Close. Men go to work while their property delivers either additional property, or an heir to all the property.
1 Like
Barrâs testimony must really piss off the Big Steal crowd. He mocks their extreme stupidity every chance he gets.
1 Like
The testimony today just reinforces what you already know about Trump. He was told by everyone who would know that he lost, they explained how it would go down and thatâs how it went down. Instead of accepting reality, he grabbed for every delusional fraud claim.
So they set about playing whack-a-mole with the fraud âbullshitâ, and Trump would ignore the rebuttals and move to the next. And the next, and the next. Following a shitfaced Rudy Giuliani down every deranged rabbit hole.
This is the first day Iâve watched the hearings, and itâs pretty gripping. Unfortunately, the people who should watch it wonât.
1 Like
Lofgren pointing out Trumpâs avalanche of fund raising after the election, which is wire fraud. @doj
To the tune of $250m, right?
Suckahs!
1 Like
Not sure who will be more pissed off by these hearings: Donald Trump or Merrick Garland.
Barrâs testimony, in addition to burying Trump, is reaffirming that he is a humongous shitbag.
One of the talking heads on MSBC pointed out that Barrâs resignation letter - basically a blowjob of Trump in written form - makes it impossible to use him as a witness in any criminal prosecution.
And theyâre too fucking stupid to realize his mocking, too.
1 Like
Interesting.
https://twitter.com/AnnieGrayerCNN/status/1536395802863616001?s=20&t=61Y9l7UXzqcJ1s47Eaii1g
One thing that isnât being discussed is the impact of the Jan 6 hearings - and the ârevelationsâ about election fraud claims being âbullshitâ - on the lawsuits against Giuliani, Powell and Fox News.
It canât help the defendants in any effort to settle the suits in any form that isnât in amounts at existential wipeout levels.
Iâm a little tired of writers and pundits fixating on whether Trump believed that he had lost, like that is the important âstate of mindâ question. Itâs not, IMO.
His actions donât need to be viewed as âdesigned to overturn the election,â which lends itself to worrying about whether he actually believed he lost. Instead, his actions were designed to prevent the transfer of power, which he clearly believed would happen. Therefore, we donât need to fret over just how delusional the fucker is, but instead demonstrate that he clearly knew he was leaving the WH on Jan 20 and the actions he took to prevent the transfer were designed to prevent a governmental action.
2 Likes
Iâm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that the âstate of mindâ goes to his liability for his actions. If he truly believed that the election was stolen (a premise which strains all credibility), or is just completely doolally and so couldnât understand that heâd lost, then a vast swath of criminal and civil liability gets swept away.
For example, as mentioned above, he raised $250 million for the âstop the stealâ effort, and then diverted significant amounts of that into his own pockets and those of his lackeys. Now, political donations have about as much regulation around them as donations to a bum at a stop light, so the way the money was spent looks bad but is mostly irrelevant. So, if Trump believed that the election was stolen, even if he didnât spend the money on anything to do with that, heâs free and clear. But, if he knew the election was stolen, and was just using it as an excuse to separate rubes from their savings, then thatâs fraud.
Basically, because he didnât actually bash an old lady over the head and run off with her purse, you need to prove his state of mind in order for him to be liable for any criminal or civil infraction. In any civil action, heâs in big trouble because the level of proof is the preponderance of evidence, not âbeyond all reasonable doubtâ as it is in criminal cases.
The latter bar is what Garland has to clear, and maybe there is not (yet) a smoking gun where Trump admits to knowing he lost. Even todayâs evidence, as damning as it is, does not include - as far as Iâm aware - anyone claiming that they heard him say the magic words. He wasnât interested in hearing it, but thatâs nowhere near the same thing as admitting it.
Example:
I doubt there is anything at all legally wrong with this transaction*.
- except that theyâre Trumps, so I doubt anyone paid taxes on it.
One less insurrectionist to worry about.
And if you think that a man like this losing his arms is a rich vein of comedy, just read the replies to this tweet.
Last time I looked, Lawrence Tribe is a lawyer.
He violated his own Second Amendment right to keep his arms.
5 Likes
The replies read like Austin Powers doing terrible puns over a dead henchman. Theyâre awesome.
2 Likes
Well, Iâm not talking about him ripping people off, thatâs separate.
Iâm no lawyer, but from what I hear and read, charges so far levied against individuals and groups include something to the effect of âobstructing an official proceeding.â As far as I know, thereâs not a lot of debate about whether those defendants (Oath Keepers, Proud Boys, might be others) actually believed the election was stolen. Thatâs beside the point. They are charged with actions. If intent is part of the prosecutionâs case, the intent is that they intended to obstruct the governmental proceeding, not whether they felt justified.
Likewise, it should be the same with Trump: whether he believes he won or not is beside the point. He knew Congress would conduct a proceeding to transfer power and he took actions to obstruct it.
Itâs a fucked up world where people obsess about what he believed, or in a larger sense, that the transfer of power hinges on something as unknowable and tenuous as this question. Just clear it up by affirming that regardless of what you believe, obstructing the transfer of power will be prosecuted.
5 Likes
Good point. Maybe they can wrap it all up in a RICO charge.