Donald Trump news and discussions

[wjfox]

Republican voters need to face that reality and choose an alternative standard barrier. Unfortunately, such exhortations are likely to fall on deaf ears. Ears deafened by the cult like qualities of Trump's supporters. It is really all rather frightening. Especially if one is a person who values living in a democratic society.

"Cult" is the right word here. They are fanatics. I agree with Chomsky's description of the GOP as a "radical insurgency".

[weatheriscool]

[raklian]

[weatheriscool]

[wjfox]

Should be considered a flight risk, surely?

That must be his plan – flee the country, to somewhere without an extradition treaty!

-----

Donald Trump Says He Would Prefer Being Abroad Than in U.S.

By James Bickerton On 8/9/23 at 4:22 AM EDT

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-s ... us-1818439

[raklian]

Just wow. I'm looking at Elon Musk with increasing disdain.

[weatheriscool]

Georgia DA to seek more than a dozen indictments next week
https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/09/politics ... index.html

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis is expected to seek more than a dozen indictments when she presents her case regarding efforts by Donald Trump and his allies to overturn the 2020 presidential election results in Georgia before a grand jury next week, sources familiar with the matter told CNN.

Willis, a Democrat, has been eyeing conspiracy and racketeering charges, which would allow her to bring a case against multiple defendants. Her wide-ranging criminal probe focuses on efforts to pressure election officials, the plot to put forward fake electors and a voting systems breach in rural Coffee County, Georgia.

[weatheriscool]

[weatheriscool]

Trump's 1st amendment rights are 'not absolute,' judge says in hearing
Source: ABC News

The judge overseeing special counsel Jack Smith's Jan. 6 case against former President Donald Trump says Trump has a right to free speech -- but it's not absolute.

Judge Tanya Chutkan is hearing arguments this morning on the terms of a protective order Smith is seeking against the former president.

Smith is seeking the protective order -- which he wants in place prior to his team turning over to Trump's attorneys materials gathered during the discovery process so they can prepare Trump's defense -- "to prevent is the improper dissemination or use of discovery materials, including to the public," according to a court filing Smith made last week.

MORE: Judge schedules Friday hearing on proposed protective order in Jan. 6 case
Smith requested the protective order last Friday after Trump posted a message to his social media platform, Truth Social, saying, "IF YOU GO AFTER ME, I'M COMING AFTER YOU!"

Read more: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... 2bfe&ei=10

[weatheriscool]

[weatheriscool]

Judge Chutkan's protective order is here.
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67 ... s-v-trump/

[caltrek]

^^^Trump is trying to cast this as a free speech issue. Yet, what is in dispute is the commenting upon evidence developed by the government. Trump has every right to review that evidence prior to trial, but the government, acting in the public interest, does have every right to insist on conditions and restrictions in allowing that review. Trump, through his legal team, will be allowed to comment on the material in question through the course of the trial, providing such comment is a matter of legitimate legal discourse (as opposed to an attempt to coerce and intimidate witnesses through extralegal means, etc.). There is a public interest that outweighs Trump's free speech rights. Particularly regarding information that has been developed through government investigation in the first place.

Free speech has never been an absolute right in the U.S. Trump followers should think this out. Do they want government to have no secrets no matter what the security implications are of such a policy? Do they want all libel and slander laws nullified? Do they want to allow any and all conspiracies against the public good to be carried out on the grounds that such conspiring is protected by the right to free speech?

If liberal Democrats and others on the left went even a part of the way that Trump has gone, you can just about bet your bottom dollar that howls of protest would be raised by Trump supporters. Trump has already shown that he is only interested in protecting his own free speech rights, and in at least some circumstances has a total disregard for the free speech rights of others. The double standards at play amongst Trump and his supporters are truly mind-boggling.

[weatheriscool]

Trump snarls at having to divert 'vast amounts of money' from his campaign to pay his legal bills

ays after it was reported that Donald Trump's 2024 presidential campaign is facing a possible cash crunch before the GOP primaries commence because millions of dollars are being diverted to pay his increasing mountain of legal bills, the billionaire ex-president took to Truth Social to whine about his circumstances.

According to a report from the New York Times, "New financial reports show that the former president’s various political committees and the super PAC backing him have used roughly 30 cents of every dollar spent so far this year on legal-related costs. The total amounts to more than $27 million in legal fees and other investigation-related bills in the first six months of 2023."

The former president who has studiously avoided using his platform from attacking anything or anyone that has anything to do with his District of Columbia indictment after being warned by Judge Tanya Chutkan, took a roundabout way to complain about the Department of Justice.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... eb9bf&ei=8

[caltrek]

Trump’s Latest Rant About Georgia Election Tampering Immediately Shot Down by Legal Expert
by Tom Boggioni
August 12, 2023

Introduction:

(Alternet) During an appearance on MSNBC's "The Katie Phang Show," a Georgia law professor was asked about a rant Donald Trump had just posted on his Truth Social account about his rumored indictment expected in Fulton County this coming week.

Conclusion:

"What happened in Georgia is we had a good, transparent, fair, honest election -- the votes were counted not just one time, but, you know, three times at that," he (Georgia State University Professor Anthony Michael Kreis) elaborated. "And there is an additional matching process to ensure that the ballots were not fraudulent; Georgia went through every single possible mechanism and triggered every possible mechanism that was lawfully available to ensure that the votes were accurately counted and that the winner of the election, the true winner of the election Joe Biden was certified."

"By the time Donald Trump started to meddle in Georgia, particularly when he called Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger and asked for 11,000 votes and change -- there was no lawful way to change that," he elaborated.

"The demand he made of the secretary of state was patently unlawful and I think that is really going to be the key piece of evidence that lands Donald Trump significant trouble here in Fulton County," he added.

Read more here: https://www.alternet.org/trump-georgia ... expert/

caltrek’s comment: Another example of Trump’s strategy of making a “freedom of speech” argument. What really angered me about Trump’s conduct was the way he implied that certain election workers were counting fraudulent votes as being legitimate. This was without any valid proof and seemed to rely strictly on an unstated racist undertone: a video of black poll workers counting votes must be evidence of fraud because they were black. Because they were black, then prima facia they must have been doing something wrong. As a result, Trump ultraloyalists proceeded to make life hell for these workers. Trump has millions at his disposal to protect himself against libel and slander suits. In contrast, these workers had middle class incomes at best.

It is a wonder that somebody hasn’t stepped in to offer the poll workers legal assistance in bringing a libel and slander suit against Trump. As it is, major media outlets have clearly stepped forward to indicate that Trump’s accusations had no foundation in reality. Ditto the January 6 committee. Additionally, to me this does constitute what ought to be considered an illegal level of pressure on election officials to cave into Trump’s demands.
Freedom of speech should mean that the government does not have the right to prior restraint of speech. Speech designed to intimidate using libelous and slanderous accusation should have after the fact consequences. In broad terms, and as I have written before, laws against libel and slander have always existed in one form or another in this country. This, despite the First Amendment, meaning that Constitutional protections do not apply in a manner that allows blatant slander and/or libel.

Moreover, Trump’s “free speech” was clearly designed to subvert other people’s right to vote. It would seem that only some rights are respected in Trump’s world. Mostly the “right” of Trump to act as an unrestrained dictator.

All of this should be obvious, and yet for so many it is all but a clear matter. This lack of clarity can be taken as more evidence of the cult nature of Trump’s following. Even many who should know better seem stuck in their what-aboutisms and in their false equivalencies. All very sad and quite alarming.

[caltrek]

It Was A Coup Attempt, John Eastman Expected the U.S. Military to Intervene in 2020
August 11, 2023

Introduction:

(Daily KOS) One indication of the general competence of the Donald Trump-backing legal team that planned out and attempted to execute an actual coup rather than abiding Trump's 2020 presidential election loss might be the unfathomable inability of coup architect John Eastman to shut the hell up.

It seems almost certain that Eastman, described as Co-Conspirator 2 in the federal indictment of Trump for attempting to overturn the legitimate election results, will himself be charged by the still-working grand jury. In a newly released interview, Eastman seems bent on providing that grand jury with as much evidence of his intent as possible.

Further extract:

In a newly released installment of an interview with Claremont Institute Chairman Thomas Klingenstein, Eastman made it clear that his motive in overturning the election was the "existential threat" posed by the "Democrat Party." In his mind, this justified the extreme measures the co-conspirators took to block Trump's loss even if every courtroom in the country was telling him that his supposed "fraud" evidence was a pile of conspiracy-minded bullshit.
…
But Eastman also helpfully made it clear that he did not give a particular damn if the co-conspirators' plan to change or throw out state electoral results until Donald Trump was declared the victor resulted in widespread public violence. He suggested that it would be the U.S. military's role to shut down protests and restore order: "One hopes that our military still understands their obligation, and the chain of command that stops at the top, with the commander in chief."

Read more here: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2023/ ... ium=email

caltrek’s comment: Hopefully, all of our readers out there can understand the absolute lunacy of Eastman’s remarks without further comment from me.

[weatheriscool]

[weatheriscool]

Georgia prosecutors have messages showing Trump's team is behind voting system breach
https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/13/politics ... index.html

[weatheriscool]

[weatheriscool]

[caltrek]

This headline is somewhat misleading. Trump has not yet been indicted. There are indications that "Georgia state prosecutors are set to bring charges." That is different than actually having brought charges. In some ways a trivial distinction, but IMHO one that is important enough that it should still be made.