#trump civil case New York

[simplestoryteller]

Hey uh I think someone needs to tell trump that he should collect charges like an average person collects trinkets. Especially not so close together as he seems to be, since he seems to have gotten at least 3 so far this year (probably more but idk)

I’m not gonna do it but someone should probably maybe idk

[william-r-melich]

Presidential Immunity Acknowledged - 07/02/24

Shortly after Joe Biden's poor debate performance in the first presidential debate, SCOTUS ruled yesterday that POTUS has absolute immunity for official acts, as they've always had. In an article from the Epoch Times today by Catherine Yang, she wrote the following: "Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, with Justice Clarence Thomas adding his own concurring opinion. Justice Amy Coney Barret concurred in part, noting several lines of legal disagreement with the majority. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote the dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, who also penned a separate dissent."

It's clear now that Biden can't possibly win this November, his mental incapacity has been revealed. With this court's ruling, the left is viciously attacking the Supreme Court and suggesting that Donald Trump, if re-elected, could get away with anything including murdering members of the media; ridiculous! Of course that's not true, he would be impeached.

The system we have has given us the longest time of freedom than any other country in the world. Prior to the U.S.A., no one has held freedom for longer than 80 years, we're closing in on two-and-a-half centuries; incredible!

The presidential immunity doctrine, as listed at https://constitutional.findlaw.com, has been around since the 1860's, which reads: "The President is immune from civil liability absolutely for suits arising from actions relating to official duties. This includes all acts in the 'outer perimeter' of those duties. However, the President is not immune from actions arising from unofficial conduct." It seems reasonable to me why the president must have immunity in order to be able to execute his duties when given in extreme circumstances he must make risky choices that an ordinary citizen would never have to make. False intel, for example, could put the President in a situation where an innocent person is targeted. If the President didn't have immunity, he wouldn't have the confidence to carry out his duties in precarious and sloppy situations. He couldn't be an effective, chief legal officer of the country. Makes sense to me.

Now I wonder how this court's decision will affect the delayed sentencing in Trump's New York "Hush Money" trial. His sentence was originally set for July 11th, now it has been moved to September 18th, depending on whether it will still be necessary. Apparently, there are parts of the charges against him that he may have been immune from, so that has to be re-examined.

Boy, what an interesting time to be alive.

[follow-up-news]

A judge's February ruling that found former President Donald Trump and his company committed hundreds of millions of dollars in fraud should be tossed out, attorneys for Trump said in an appeal filed Monday. Trump's lawyers called the $454 million judgment "draconian" and complained that the "case violates centuries of New York case law."  Judge Arthur Engoron found that Trump, his company and top executives, including his sons Eric and Donald Trump Jr., deceived banks and insurers for years, inflating Trump's wealth on financial statements in order to obtain favorable deal terms they wouldn't have otherwise received. Engoron concluded the Trumps and their company benefited to the tune of $354 million in "ill-gotten gains" through the scheme, and ruled they must pay the state that sum plus interest of about $100 million.

[thescoopess]

Donald Trump's Gold Sneakers Sell Out in 2 Hours

Photo: Getty Images A day after the former president unveiled the newest collection of items, the brand’s website claims that one thousand pairs of the limited edition high-top gold sneakers designed by former President Donald Trump have already sold out in presale. Photo: Getty Images Trump unveiled the Never Surrender High-Top Sneaker, a shimmering, golden shoe line that retails for $399 a pair…

[eternalistic]

Read the Filled-Out Jury Verdict Form in the Trump-Carroll Case

The jury held Donald J. Trump liable on Tuesday for the sexual abuse and defamation of E. Jean Carroll and awarded her $5 million.

[calicojack1718]

Comment on This! What's the Over-Under on Whether it is Putin or Ivanka that Pays Trump's $454 Million Dollar Bond?

I was listening to The Rachel Maddow Show and she interviewed a guest about Trump’s inability to find a surety willing to pay his upcoming bond nearly half billion dollar bond in his New York civil fraud case. As a quick aside, does anyone believe he’s not going to stiff the Federal Insurance Company and Chubby Insurance Company for his $91 million dollar debt to E. Jean Carroll? I guess PT…

[mariacallous]

The first thing to say about the hate and scorn currently directed at the mainstream US media is that they worked hard to earn it. They’ve done so by failing, repeatedly, determinedly, spectacularly to do their job, which is to maintain their independence, inform the electorate, and speak truth to power. While the left has long had reasons to dismiss centrist media, and the right has loathed it most when it did do its job well, the moderates who are furious at it now seem to be something new – and a host of former editors, media experts and independent journalists have been going after them hard this summer.

Longtime journalist James Fallows declares that three institutions – the Republican party, the supreme court, and the mainstream political press – “have catastrophically failed to ‘meet the moment’ under pressure of [the] Trump era”. Centrist political reformer and columnist Norm Ornstein states that these news institutions “have had no reflection, no willingness to think through how irresponsible and reckless so much of our mainstream press and so many of our journalists have been and continue to be”.

Most voters, he says, “have no clue what a second Trump term would actually be like. Instead, we get the same insipid focus on the horse race and the polls, while normalizing abnormal behavior and treating this like a typical presidential election, not one that is an existential threat to democracy.”

Lamenting the state of the media recently on X, Jeff Jarvis, another former editor and newspaper columnist, said: “What ‘press’? The broken and vindictive Times? The newly Murdochian Post? Hedge-fund newspaper husks? Rudderless CNN or NPR? Murdoch’s fascist media?”

These critics are responding to how the behemoths of the industry seem intent on bending the facts to fit their frameworks and agendas. In pursuit of clickbait content centered on conflicts and personalities, they follow each other into informational stampedes and confirmation bubbles.

They pursue the appearance of fairness and balance by treating the true and the false, the normal and the outrageous, as equally valid and by normalizing Republicans, especially Donald Trump, whose gibberish gets translated into English and whose past crimes and present-day lies and threats get glossed over. They neglect, again and again, important stories with real consequences. This is not entirely new – in a scathing analysis of 2016 election coverage, the Columbia Journalism Review noted that “in just six days, The New York Times ran as many cover stories about Hillary Clinton’s emails as they did about all policy issues combined in the 69 days leading up to the election” – but it’s gotten worse, and a lot of insiders have gotten sick of it.

In July, ordinary people on social media decided to share information about the rightwing Project 2025 and did a superb job of raising public awareness about it, while the press obsessed about Joe Biden’s age and health. NBC did report on this grassroots education effort, but did so using the “both sides are equally valid” framework often deployed by mainstream media, saying the agenda is “championed by some creators as a guide to less government oversight and slammed by others as a road map to an authoritarian takeover of America”. There is no valid case it brings less government oversight.

In an even more outrageous case, the New York Times ran a story comparing the Democratic and Republican plans to increase the housing supply – which treated Trump’s plans for mass deportation of undocumented immigrants as just another housing-supply strategy that might work or might not. (That it would create massive human rights violations and likely lead to huge civil disturbances was one overlooked factor, though the fact that some of these immigrants are key to the building trades was mentioned.)

Other stories of pressing concern are either picked up and dropped or just neglected overall, as with Trump’s threats to dismantle a huge portion of the climate legislation that is both the Biden administration’s signal achievement and crucial for the fate of the planet. The Washington Post editorial board did offer this risibly feeble critique on 17 August: “It would no doubt be better for the climate if the US president acknowledged the reality of global warming – rather than calling it a scam, as Mr Trump has.”

While the press blamed Biden for failing to communicate his achievements, which is part of his job, it’s their whole job to do so. The Climate Jobs National Resource Center reports that the Inflation Reduction Act has created “a combined potential of over $2tn in investment, 1,091,966 megawatts of clean power, and approximately 3,947,670 jobs”, but few Americans have any sense of what the bill has achieved or even that the economy is by many measures strong.

Last winter, the New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, who has a Nobel prize in economics, told Greg Sargent on the latter’s Daily Blast podcast that when he writes positive pieces about the Biden economy, his editor asks “don’t you want to qualify” it; “aren’t people upset by X, Y and Z and shouldn’t you be acknowledging that?”

Meanwhile in an accusatory piece about Kamala Harris headlined When your opponent calls you ‘communist,’ maybe don’t propose price controls?, a Washington Post columnist declares in another case of bothsiderism: “Voters want to blame someone for high grocery bills, and the presidential candidates have apparently decided the choices are either the Biden administration or corporate greed. Harris has chosen the latter.” The evidence that corporations have jacked up prices and are reaping huge profits is easy to find, but facts don’t matter much in this kind of opining.

It’s hard to gloat over the decline of these dinosaurs of American media, when a free press and a well-informed electorate are both crucial to democracy. The alternatives to the major news outlets simply don’t reach enough readers and listeners, though the non-profit investigative outfit ProPublica and progressive magazines such as the New Republic and Mother Jones, are doing a lot of the best reporting and commentary.

Earlier this year, when Alabama senator Katie Britt gave her loopy rebuttal to Biden’s State of the Union address, it was an independent journalist, Jonathan Katz, who broke the story on TikTok that her claims about a victim of sex trafficking contained significant falsehoods. The big news outlets picked up the scoop from him, making me wonder what their staffs of hundreds were doing that night.

A host of brilliant journalists young and old, have started independent newsletters, covering tech, the state of the media, politics, climate, reproductive rights and virtually everything else, but their reach is too modest to make them a replacement for the big newspapers and networks. The great exception might be historian Heather Cox Richardson, whose newsletter and Facebook followers give her a readership not much smaller than that of the Washington Post. The tremendous success of her sober, historically grounded (and footnoted!) news summaries and reflections bespeaks a hunger for real news.

[contemplatingoutlander]

First of all, Sean Spicer? The spineless former Trump White House press secretary and Dancing With the Stars buffoon, Sean Spicer?

Second, anyone who fills out bank forms for loans knows that you can be charged with fraud if you don't disclose your assets truthfully.

The banks most likely lost some money because the interest rates they offered Trump were probably lower than if he had been honest in his financial statements.

Given that in some states people can get harsh jail terms for stealing a relatively small amount of goods or money, why shouldn't a "billionaire" be held accountable for trying to "steal" huge sums of money through fraudulently-obtained lower interest rates?

BTW, I grew up in the Tri-State area. Trump was hated by contractors and the construction workers whom he stiffed on payments for construction projects. He's certainly no friend in real life to people who have to work for a living.

And that is a large reason why he is reviled the the New York City metropolitan area.

The working class MAGA folks who support Trump are fools for doing so.

Former White House press secretary Sean Spicer expressed his displeasure with the $355 million fine levied on former President Trump Friday in the verdict following a months-long civil fraud trial in New York.

“Overall this ruling today was the definition of what happens if insanity and outrage had a baby,” Spicer, who served under the Trump administration, said Friday in an interview on “The Hill on NewsNation.”

“This is nuts, the idea that you’re … fining someone $350 million for something that no one actually suffered from,” he continued. “The banks didn’t complain, the insurance companies … everything that Tish James laid out was a complete and utter lie.”

His comments come after Judge Arthur Engoron’s 92-page ruling ordered Trump to pay the nearly $355 million in penalties for inflating and deflating his net worth in order to receive tax and insurance benefits. Engoron had already ruled last year that Trump and the Trump Organization had committed fraud after New York Attorney General Letitia sued the former president in 2022.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Keith Edwards at No Lies Detected:

Fascism doesn’t come for every generation, but it has come for ours.  This is not a fight on the beaches of Normandy, but in our own country. This article begins a series on what opposing Donald Trump and his movement can look like. I hope you will join me as these progress.

[...]

Do not leave. Faced with the might of the United States government aligned against you, you might consider resigning preemptively to avoid the humiliation of inevitable termination. This is counterproductive for at least two reasons: If you leave, you save Trump Administration officials the time and effort of identifying you, which otherwise could have taken months or years. Second, your principled stand would likely only result in your replacement by an unprincipled Trump loyalist. By staying on, you may find yourself helping to implement policies you find hateful, but by refusing to leave, you can ensure that you have some influence on those policies, because then you can...

Delay. Delay. Delay. Waiting out the enemy until he moves on, gives up, or forgets is a time-honored strategy not just among civil servants but also history’s best generals. That email about a proposed rule change to healthcare protections? Bury it in everyone’s inbox by sending it late. A meeting on reviewing the U.S. government’s foreign aid commitments to a region you oversee? Oops, you’ll be out that day! That agency conference your political-appointee boss requested you arrange? Next month didn’t fit everyone’s schedule, so you had to push it to after the new year! Slow-walking is the classic tool in any bureaucrat’s toolbox, and in the next Trump Administration, you can use it in defense of the Constitution.

Be intentionally incompetent. As a career employee, you likely have always had the advantage of knowing your workplace better than your politically appointed overlords. This is perhaps your most potent weapon against Trump. Draft rules unlikely to survive judicial review. Favor lengthy rulemaking or review processes over expedited ones. Complete tasks sequentially rather than in parallel to draw out timelines. Add complexity, stakeholders, and process wherever possible. In short, exploit the knowledge gap you hold over your bosses to diminish, defuse, and defeat their plans.

Leak. Federal employees have the right to report what they believe to be illegal or abusive of authority to their agency’s inspector general (IG) without fear of retaliation. Trump however has singled out IGs for replacement after one played a pivotal role in his first impeachment, so the availability of this option may depend on how politically prominent your agency is. Fortunately, you can anonymously tip prominent news outlets like the New York Times and Washington Post, which boast extensive investigative units and employ rigorous safeguards to protect sources�� identities. You can also seek out sympathetic elected officials, such as Democratic members of the House Oversight Committee, whose main function is investigation of the federal government. (If you choose disclosure, be sure that the information is not classified, the unauthorized disclosure of which carries stiff federal penalties.)

Disregard and refuse. When you have exhausted all other options, you may want selectively to resort to riskier behaviors. These include going behind political appointees’ backs to subvert their activities, say by picking up the phone and countermanding their directions. In extreme cases, you may have outright to refuse direct orders to the appointee’s face. Though such actions seem like a fasttrack to termination, you may still be protected by the fact that overwhelmed political appointees might hesitate to go through the onerous process of finding a politically reliable replacement. Remember, the longer you stay in, the harder you make it for Trump to do what he wants. Know your rights. If the worst happens and your agency moves to terminate you, you can still fight back. There are multiple avenues an employee designated for dismissal can pursue to delay, reduce, or reverse agency penalties against them.1 The beauty of these options is that they can take months or even years to resolve and may be appealed to higher bodies, further extending the process. All the while, you are collecting a salary and occupying a full-time equivalent (FTE) position that your agency can’t fill until you finally depart. (This is not legal advice. If you find yourself in this situation, please seek a lawyer.)

Keith Edwards writes in his No Lies Detected Substack on how civil servants can show resistance to the tyrannical Trump 2.0 Regime from within.

[simply-ivanka]

Democrats, Blame Yourselves

Voters on Tuesday repudiated the results of progressive policies.

By The Editorial Board Wall Street Journal

If Democrats want some sage counsel on how to recover from their electoral drubbing on Tuesday, we suggest they recall that classic relationship breakup line from Seinfeld’s George Costanza: “It’s not you; it’s me.”

The temptation after a defeat this humiliating is to hunt for scapegoats—fading Joe Biden, untutored Kamala Harris, Russian disinformation, benighted and racist voters. They’d be wiser to look in the mirror.

The defeat was less a resounding endorsement of Mr. Trump than a repudiation of progressive governance. America rejected the consequences of left-wing policies. Democrats lost ground from 2020 across many demographic groups, according to the exit polls. Even women moved percentage points closer to Mr. Trump. How could Democrats possibly lose like this to a man they think is Hitler? Allow us to offer a list for liberal reflection:

• The failure of Bidenomics. Democrats once understood that private business drives growth and higher incomes. Sometime in the 21st century, they came to believe that government spending creates wealth—via the “Keynesian multiplier” and other nostrums.

Thus they passed, on a party-line vote, a $1.9 trillion pandemic-relief bill that wasn’t really needed, fueling the highest inflation in decades. This robbed millions of workers of real wage gains, which haunted Democrats on Tuesday as two-thirds of voters said they were unhappy with the state of the economy.

• Cultural imperialism. Democrats took their 2020 victory as an invitation to turn identity politics into woke policy. They stood with transgender activists instead of parents who don’t want boys to play girls sports or elementary teachers to pass out pronoun pins. Republicans hammered Democrats with ads that attacked Democratic votes against tying federal funds to transgender school policies.

Democrats also began using the term “Latinx,” which sounds to many Spanish-speakers like illiterate cultural imperialism from elites. Could that and other woke policies have played a role in Mr. Trump winning 46% of the Hispanic vote and 55% of Latino men, according to the exit polls?

• Regulatory coercion. In pursuit of their climate obsessions, Democrats pushed coercive mandates, including an EPA rule effectively saying that by 2032 only 30% of new car sales can be gas-powered models. The EV mandate caused layoffs among auto workers in Michigan that Mr. Trump attacked in TV ads and on the stump.

• Lawfare. Democrats used Mr. Trump’s divisiveness to escalate against him at every turn. After calling him a Russian stooge and impeaching him twice, Mr. Biden labeled him a “fascist” and Democrats tried to bar him from the ballot.

They criminally indicted Mr. Trump—four times—and targeted his family business with a civil suit. They convicted him in New York, under an elected Democratic prosecutor who stretched the law to turn misdemeanors into felonies, in a case that wouldn’t have been brought against another businessman.

The strategy turned Mr. Trump into a martyr to GOP voters and cemented his support in the Republican primaries.

• Breaking democratic norms. Democrats decided to use taxes from plumbers and welders to forgive college loans for lawyers and grad students in grievance studies. When the Supreme Court struck Mr. Biden’s effort down as an abuse of power, he tried again and taunted the Court to stop him.

Democrats tried to override the Senate filibuster to seize control of the nation’s voting laws and impose practices such as ballot harvesting, as Mr. Biden raged that his opponents were creating “Jim Crow 2.0.”

They tried to override the filibuster to pass a national abortion law that would go beyond Roe v. Wade. They promised to override the filibuster in 2025 to bulldoze the High Court. They ran Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema out of the party for disagreeing.

All of this and other progressive preoccupations caused Democrats to lose sight of the larger public interest. They came to believe, backed by the mainstream press, that voters would tolerate it all because Mr. Trump was simply unacceptable.

This opened the door for Mr. Trump to remind voters that they were better off under his policies four years earlier. Mr. Trump won more than 72 million ballots. He improved his standing with minority voters. He gained votes even in Democratic states.

Voters were telling Democrats on Tuesday that the party has wandered into ideological fever swamps where most Americans don’t want to go. Winning those voters again will require more than firing back up the anti-Trump “resistance.”

[meret118]

However, the reelection of Trump casts this measure in a new light. His promise to turn the civil service into an engine of personal vengeance should be sufficient evidence that he’d likely abuse the powers granted under H.R. 9495, potentially allowing the president to target fairly well-known liberal organizations, such as the Center for American Progress, with punishing sanctions that would prevent such outfits from raising or banking money—penalties which, under the proposed law, such sanctioned organizations would be barred from pursuing legal recourse to plead their case. Moreover, in addition to activist groups, many universities and news outlets are nonprofit organizations.

While significantly lower than the 52 members who joined in last week’s vote to advance the bill, 15 Democrats is still a surprising number of representatives who seem to care more about wanting to neutralize irksome protesters than a fascist, authoritarian president targeting any nonprofit he doesn’t like.Here’s a full list of Democrats who voted for the bill:

Colin Allred—Texas

Yadira D. Caraveo—Colorado

Ed Case—Hawaii

Henry Cuellar—Texas

Don Davis—North Carolina

Jared Golden—Maine

Vicente Gonzalez—Texas

Suzanne Marie Lee—Nevada

Jared Moskowitz—Florida

Jimmy Panetta—California

Marie Gluesenkamp Perez—Washington

Brad Schneider—Illinois

Tom Suozzi—New York

Norma Torres—California

Debbie Wasserman Schultz—Florida

[follow-up-news]

Former President Donald Trump can’t find an insurance company to underwrite his bond to cover the massive judgment against him in the New York attorney general’s civil fraud case, his lawyers told a New York appeals court. Trump’s attorneys said he has approached 30 underwriters to back the bond, which is due by the end of this month. “The amount of the judgment, with interest, exceeds $464 million, and very few bonding companies will consider a bond of anything approaching that magnitude,” Trump’s lawyers wrote. (Trump himself was ordered to pay $454 million; the $464 million includes the disgorgement for his adult sons Don Jr. and Eric.) An insurance broker, Gary Giulietti, who testified for Trump during the civil fraud trial, signed an affidavit stating that securing a bond in the full amount “is a practical impossibility.” Potential underwriters are seeking cash to back the bond, not properties, according to Trump’s lawyers. Trump’s lawyers have asked the appeals court to delay posting the bond until his appeal of the case is over, arguing that the value of Trump’s properties far exceed the judgment. If the appeals court rules against him, Trump asked the court to delay his posting the bond until his appeal to New York’s highest court is heard. Last month, Trump was ordered to pay $355 million in disgorgement, or “ill-gotten gains,” by New York Judge Arthur Engoron in a civil fraud case brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James. Engoron wrote in his 93-page decision that Trump and his co-defendants – including his adult sons – were liable for fraud, conspiracy and issuing false financial statements and false business records, finding that the defendants fraudulently inflated the value of Trump’s assets to obtain more favorable loan and insurance rates. The amount Trump owed surpassed $450 million with interest included. Trump is appealing the ruling, but in order to stop the state from enforcing the judgment, Trump has to post a bond to be held in an account pending the appellate process, which could take years to litigate.

[thescoopess]

Donald Trump Appeals $454 Million New York Civil Fraud Judgment

PHOTO: GETTY IMAGES In an attempt to refute Judge Engoron’s conclusion that he lied about his wealth while building the real estate enterprise that propelled him to fame and the presidency, Donald Trump has filed an appeal of his $454 million New York civil fraud judgment. Attorneys for the former president filed notices of appeal on Monday, requesting that the state’s intermediate appeals court…

[oldguardleatherdog]

[Gift link, no paywall]

Zuck wiļl now explicitly allow vile and dehumanizing hate speech against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer people to be posted on Facebook, Instagram, and Threads without adverse consequences for the poster. He has gone so far as to provide Meta employees with detailed examples of speech that will now be allowed on Meta platforms. This article goes into detail as to how these new policies were formulated and rolled out. It's worth a read to understand the calculation and planning that went into this.

This is more than "mere" homophobia and transphobia. Zuck went out of his way to explicitly target us and single us out over other minorities who use these platforms.

It's clear that this is Zuck prepping and staging his platforms for use in actions that The Rapist Administration is setting up to launch against us in the days to come. Our elected officials and our so-called national LGBTQ+ leaders and organizations have put out a statement or two, but I'd hate to be hanging until they actually take action to protect us.

We need to find a way to mount a response to this, and to all the rest of what's coming at us. Good people of good will are gathering and planning, but it's early yet. Take note of these signs, keep watch and stay alert, don't detach, don't look away.

From the article:

"Among its changes, Meta loosened rules so people could post statements saying they hated people of certain races, religions or sexual orientations, including permitting 'allegations of mental illness or abnormality when based on gender or sexual orientation.' The company cited political discourse about transgender rights for the change. 

"The company also removed the transgender and nonbinary 'themes' on its Messenger chat app, which allows users to customize the app’s colors and wallpaper, two employees said.

"That same day at Meta’s offices in Silicon Valley, Texas and New York, facilities managers were instructed to remove tampons from men’s bathrooms, which the company had provided for nonbinary and transgender employees who use the men’s room and who may have required sanitary pads, two employees said.

"In the @Pride employee resource group, where workers who support L.G.B.T.Q. issues convene, at least one person announced their resignation as others privately relayed to one another that they planned to look for jobs elsewhere, two people said.

"In a post this week to the @Pride group, Alex Schultz, Meta’s chief marketing officer [and Meta's highest-ranking openly gay executive], defended Mr. Zuckerberg and said topics like transgender issues had become politicized. He said Meta’s policies should not get in the way of allowing societal debate and pointed to Roe v. Wade, the landmark abortion case, as an example of 'courts getting ahead of society' in the 1970s. Mr. Schultz said the courts had 'politicized' the issue instead of allowing it to be debated civically.

"'You find topics become politicized and stay in the political conversation for far longer than they would’ve if society just debated them out,' Mr. Schultz wrote. He said looser restrictions on speech in Meta’s apps would allow for this kind of debate.

"On Friday, Roy Austin, Meta’s vice president of civil rights, announced he was leaving the company. He did not give a reason."

[Emphasis added.]

[reality-detective]

Your thoughts on this folks?

Americans have been watching a massive, controlled Military Operation who strategically and critically planned and successfully trapped the Washington Establishment… Made them all confess their crimes and play a role in this operation piece by piece… as Americans have had to visually see and witness a ‘Continuation of Government’ in the form of a “Presidential Administration” where these corrupt and evil people will, have, and will continue to destroy their system from within, spend all of their dirty money doing so, until it’s time for the Military to visually step in.

The timelines all add up and prove the Military Operation and Occupancy:

1.     Snake Poem read by candidate Donald Trump – January 2016

2.     2016 Presidential Election – November 2016

3.     President Elect Trump and Putin on Fox News = “ready for ‘reset’… I will work with Trump” – November 9, 2016

4.     Law of War Manual (Military Occupancy and Negotiations etc.) – December 2016

5.     Military Justice Act (Supreme Court clarifying Military Law is separate than Civil Law; heavy emphasis on Military Tribunal terms) – 2016

6.     Military stands behind CIC Trump (Military Intelligence and JAG head bands; Optics) at Inauguration – January 2017

7.     Saudi Arabia crowns Trump King – May 2017

8.     Declares Jerusalem Capitol of Israel – December 2017

9.     Executive Order 13818 – Declares National Emergency to deal with Human Rights Abuse – December 2017

10. CIC Trump walks in front of Queen – July 14, 2018

11. Putin hands CIC Trump soccer ball (“the ball is in your court”; did not participate in 2022 World Cup) – July 16, 2018

12. Executive Order 13848 – September 2018

13. CIC Trump makes history; walks into North Korea – June 2019  

14. National Quantum Initiative – Executive Order 13885 – August 2019

15. Space Force established as Military Branch – December 2019

16. Corona Sars Virus first mentioned to American Public as a Threat from China – February 2020

17. Two more National Emergencies Declared – March 13 and 27, 2020

18. Executive Order 13912 Federalizing 1,000,000 National Guard to Active-Duty Status – March 27, 2020

19. CIC Trump quote on attack worse than Pearl Harbor and 9/11 combined – May 2020

20. National Guard Troops place fence around Capitol Building (47 US Code 606) – January 2021

21. CIC Trump receives full grade Constitutional by Law and Military Grade Inauguration ceremony – January 20, 2021

22. “Joe Biden” breaks 20th Amendment amongst many other violations – January 20, 2021

23. Aircrafts constantly over and through 33 mile no fly zone radius D.C. – January 2021 to present day

24. “Biden” extends Executive Order 13848 (first time) – September 2021

25. Quantum.gov launched – September 2021

26. New York Times reports Military Tribunals coming mid-2023 – December 2021

27. Army and branches transfer all communications to Space Force under ONE command (Biden’s never mentioned the Space Force not once; zero News Articles with his name tied to Space Force) – August 2022

28. Major Optics and Comms in CIC Trump speech – November 15 2022

29. More News Articles establishing Space Force Command Centers with zero mention of Biden – December 2022

Those few timelines and timestamps do nothing but prove a Military Operation and Occupancy along with many more Laws, Codes, Orders, Statutes, Acts, Optics,

The National Guard has been out of their state militia status and operating as Active-Duty Status every day since they were Federalized in March 2020.

There’s MORE than enough documentation and ‘proof’ to show not only the National Guard, but also thousands of World Alliance Aircrafts in and out of the United States and National Guard bases.

There’s United States Coast Guards with United States Navy at their stations. USCG is Department of Homeland Security during Peacetime and transferred to the Department of the Navy during Wartime.

The Brunson vs. Adams case simply states the obvious… Congress violated the Constitution.

- Benjamin Fulford

I will add; everyone thinks they know what's going on but very few have done any research on Trump's executive orders. Everyone has discarded Q because they have seen dates come and go without seeing any results. Fact is they weren't dates but rather chapters and paragraphs from the law of war manual.

We're going by the Book. Why? Because it has to be done by the rule of law, if not, it's just more crimes being committed.

Sun Tzu - The Art of War... Know your enemy, löök weak when you're strong, infiltrate and use disinformation to confuse the enemy. 🤔

[reasonsforhope]

I keep seeing news about charges and what-not being piled onto Trump, and all I can keep saying to myself is "but is he going to experience one (1) single consequence of this?" So... is there any iota of a hope that something could come of this circus that will make the slightest ding in his capacity to run in 2024?

So, the answer to this is a bit complicated - partly because there are a lot of factors and a long time scale, and partly because it depends on how you define "consequences"

If you mean "any serious consequences at all," good news, that has already happened!

If you need to catch up on the whole "cases against Trump" situation, read this: The Cases Against Trump: A Guide. Via The Atlantic, November 1, 2023

1. The New York Fraud Case

A judge has ordered that the Trump Organization must be dissolved in a ruling that is being widely described as a "corporate death penalty." This is an incredibly rare ruling, and a huge deal.

The details will take a while to hash out - currently, Trump's kids are in the middle of testifying in a trial for this fraud case, but it's not to determine whether he's guilty - only the extent of the damages and the outline of how the org will be dissolved. It's extraordinarily unlikely Trump will be able to get out of this one. And high up on the list of things he's probably going to lose? Trump Tower itself.

Now, admittedly, this actually isn't because of, you know, the whole attempted coup thing. It's because the Trump Organization's finances were built on decades of absolutely massive fraud - including the very wealth that Trump lied about in order to explain why people should vote for him.

Oh, and let's not forget that in this case, Donald Trump spent weeks absolutely shit talking the judge to try to "poison the jury pool" (make sure that people on the jury would go in with a negative opinion of the judge already). ONLY TO FIND OUT THAT THERE IS NO JURY IN THIS CASE because his attorneys forgot to request one, so the sole arbiter of his fate is the judge he just spent weeks absolutely slandering in an attempt to win over the jury! And all else aside, judges very infamously do not like being insulted

Oh yeah, and the prosecutors are seeking a permanent ban on Trump doing business in the state of New York

Fraud trial explainer (New York Times, no paywall) Sources: x, x, x, x, x, x, x, x

2. 14th Amendment Lawsuit

Okay so I did all the other sections first, then came back and wrote this one. It's shorter because of that, and because this issue is a lot newer and doesn't have nearly as much legal stuff or investigations going on yet.

What's happening here is that several states have people who are filing petitions and lawsuits to try to get Trump taken off the ballot for the 2024 election, under the 14th Amendment, which was passed in the aftermath of the Civil War and bars anyone who has committed insurrection from holding office.

So far (as of the first week of November, there are cases to kick Trump off the ballot in about 20 states. Oral arguments have started in Colorado and Minnesota.

Basically, my take on the short version is that this could happen, but we'll have to wait at least a few more months to see how likely it is.

However, even if it does go through, Trump would only be kicked off the ballot on a state by state basis. So, if Colorado kicks him off the ballot, he'll still be on the ballot in the other 49 states, and the process would have to be repeated in each one. Still, even if it was just one state, that could be a big deal, voting-wise - and if he gets kicked off the ballot in more than a couple states, he might not end up being the Republican nominee anymore, given the size of that disadvantage.

Correction, 6 min after posting: It's expected that if Trump DOES get kicked off the ballot in any state, the Supreme Court will hear the case and weigh in. The decision would be binding for all states. Supreme Court probably unlikely to ban Trump from the ballot since they cheated their way into a conservative supermajority and 3 of them are Trump appointees

Explainer: Trial to kick Trump off the ballot in Colorado Explainer: Strengths and weaknesses of cases to kick Trump off the ballot Sources: x, x, x, x, x, x, x

3. The Classified Documents Case

So, the fraud case above is actually a civil case (that is, not a criminal case). The classified documents case, however, is a criminal case, and it's arguably the one most likely to lead to legal and political consequences for Trump, in large part because everything's very clear cut.

Like, Trump has literally admitted he retained classified documents on purpose - which is super against the law! Trump is just arguing a variety of nonexistent technicalities for why that law doesn't apply to him. But he did it! We know he did! We have photos of classified documents stored in the Mar-a-Lago bathroom! We have testimony from the employees he ordered to secretly move the boxes before the FBI probe. We have records proving he asked Mar-a-Lago's IT guy about erasing the surveillance footage of the move! We even have proof that a) he stole nuclear secrets, and b) a recording of him waving around the "plans of attack," bragging about them to other people!

All super damning.

(Post continues below, at length; sources at the end of each section.)

And another thing that's extremely key: Trump is charged in this case with violating the Espionage Act. And the Espionage Act explicitly does not give a single fuck about why you retained documents, or whether there's any proof you intended to show anyone. Any and all hoarding of national defense documents is illegal under the Espionage Act - EVEN if they're not classified, which is great since "I declassified them with my brain" (not how it works) is Trump's main defense here.

So, this case is basically the surest criminal conviction - and the most likely to have electoral consequences. Partly because Republicans, as few issues as they care about, generally are security hawks - "Trump stole nuclear secrets and showed them to people" is giving Repubs pause in a way that the insurrection just isn't, probably esp in the military and ex-military demographic.

Trump could also serve jail time if convicted in this case (which again he probably will be).

However, violating the Espionage Act doesn't ban you from running for or holding public office, which imho seems like a pretty major oversight.

Classified documents case explainer Sources: x, x, x, x, x, x, x, x, x, x

4. The Insurrection

So, this is where things get really complicated, because the case is complicated and so many things about it are so unprecedented.

There are two different cases here: a criminal case in the state of Georgia and a federal criminal case (that's the one run by Special Counsel Jack Smith, who is also running the classified documents case).

I definitely can't summarize all of this huge situation here, but here's some key points re: whether there will be legal consequences:

I actually have a pretty high level of trust in Jack Smith, in large part due to his record: he's serving as special prosecutor while on sabbatical from his normal job of prosecuting war crimes at the Hague. And he's specifically been prosecuting war crimes from the wars and genocides in former Yugoslavia in the 80s and 90s. That specifically gives me a lot of confidence because - as someone whose family is from the region - I think it's a really strong demonstration of his abilities. It means he has a lot of experience prosecuting high-level government and army officials, in a complicated, multi-year, multi-war conflict, where there were way more sides and factions than we have, along with way less documentary evidence (bc 90s), and a lot of history of political corruption and coverups. I find that really reassuring, especially the "experience prosecuting high-level government and army officials" thing in a situation with, shall we say, extremely contested and variable national leadership, during the course of multiple civil wars

"Schwendiman compared it to prosecuting Kosovo’s equivalent of Benjamin Franklin and Alexander Hamilton. “If you indict these people, you’re saying, ‘The founding fathers of Kosovo have committed atrocities, and I’m ready to prove it, in an independent court, with independent judges and rules that apply to everyone.’” And that was Kosovo's founding president. So yeah, I think Jack Smith can handle Trump. Source

Okay now to the points you might have actually heard of lol

The Georgia case is a state level case, which means that no matter what, Trump can't pardon himself in that case

The Georgia case is also charging Trump under the RICO act - aka the rackeeting act, usually used to prosecute organized crime. And convictions under the Georgia RICO Act come with MANDATORY jail time

I think the evidence here is pretty compelling, see: the congressional Jan 6 hearings

There is a pretty high chance that, in a massively unusual step, filming will be allowed inside the trial/hearings. This is HUGE, especially because Trump supporters would actually be watching it too (unlike, generally, the congressional hearings), and that evidence all laid out looks really goddamn bad

Also, if yesterday's fraud trial testimony is any indication, Trump is likely to end up yelling and screaming at the judge, etc. in the trial, which is going to look wildly unprofessional

The federal trial will be taking place in Washington DC, where it should be very doable to get a jury that isn't stuffed with Trump cronies (unlike, say, if the case was brought in Florida)

Trump has attempted witness tampering on a lot of occasions, and tried to poison the jury pool, and he got caught so now he's under a gag order that restricts what he can say re: both of those.

Important note: Jack Smith has brought the narrower of two possible cases against Trump. He's filed against Trump with several conspiracy charges, including "conspiracy against rights," which was historically created to prosecute the KKK for racial terrorism

However, Jack Smith did not actually charge Trump with inciting an insurrection. There are a lot of possible reasons for this, but it mostly boils down to the fact that "inciting an insurrection" is significantly less objectively provable, in this case, esp since "insurrection" isn't actually defined in the relevant law

So, Jack Smith has traded a broader case (the one including insurrection charges) for a case that is much simpler and quicker to argue, and that he's sure he can prove

Jack Smith absolutely knows that he has an effective deadline of November 2024 (aka the next election, because a Republican president would shut down the investigation immediately), and he's planning accordingly

Look. Federal prosecutors - and the prosecutors in Georgia and the other NY case, for bribery of porn star Stormy Daniels - would not be bringing these charges if they did not feel sure they would win. Democracy aside, if any of them lose their cases? That is almost guaranteed to end their careers. So they have a very vested self-interest in only taking on what they are absolutely sure they can prove

The judge in the federal Jan 6 trial is the judge who has given the harshest sentences against any of the Jan 6 rioters, and she is the only judge to have sentenced rioters to more time than the prosecutors asked for

Jan 6 charges against Trump, explainer Sources: x, x, x, x, x, x, x, x

A Very Hot Take: It might not be a bad thing that Trump is still allowed to run

So, this is my personal take on the situation - I acknowledge that it's a very hot take on the Left, and that I might well be wrong about this. I might be totally misreading the field here. But I genuinely do think that Trump being the Republican candidate for president could be a good thing, and in fact I'll genuinely worry significantly more if Trump isn't the Republican nominee for president.

The why all basically comes down to this: I think Trump will be easier to defeat in the 2024 general election.

Again, look, I may totally be misreading this, and that would be really bad, but here are my thoughts:

Trump is super popular with the far right base - but that same strength makes him a huge liability in the general election. You CAN'T WIN a presidential election without the support of independents and moderates (including "moderates"). This is a really common problem for Republican candidates, actually: the more they move to the right to win the core Republican base, the more they risk hurting their chances in the general election

Independents and moderate Republicans - again, who Trump needs to win with to get the presidency - are significantly more likely to care about, you know, all the stealing classified documents and committing treason things

I can't think of anything that will guarantee people on the left get their asses to the polls better than "Vote or Trump is president again." A lot of the time, with someone who hasn't been president before, voters can lie to themselves and go "Oh it won't be that bad once he's in office," esp among moderates. But now we have proof that isn't the case!

Look, I don't know if Trump is getting dementia or what, but his faculties really do appear to be declining. They'll likely be significantly worse in another year - his speeches are already way worse than there were in 2016. He just can't track what he's saying well enough anymore. This makes it harder for him to make his case to the electorate

He's also the only actual Repub candidate that's about the same age as Biden - which will do a lot to stop the Right from using Biden's age as an effective weapon to get a Repub in office

Honestly, my biggest worry is that DeSantis will be the Republican nominee. I am way more scared of Biden vs. DeSantis than Biden vs. Trump.

Reasons I would absolutely rather Biden face Trump than DeSantis include: DeSantis is way younger and he has way less baggage. Because he hasn't been president yet, voters can do that self-delusion thing that he won't be that bad - that he'll be better than Trump - and that unlike Trump's, his plans will work. People on the left and in the center often don't know who he is yet, and there's not such a huge current of electoral energy to get them to the polls. And most of all - unlike Trump, DeSantis is actually smart. And as part of that, he is capable of a deep and absolutely premeditated cruelty that Trump just doesn't have the attention span or the patience for. Biggest example: actually literally kidnapping undocumented immigrants and sending them to Martha's Vineyard, and all the awfulness that went along with that, including the part where he started a goddamned trend.

Nikki Haley I'm less worried about because her core support base - conservatives - is also the country's core support base for misogyny. I hate to be glad about misogyny, but it genuinely would make it harder for her to turn out ultraconservative votes, especially evangelicals.

Sources: x, x, x, x, x, x, x, x, x, x, x, x

So, yeah, all told I don't actually have "Trump still gets to run for president" super high on the list of things I'm worried/mad about.

Also worth saying that we don't want just being indicted (aka charged with a crime) to disqualify people from running for office, because then all Republicans (or anyone) would have to do to disqualify an opposing candidate is find literally any excuse to charge them with something

But back to your original question! I genuinely DO think he'll face legal consequences, and I genuinely DO think he'll probably face jail time. Which obviously I am rooting for very hard