop out over. It would be a travesty if they did so, and unfortunately it looks likely to happen.




Here's section 3 in full:



The bold bit clearly covers the presidency by implication as anyone who works for the US is an officer, including the top guy, so it's absurd, as I explained above, to suggest that the president is not an "officer" of the office that he's holding. Yet, this is exactly what Trump's argument hangs on, so it should be struck down immediately for the falsehood that it is and Trump struck off the ballot.

Finally, whichever way this decision goes, I think it would be wise to revise the Constitution's wording to explicitly include the president as an officer of the office of which they hold. Ridiculous that it should be necessary, but look at what happens otherwise. If Trump gets away with this, it would open the floodgates for other corrupt people to do the same.

Opinion | The 15 words that will decide whether Trump is eligible to be president again

How the justices choose to parse the 14th Amendment's Section 3 will determine whether Donald Trump will be allowed on the ballot.

www.msnbc.com

@Tiffany as my American friend with similar views on Trump, I think you'll be interested in this post, especially if you find yourself in an argument with someone who tries to say that Trump should stay on the ballot based on him allegedly not being an officer.

@Mars @TheURL I think you'll be interested in this clarification too.

Well articulated. Words matter in legal documents. I bolded what I've been thinking, as well. The constitution wasn't clear enough on the declaration of what the "officer" really is or lacks a specific delegation of "officer" and should be amended to prevent any future litigation that can't be manipulated...it needs to be crystal clear.

 

[Retro]

Well articulated.

Thanks! It took me over an hour to write and tweak it so it was just right.

Words matter in legal documents. I bolded what I've been thinking, as well. The constitution wasn't clear enough on the declaration of what the "officer" really is or lacks a specific delegation of "officer" and should be amended to prevent any future litigation that can't be manipulated...it needs to be crystal clear.

Totally, especially the bold bit.

 

[Retro]

@live627 your other posts on NZ reminded me that you're also from America, so what's your view on Trump getting struck off the ballot? Please read my post 639 above before replying, linked here:

The Trump downfall thread

This is a rather depressing article on how Trump could still win the presidency in November despite being weighed down with so many lawsuits and that time is running out to stop him. Personally, I'm very pessimistic now that the Supreme Court will strike him off the ballot in February over his...

nerdzone.uk

I suspect that you might disagree with me, but that's fine, as this forum welcomes a wide range of views.

 

[Retro]

Yesterday, the clock started ticking on Trump. I especially love the $112000 interest for every day that he doesn't pay it. If he went the full 30 days, it would amount to over $3.3m! He's on a sticky wicket alright. Remember, he also needs bucketloads of money to fund his lawyers and his election campaign, without which he's not gonna make president, but now he's got serious cashflow problems. How's he gonna get that money? Should be interesting.

A judge gave Trump 30 days to pay the $454 million civil fraud judgment. He'll owe an additional $112,000 in interest each day he doesn't.

Judge Arthur Engoron finalized his judgment in the former president's civil fraud trial Friday evening. Trump's lawyers said they will appeal the verdict.

uk.news.yahoo.com

Props to Nikki Haley for not giving up the fight to run against him for the Republican nomination even though he's beating her handily so far - but there's still a lot more states to cover, so it's not over yet. Make him work for it - and spend more money campaigning in the primaries when he otherwise wouldn't have to. Her strategy seems to be to try and run out the clock on him, hoping that his legal problems will get the better of him. Here's hoping too.

Nikki Haley’s strategy is clear: Run out the clock on Trump

At this point, it’s fairly clear that Haley is simply waiting out Trump – hoping that his legal affairs get the better of him, Eric Garcia writes.

www.independent.co.uk

 

[Retro]

Despite the huge issues with Trump spelled out to Trump's "base", by even the likes of Nikki Haley, none of it sticks. They're so in thrall to the Cult of Donald Trump that they refuse to listen to anything else one says about him, no matter how true it is and no matter how obvious the truth actually is to them. It's a sizeable number of people too and it's what gives this Trump guy his power, as without them he'd be nowhere and hence no threat to anyone anymore. In the meantime, he just continues spouting lies about a stolen election and other things and they just continue to lap it up, regardless of the facts. It's infuriating.

Of course, I'm hardly the only one to come to this conclusion as the comments from Jen Psaki prove. This stranglehold is why Trump and his base need to be neutralised so that voting for him is no longer possible, by removing him from the ballot and sticking him in jail, where this charlatan belongs.

Former White House press secretary Jen Psaki said Sunday that although Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley has been making a clear and consistent argument against former President Trump, GOP voters do not seem to be heeding her warnings about the 2024 party front-runner for president.

“You don’t need to agree with Haley on much — I don’t necessarily — but you can still acknowledge she has been making a clear case against Trump in speech after speech. And that case is one of stark contrasts: Trump is dangerous. She is normal. Trump is chaotic. She is stable. Trump is old. She is young,” Psaki said on MSNBC’s “Inside with Jen Psaki” on Sunday.

“I mean, she’s not wrong on any of this,” Psaki added.

However, Psaki said Haley’s loss in her home state of South Carolina on Saturday proves that even as Haley sharpens her rhetoric against Trump, Trump’s supporters are hard to peel away.

“But as we saw it again last night for the majority of the Republican electorate, none of it sticks. None of it seems to matter,” Psaki said.

“Because Republican primary voters including, again, the majority of Republican primary voters in Haley’s home state, don’t want or don’t seem to want a young, experienced conservative governor who delivers solid speeches and doesn’t appear to be unhinged. They want Donald Trump,” she said.

Jen Psaki agrees with Haley’s criticism of Trump, but ‘none of it seems to matter’

Former White House press secretary Jen Psaki said Sunday that although Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley has been making a clear and consistent argument against former President Trump, GOP voters do not seem to be heeding her warnings about the 2024 party front-runner for president...

uk.news.yahoo.com

 

[Tiffany]

One of Haley's problems is she resigned/gave up her UN ambassadorship. Most people remember that.

 

[Mars]

The first quote below is what it all hinges on whether Trump gets to be disqualified from the ballot by the Supreme Court or not. It's frankly ridiculous as there's no difference. Taking the "office of the presidency" obviously makes the president an officer of said presidency, duh! Also, being the guy who rules over all the other "officers" who are part of the machinery of government, makes him the "head officer" as he's at the top of the hierarchy, not just some random bloke without responsibility. He's actually the most responsible officer in the whole organisation as the buck stops with him!

Put another way, how can someone take the office of an organisation without being an officer, ie the person who executes the functions of that office? It's absurd and lawyers should be clever enough to point this out if I can do it as an informed layman.

Think of companies where you have top positions such as Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and so on, where they're all "officers" of the company right there in their job titles, just like all the minions of whom they lord it over. It's so clear and obvious that he's an officer, yet in section 3, there's just that little bit of apparently ambiguous wording (it's not actually ambiguous when read carefully) since the Founding Fathers left it to implication, that Trump is now trying to exploit and the SC looks likely to cop out over. It would be a travesty if they did so, and unfortunately it looks likely to happen.




Here's section 3 in full:



The bold bit clearly covers the presidency by implication as anyone who works for the US is an officer, including the top guy, so it's absurd, as I explained above, to suggest that the president is not an "officer" of the office that he's holding. Yet, this is exactly what Trump's argument hangs on, so it should be struck down immediately for the falsehood that it is and Trump struck off the ballot.

Finally, whichever way this decision goes, I think it would be wise to revise the Constitution's wording to explicitly include the president as an officer of the office of which they hold. Ridiculous that it should be necessary, but look at what happens otherwise. If Trump gets away with this, it would open the floodgates for other corrupt people to do the same.

Opinion | The 15 words that will decide whether Trump is eligible to be president again

How the justices choose to parse the 14th Amendment's Section 3 will determine whether Donald Trump will be allowed on the ballot.

www.msnbc.com

@Tiffany as my American friend with similar views on Trump, I think you'll be interested in this post, especially if you find yourself in an argument with someone who tries to say that Trump should stay on the ballot based on him allegedly not being an officer.

@Mars @TheURL I think you'll be interested in this clarification too.

I agree, just shows you the power of words. I do not wish to contemplate the possibility of trump ever getting into power again....

 

[Retro]

This video explains how his various fundraisers are bottoming out, so he can't rely on them to bail him out of his half billion dollar fines that are killing his cashflow. Also, voter enthusiasm is falling as people walk out of his presentations after 10-15 minutes and the crowds continue to shrink. Looks like he's heading for that busted flush and hence won't be able to either pay his lawyers, or his election campaign.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Tiffany]

This video explains how his various fundraisers are bottoming out, so he can't rely on them to bail him out of his half billion dollar fines that are killing his cashflow. Also, voter enthusiasm is falling as people walk out of his presentations after 10-15 minutes and the crowds continue to shrink. Looks like he's heading for that busted flush and hence won't be able to either pay his lawyers, or his election campaign.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

I have a problem with the RNC and DNC picking up legal fees for a candidate. I was gobsmacked to learn that it was even a consideration to pay legal fees. If a candidate has legal issues, then maybe they shouldn't be running for a government office? There are plenty of good candidates with a clean background to run for any office.

 

[Retro]

So, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear Trump's immunity case as requested by his lawyers which the article thinks may have helped him, but I think there's another, more positive way to look at this.

If the SC would have upheld the lower court ruling, allowed it to go to trial and Trump inevitably lost, then you can be sure that Trump would have appealed to the SC anyway, possibly delaying the final outcome enough for him to become president and make it all go away. A very bad outcome for the Americans and the world, most people would agree.

However, going straight to the SC shorts out all those intermediate steps and should deliver a result around the end of June, significantly shortening any further appeals process.

Of course, the real question is whether the Republican, Trump-heavy appointed judges are going to do him a solid and ensure he gets off, or nail him as they obviously should. However, if they let him win, it means that they're putting the position of president and specifically him, above themselves, which they absolutely won't want to do as it clearly goes against their interests, so should help justice get done. Expediting a guilty verdict before the general election could well be why they've decided on hearing his case now.

Unfortunately, I'm not confident that justice will prevail, so all we can do is wait and see.

Trump uses the slow legal system to his advantage. The Supreme Court is helping

 

[Retro]

This makes it the third state to throw Trump off the ballot and while this ruling is on pause for the Supreme Court's verdict and as such has no effect, at least it adds a little pressure on them to ban him. I do feel pessimistic on this one though, plus it's also pretty frustrating how successfully his legal team are tying up the legal system in knots to delay the trials until after the election and I bet he'll win it, too. America and the world really will be screwed then.

What's even more galling is how Ukraine still hasn't received its $60b aid from America all because the Republican party are blocking it... because Putin-loving Trump doesn't want Ukraine to have it and he's not even in power. Yes, because of just one nasty man Ukraine is now losing the war and more are dying. Just how infuriating is that?!

Illinois has disqualified Trump from the 2024 ballot. Here’s what this means

Former president appealed the Illinois decision hours later

uk.news.yahoo.com