|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Feb 26, 2024 21:20:54 GMT
And now to Mr Chesbro who is about to face some major charges in Michigan and hopefully in the trial in Florida!! Donald Trump ally and election-denying lawyer Ken Chesebro was(sic) lied to Michigan prosecutors when he claimed he never used one of his social media accounts, a new report suggests — he had a "burner" account on the site "X," which contradicts what he told the prosecutors. Harvard constitutional law professor Laurence Tribe explained the revelation means Chesebro's legal troubles have just begun — and it will likely mean more charges. When Ken Chesebro surfaced in this mess, at first, I felt a bit of pity for the guy. No more," Tribe wrote. "Not only did he plot to overturn the Constitution's transfer of power to the newly elected president, but he's been lying to pretty much everyone about his role. More indictments await." "Chesebro’s secret Twitter account could lead to serious felony charges in Michigan and will augment his eventual federal indictment by Jack Smith. The guy is in a huge heap of trouble that his guilty plea in Georgia barely touches," Tribe also said.Chesebro has been described as an architect of Trump's fake elector scheme after the 2020 election. He was charged as a co-conspirator in the Fulton County racketeeting case alongside Trump, but made a plea deal. CNN reported on Monday that Chesebro had a secret Twitter account called "BadgetPundit" on which he made dozens of posts involving the Trump election claims. He had told investigators that he did not use X, and dozens of the posts he made on it contradict statements he made about his role in the election subversion scheme, the report stated. Former federal and state prosecutor Eric Lisann agreed with Tribe, saying Chesebro will likely face further charges. "This should line Chesebro up for prosecution in Michigan under their false statement statute, which, although seemingly less broad than its federal counterpart, still could cover this," wrote Lisann. "Chesebro was directly asked about — and denied — other accounts as part of his Michigan debriefing. Those statements also contradict his exculpatory assertions. The failure to disclose also violates his cooperation agreement there. Chesebro seems utterly discredited."He explained that it isn't clear what will happen to Chesebro in Fulton County, Georgia, where the revelation of the secret account may put his plea deal at risk. "It is not clear what he was asked, but again, these statements may contradict his self-minimizing description of criminal intent if he similarly proffered that there and thus negate his value as a witness," Lisann continued. "That would seem to violate the terms of his plea agreement. If Fulton County had not obtained this account, it demonstrates a limit to their investigatory efforts."www.rawstory.com/ken-chesebro-future-indictments-legal-analysts/
|
|
|
Post by morecowbell on Feb 26, 2024 21:24:32 GMT
It's pretty easy to understand. With a corrupt party that tried to covered up Hunter's troubles in favor of getting biden in the White House, a party that created the Russian collusion hoax and went after it for years, a party that created several hoaxes by twisting what was said into something that was not said, ignoring actual things that were said to pretend he meant something else entirely, a party that censored what narrative you could see or speak about, a search engined that did the same, a news media that supported all of that for that party... The indictments just look like an extension of all that to the majority of Republicans. They see it all as politically motivated. Or, look at it from another perspective, truth and reality for most of us. Let's start with the Supreme Court. Mitch McConnell withheld a Supreme Court seat from Democrats by refusing to hold a vote on Merrick Garland's nomination and then ramming through ACB 45 days before an election. Thomas and Alito have been bribed and corrupted by gifts from conservative groups. Republicans rushed and refused to thoroughly investigate Bret Kavanaugh for sexual assault. Several of the conservatives justices testified under oath that Roe v Wade was settled precedent. The conservative justices are not liked, respected or trusted by many liberals and independents. With the help of the 3 that Trump appointed, the conservative justices reversed Roe v Wade. With a stroke of a pen, the conservatives erased and took away 50 years of women's rights, access to reproductive health care and bodily autonomy. Republicans have been passing statewide abortion bans as fast as they can. After Kansas, Republicans recognized that it was risky to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot, so they tried to make it harder to pass an amendment in Ohio. After the story of a 10 year old victim of rape who was unable to get an abortion became national news, an Ohio Republican commented that forcing her to give birth was "an opportunity". Other Republicans have made false, asinine comments about how women can't get pregnant from a rape. In the case of a woman whose fetus had a fatal diagnosis, Texas Republicans made it clear that even though the law technically allows for exceptions, for all practical purposes, it is essentially an absolute ban. Republicans made false promises of not criminalizing abortion, but South Carolina and Nevada both have laws that make it a crime. In Ohio, a woman who miscarried was charged with a felony of mishandling a corpse. Other states are passing vague laws and doctors are afraid to provide medical care for women, in some cases endangering womens' lives and risking their ability to have children in the future. States are trying to pass laws making it illegal for women to seek abortions in other states. The Texas attorney general is seeking medical records from another state. (That particular case is about gender affirming care, but he could just as easily try to access medical records of women who have had abortions). I realize that these situations are extreme, but the reality is that an estimated 26,000 women in Texas have been denied abortions. Republicans claimed Roe was about states' rights, but many of them signed or support a nationwide ban. The Alabama Supreme Court in an overtly religious decision, determined that personhood begins at conception. IVF clinics closed and Republicans are scrambling to show they support IVF. They're trying to protect IVF without changing their position that life begins at conception. Birth control is next on the list of targets. Some Republicans are talking about consequential sex, sex only for procreation. Add in a Missouri law that prevents pregnant women from getting a divorce, even in an abusive situation. Then tell me all of this is not about controlling women. For the last 50 years, Republicans have been able to claim they are pro-life without facing any consequences because Roe protected abortions. Republicans, recognizing that their policies are unpopular, have been passing voter suppression laws and heavily gerrymandering districts at the state level in desperate attempts to hold onto power. A Republican candidate openly talked about raising the voting age to 25 and requiring anyone under the age of 25 to take a citizenship test, reminiscent of literacy tests for black voters. That's just the issue of abortion. I could write another book about Republicans blocking common sense gun safety, school shootings and the NRA. Or Republicans restricting the rights of the LGBTQ community, Thomas and Alito's concerns about the decision protecting marriage equality, Republicans endangering the lives of transgender students, Republicans in Tennessee prioritizing religious beliefs over civil rights. Or the movement to impose theocracy on our schools and our country. None of that has anything to do with what I said or what I was responding to.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Feb 26, 2024 21:37:58 GMT
TFG claims he is too rich to have to post a bond in E Jean Carroll judgement.. That case and the fraud case far exceed the amount of cash he claimed he has on hand, $400 million... v over close to $600 million.. Former President Donald Trump is arguing that his position of wealth means he shouldn't be required to post bond in the E. Jean Carroll defamation case — and Judge Lewis Kaplan is asking Carroll's attorneys to respond to the claim. "Mr. Trump has moved for an 'administrative stay' of enforcement pending the filing and disposition of any post-trial motions that he may file. He seeks that relief without posting any security," wrote Kaplan in an order signed over the weekend. *** Posting bond is standard in civil judgment cases in which the defendant seeks to appeal the decision, which Trump is planning to do. But according to Above the Law, Trump is arguing to the court that he is so rich that a bond doesn't really constitute a deterrent to his noncompliance, and therefore he shouldn't have to provide one. “Having argued to the jury that President Trump has great financial resources, Plaintiff is in no position to contradict herself now and contend that she requires the protection of a bond during the brief period while post-trial motions are pending,” Trump wrote in an application for his stay. “This fact nullifies risk to the judgment creditor and weighs heavily in favor of an unsecured stay.” Trump's argument, however, stands in contrast to the fact that, by his own estimation, he only has about $400 million in liquid assets, which is less than what he owes combined from the Carroll case, for which he got hit with $83.3 million in damages, and the New York civil fraud case which hit him with $355 million. *** www.rawstory.com/e-jean-carroll-2667368251/
|
|
|
Post by morecowbell on Feb 26, 2024 21:47:20 GMT
Judge McAfee has scheduled a March 1 hearing on the potential disqualification of Willis and Wade.
|
|
|
Post by Gem Girl on Feb 26, 2024 23:04:53 GMT
“Having argued to the jury that President Trump has great financial resources, Plaintiff is in no position to contradict herself now and contend that she requires the protection of a bond during the brief period while post-trial motions are pending,” Trump wrote in an application for his stay. “This fact nullifies risk to the judgment creditor and weighs heavily in favor of an unsecured stay.” The bond isn't for the Plaintiff's protection, and his lawyers know that. They're trying to be cute here. I suspect he can't find anybody to bond him, and it doesn't surprise me.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Feb 26, 2024 23:08:45 GMT
“Having argued to the jury that President Trump has great financial resources, Plaintiff is in no position to contradict herself now and contend that she requires the protection of a bond during the brief period while post-trial motions are pending,” Trump wrote in an application for his stay. “This fact nullifies risk to the judgment creditor and weighs heavily in favor of an unsecured stay.” The bond isn't for the Plaintiff's protection, and his lawyers know that. They're trying to be cute here. I suspect he can't find anybody to bond him, and it doesn't surprise me. Oh, I know. His lawyers are trying anything they can. He's loathe to give her a dime!! Although long term it is for her protection, because if does not win, the court is holding monies to give to he..
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Feb 26, 2024 23:49:19 GMT
www.nytimes.com/2024/02/26/us/politics/prosecutors-trump-classified-documents.htmlProsecutors Reject Claims of Unfairness in Trump Classified Documents Case Jack Smith, the special counsel, said in a court filing that never before had a former official “engaged in conduct remotely similar to Trump’s.” Federal prosecutors on Monday rejected former President Donald J. Trump’s claims that he was unfairly charged with holding on to classified documents after he left office, saying that his case bore no comparison to the one in which President Biden was cleared of wrongdoing even though he was found in possession of classified materials after leaving the vice presidency.
In rebuffing what was known as a “selective prosecution” claim by Mr. Trump, the prosecutors said that while many government officials over the years had taken classified materials with them after leaving office — often inadvertently, but occasionally willfully — Mr. Trump’s case remained unique because of the extent to which he had “resisted the government’s lawful efforts to recover them.”
“There has never been a case in American history in which a former official has engaged in conduct remotely similar to Trump’s,” they wrote.
In their 12-page filing, the prosecutors dismissed as a “conspiracy theory” a separate claim that Mr. Trump has raised in his own defense — that Mr. Biden had “secretly directed” the classified documents case and used the special counsel who filed the indictment, Jack Smith, as a “puppet” and a “stalking horse.”
“Decisions made by the Department of Justice generally, and the special counsel specifically, have been made on the basis of the facts and the law, not political considerations,” the prosecutors wrote. “The defendants offer no evidence to the contrary, because there is no such evidence.”
Mr. Smith’s prosecutors agreed, noting in their filing that on top of illegally holding on to “a vast trove of some of the nation’s most sensitive documents,” Mr. Trump also engaged in a “suite of willful and deceitful criminal conduct” intended to obstruct efforts to retrieve the secret records.
Mr. Smith’s prosecutors said they would rebut the claims in more detail when they respond next month to the motion to dismiss the case.
At the end of this week, Judge Cannon has scheduled a hearing in Fort Pierce to decide the separate question of when the classified documents trial will be held. It is currently set to begin on May 20, but the judge has already said she is inclined to make some “reasonable adjustments” to the timing of the case.
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Feb 26, 2024 23:53:36 GMT
Or, look at it from another perspective, truth and reality for most of us. Let's start with the Supreme Court. Mitch McConnell withheld a Supreme Court seat from Democrats by refusing to hold a vote on Merrick Garland's nomination and then ramming through ACB 45 days before an election. Thomas and Alito have been bribed and corrupted by gifts from conservative groups. Republicans rushed and refused to thoroughly investigate Bret Kavanaugh for sexual assault. Several of the conservatives justices testified under oath that Roe v Wade was settled precedent. The conservative justices are not liked, respected or trusted by many liberals and independents. With the help of the 3 that Trump appointed, the conservative justices reversed Roe v Wade. With a stroke of a pen, the conservatives erased and took away 50 years of women's rights, access to reproductive health care and bodily autonomy. Republicans have been passing statewide abortion bans as fast as they can. After Kansas, Republicans recognized that it was risky to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot, so they tried to make it harder to pass an amendment in Ohio. After the story of a 10 year old victim of rape who was unable to get an abortion became national news, an Ohio Republican commented that forcing her to give birth was "an opportunity". Other Republicans have made false, asinine comments about how women can't get pregnant from a rape. In the case of a woman whose fetus had a fatal diagnosis, Texas Republicans made it clear that even though the law technically allows for exceptions, for all practical purposes, it is essentially an absolute ban. Republicans made false promises of not criminalizing abortion, but South Carolina and Nevada both have laws that make it a crime. In Ohio, a woman who miscarried was charged with a felony of mishandling a corpse. Other states are passing vague laws and doctors are afraid to provide medical care for women, in some cases endangering womens' lives and risking their ability to have children in the future. States are trying to pass laws making it illegal for women to seek abortions in other states. The Texas attorney general is seeking medical records from another state. (That particular case is about gender affirming care, but he could just as easily try to access medical records of women who have had abortions). I realize that these situations are extreme, but the reality is that an estimated 26,000 women in Texas have been denied abortions. Republicans claimed Roe was about states' rights, but many of them signed or support a nationwide ban. The Alabama Supreme Court in an overtly religious decision, determined that personhood begins at conception. IVF clinics closed and Republicans are scrambling to show they support IVF. They're trying to protect IVF without changing their position that life begins at conception. Birth control is next on the list of targets. Some Republicans are talking about consequential sex, sex only for procreation. Add in a Missouri law that prevents pregnant women from getting a divorce, even in an abusive situation. Then tell me all of this is not about controlling women. For the last 50 years, Republicans have been able to claim they are pro-life without facing any consequences because Roe protected abortions. Republicans, recognizing that their policies are unpopular, have been passing voter suppression laws and heavily gerrymandering districts at the state level in desperate attempts to hold onto power. A Republican candidate openly talked about raising the voting age to 25 and requiring anyone under the age of 25 to take a citizenship test, reminiscent of literacy tests for black voters. That's just the issue of abortion. I could write another book about Republicans blocking common sense gun safety, school shootings and the NRA. Or Republicans restricting the rights of the LGBTQ community, Thomas and Alito's concerns about the decision protecting marriage equality, Republicans endangering the lives of transgender students, Republicans in Tennessee prioritizing religious beliefs over civil rights. Or the movement to impose theocracy on our schools and our country. None of that has anything to do with what I said or what I was responding to. No, of course not. Why bother trying to look at things from a different perspective?
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Feb 26, 2024 23:56:32 GMT
New: Fulton County DA Fani Willis & her top prosecutor received an onslaught of harassing phone calls over the weekend after their personal contact information was cited in legal paperwork from Trump’s defense lawyer in GA case, sources tell me, @cnnvalencia& @jmocnn.
Willis & Nathan Wade both changed their phone numbers b/c of an “explosion” of calls in recent days, one source told CNN.
The wave of calls came after an unredacted version of the motion -- including exhibits -- was shared w/ counsel on both sides.
Trump’s lead attorney in the Georgia case told DA’s office he mistakenly shared unredacted phone records w/ a reporter before motion was filed, per state's response.
Reporter did NOT publish the records, as requested, & contact info was redacted in 8-page motion filed publicly.
But cell phone records “with personal identifying information,” still appeared on social media, per the DA's response to Trump motion filed on Friday.
As a result, sources say, both Willis & Wade received an influx of hostile calls over the weekend.
Our review of social media posts did find posts that included exhibits not in public filing.
BUT none included phone numbers themselves nor obvious examples of personal identifying info.
Info could have come from anyone who received unredacted motion (counsel on both sides).
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Feb 27, 2024 0:23:48 GMT
|
|
|
Post by morecowbell on Feb 27, 2024 0:42:12 GMT
None of that has anything to do with what I said or what I was responding to. No, of course not. Why bother trying to look at things from a different perspective? Because, as I already said once, that doesn't even apply here. You were confused about why Trump indictments ensured a Trump vote from some. I explained why. Your answer was but, but, but, these are all my gripes against the Republican Party. So you can point THAT finger right back at yourself, because that, unequivocally, refers to EXACTLY what you did.
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Feb 27, 2024 0:50:41 GMT
No, of course not. Why bother trying to look at things from a different perspective? Because, as I already said once, that doesn't even apply here. You were confused about why Trump indictments ensured a Trump vote from some. I explained why. Your answer was but, but, but, these are all my gripes against the Republican Party. So you can point THAT finger right back at yourself, because that, unequivocally, refers to EXACTLY what you did. No, I also posted this in a separate post
|
|
|
Post by morecowbell on Feb 27, 2024 1:09:04 GMT
Because, as I already said once, that doesn't even apply here. You were confused about why Trump indictments ensured a Trump vote from some. I explained why. Your answer was but, but, but, these are all my gripes against the Republican Party. So you can point THAT finger right back at yourself, because that, unequivocally, refers to EXACTLY what you did. No, I also posted this in a separate post It's not.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Feb 27, 2024 2:44:36 GMT
aj2hallSmith is going to use special counsel Hur's report.. Special counsel Jack Smith has a new source he says showcases the egregiousness of former President Donald Trump's concealment of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago: special counsel Robert Hur's report on President Joe Biden. Hur's report, which concluded with no charges after investigating documents that were found at Biden's Delaware home and University of Pennsylvania office, attracted political attention for its attacks on Biden's age and memory. Less discussed was the fact that Hur, a Trump appointee, said Biden's conduct wasn't nearly as serious as the former president's.The defendants have not identified anyone who has engaged in a remotely similar suite of willful and deceitful criminal conduct and not been prosecuted," wrote Smith in his new filing. "For example, their primary competitor is Joseph R. Biden ... But as the Hur Report itself recognizes, 'several material distinctions between Mr. Trump's case and Mr. Biden's are clear.'" Smith argues that while the Hur Report notes there was no clear evidence that Biden were highly classified, Trump "engaged in extensive and repeated efforts to obstruct justice and thwart the return of documents bearing classification markings."Ultimately, said Smith, "the defendants' request for discovery on a selective prosecution theory can be denied on this basis alone."Earlier this month, Donald Trump begged Special Counsel Jack Smith to drop "all litigation" against him in order to allow the nation to "heal." www.rawstory.com/trump-classified-documents-2667369064/
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Feb 27, 2024 3:05:56 GMT
No, I also posted this in a separate post It's not. I acknowledged that what I posted might not be accurate and you can disagree, that's fine. But, I did and I do try to see things from a different perspective. Are you trying? Or are you close minded and just determined that things are black and white, Republicans are right, Democrats are wrong?
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Feb 27, 2024 3:09:36 GMT
aj2hall Smith is going to use special counsel Hur's report.. Special counsel Jack Smith has a new source he says showcases the egregiousness of former President Donald Trump's concealment of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago: special counsel Robert Hur's report on President Joe Biden. Hur's report, which concluded with no charges after investigating documents that were found at Biden's Delaware home and University of Pennsylvania office, attracted political attention for its attacks on Biden's age and memory. Less discussed was the fact that Hur, a Trump appointee, said Biden's conduct wasn't nearly as serious as the former president's.The defendants have not identified anyone who has engaged in a remotely similar suite of willful and deceitful criminal conduct and not been prosecuted," wrote Smith in his new filing. "For example, their primary competitor is Joseph R. Biden ... But as the Hur Report itself recognizes, 'several material distinctions between Mr. Trump's case and Mr. Biden's are clear.'" Smith argues that while the Hur Report notes there was no clear evidence that Biden were highly classified, Trump "engaged in extensive and repeated efforts to obstruct justice and thwart the return of documents bearing classification markings."Ultimately, said Smith, "the defendants' request for discovery on a selective prosecution theory can be denied on this basis alone."Earlier this month, Donald Trump begged Special Counsel Jack Smith to drop "all litigation" against him in order to allow the nation to "heal." www.rawstory.com/trump-classified-documents-2667369064/ I love that the prosecutors used sections of the Hur report against Trump. That seems suitable and fitting.
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Feb 27, 2024 3:15:01 GMT
Thought this was an interesting perspective. www.nytimes.com/2024/02/26/opinion/white-rural-voters.htmlBut progress isn’t painless. Business types and some economists may talk glowingly about the virtues of “creative destruction,” but the process can be devastating, economically and socially, for those who find themselves on the destruction side of the equation. This is especially true when technological change undermines not just individual workers but also whole communities.
This isn’t a hypothetical proposition. It’s a big part of what has happened to rural America.
This process and its effects are laid out in devastating, terrifying and baffling detail in “White Rural Rage: The Threat to American Democracy,” a new book by Tom Schaller and Paul Waldman. I say “devastating” because the hardship of rural Americans is real, “terrifying” because the political backlash to this hardship poses a clear and present danger to our democracy, and “baffling” because at some level I still don’t get the politics.
Technology is the main driver of rural decline, Schaller and Waldman argue. Indeed, American farms produce more than five times as much as they did 75 years ago, but the agricultural work force declined by about two-thirds over the same period, thanks to machinery, improved seeds, fertilizers and pesticides. Coal production has been falling recently, but thanks partly to technologies like mountaintop removal, coal mining as a way of life largely disappeared long ago, with the number of miners falling 80 percent even as production roughly doubled.
The decline of small-town manufacturing is a more complicated story, and imports play a role, but it’s also mainly about technological change that favors metropolitan areas with large numbers of highly educated workers.
Technology, then, has made America as a whole richer, but it has reduced economic opportunities in rural areas. So why don’t rural workers go where the jobs are? Some have. But some cities have become unaffordable, in part because of restrictive zoning — one thing blue states get wrong — while many workers are also reluctant to leave their families and communities.
So shouldn’t we aid these communities? We do. Federal programs — Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and more — are available to all Americans, but are disproportionately financed from taxes paid by affluent urban areas. As a result there are huge de facto transfers of money from rich, urban states like New Jersey to poor, relatively rural states like West Virginia.
While these transfers somewhat mitigate the hardship facing rural America, they don’t restore the sense of dignity that has been lost along with rural jobs. And maybe that loss of dignity explains both white rural rage and why that rage is so misdirected — why it’s pretty clear that this November a majority of rural white Americans will again vote against Joe Biden, who as president has been trying to bring jobs to their communities, and for Donald Trump, a huckster from Queens who offers little other than validation for their resentment.
This feeling of a loss of dignity may be worsened because some rural Americans have long seen themselves as more industrious, more patriotic and maybe even morally superior to the denizens of big cities — an attitude still expressed in cultural artifacts like Jason Aldean’s hit song “Try That in a Small Town.”
In the crudest sense, rural and small-town America is supposed to be filled with hard-working people who adhere to traditional values, not like those degenerate urbanites on welfare, but the economic and social reality doesn’t match this self-image.
Prime working-age men outside metropolitan areas are substantially less likely than their metropolitan counterparts to be employed — not because they’re lazy, but because the jobs just aren’t there. (The gap is much smaller for women, perhaps because the jobs supported by federal aid tend to be female-coded, such as those in health care.)
Quite a few rural states also have high rates of homicide, suicide and births to single mothers — again, not because rural Americans are bad people, but because social disorder is, as the sociologist William Julius Wilson argued long ago about urban problems, what happens when work disappears.
Draw attention to some of these realities and you’ll be accused of being a snooty urban elitist. I’m sure responses to this column will be … interesting.
The result — which at some level I still find hard to understand — is that many white rural voters support politicians who tell them lies they want to hear. It helps explain why the MAGA narrative casts relatively safe cities like New York as crime-ridden hellscapes while rural America is the victim not of technology but of illegal immigrants, wokeness and the deep state.
At this point you’re probably expecting a solution to this ugly political situation. Schaller and Waldman do offer some suggestions. But the truth is that while white rural rage is arguably the single greatest threat facing American democracy, I have no good ideas about how to fight it.
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Feb 27, 2024 3:18:51 GMT
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Feb 27, 2024 3:53:18 GMT
I just posted that the other day somewhere here! They are amazing young ladies. Apologies if I spell a name incorrectly.. Cassidy Hutchinson Sarah Matthews Alissa Farrah Griffin Olivia Troye Stephanie Grissom Add in Liz Cheney
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Feb 27, 2024 3:59:26 GMT
I just posted that the other day somewhere here! They are amazing young ladies. Apologies if I spell a name incorrectly.. Cassidy Hutchinson Sarah Matthews Alissa Farrah Griffin Olivia Troye Stephanie Grissom Yes! I love that women are playing a key role in taking down Trump and holding him accountable in court. I'm sure it's killing Trump that he lost to a black woman in the huge civil fraud case.
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Feb 27, 2024 4:04:46 GMT
As of now, he owes almost $465 million. An extra $114,000 every day he doesn't pay. I love that you can see the debt piling up in real time. If I calculated right, $80 per minute. trumpdebtcounter.com
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Feb 27, 2024 5:57:19 GMT
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Feb 27, 2024 19:10:34 GMT
Bradly is on the stand in Fulton County Georgia!!
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Feb 27, 2024 19:18:20 GMT
I just posted that the other day somewhere here! They are amazing young ladies. Apologies if I spell a name incorrectly.. Cassidy Hutchinson Sarah Matthews Alissa Farrah Griffin Olivia Troye Stephanie Grissom Yes! I love that women are playing a key role in taking down Trump and holding him accountable in court. I'm sure it's killing Trump that he lost to a black woman in the huge civil fraud case. More on these amazing women. As far as I know, former staff members have parted with Biden on good terms. Many of Trump's former staff and advisors are speaking out against him and supporting Biden. www.washingtonpost.com/style/2024/02/27/will-anti-trump-republicans-vote-for-biden/They renounced Trump. Will they get fellow conservatives to vote Biden? Alyssa Farah Griffin, Cassidy Hutchinson and Sarah Matthews worked in Trump’s White House. Now they’re trying to keep him from getting back in.
Sarah Matthews, a former deputy press secretary to President Donald Trump, is supporting Nikki Haley in the Republican primaries. But if her choices on Election Day are Trump and Joe Biden? She’ll support Biden. “We can survive bad policy from a second Biden administration,” Matthews says, “but I don’t think we can survive a second Trump term, in terms of our democracy.”
Alyssa Farah Griffin, who served as a White House communication director for Trump in 2020, is in a similar place. “Donald Trump is a threat to democracy, and I will never support him,” Farah Griffin says. She doesn’t know whether she’ll support Biden, but she hasn’t ruled it out. “If Joe Biden remains where he’s been on aid to Ukraine and support for Israel, it’ll be much easier to get there,” she says of Republicans, like herself, who are considering supporting the Democratic president.
Cassidy Hutchinson, a former aide to Mark Meadows when he was Trump’s chief of staff, hoped for a different (presumptive) Republican nominee. She has “completely shut” the door to supporting Trump and has encouraged people to vote for Biden. “We all need to be putting 100 percent in until the election to make sure that this doesn’t happen — that he’s not reelected,” Hutchinson says.
The three women were together in a conference room at a hotel in downtown Washington on Saturday afternoon. In a few minutes, they would take the stage at a gathering of anti-Trump Republicans called the Principles First Summit. They represent the last wave of the anti-Trump movement — what you might call Now-Never Trumpers (or, maybe, the Better-Late-Than-Never Trumpers). They’re conservatives who were for Trump before they were against him, and for whom the former president’s reckless behavior after losing the 2020 election was a breaking point. Farah Griffin departed first, that December. Matthews quit immediately after the Capitol riot. Hutchinson served through the end of Trump’s term but later gave explosive testimony to the House committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.
And they are among dozens of former Trump officials who have criticized the conduct of their former boss. Those who saw him up close have called the former president a “wannabe dictator” (former Joint Chiefs chairman Gen. Mark A. Milley), a “consummate narcissist” (former attorney general William P. Barr), and a “moron” (former secretary of state Rex Tillerson, reportedly). But Barr reportedly has suggested that a second Trump administration — which he likened to “playing Russian roulette with the country,” according to Axios — would be less dangerous to the country than a second Biden administration. Voting for Biden, the outlet quoted him as saying during a speech in Florida, would constitute “outright national suicide.”
Which raises a question: Just how serious are some of the anti-Trump Republicans about keeping him out of the Oval Office? Serious enough that these dissenting former officials would actually vote for Biden?
Ty Cobb would. “If the time comes and a vote for Joe is required to stop Trump, then I’d grudgingly vote for Biden,” Cobb, who served as a special counsel in the Trump White House, said in an interview — adding, though, that he fears “this sad choice perpetuates the domestic divide as well as the substantial risk we continue to face internationally.” (Despite serving in Trump’s White House, Cobb says he never voted for him.)
John Bolton, Trump’s former national security adviser, would not. “My focus, right now, is to make sure he doesn’t get the nomination,” Bolton told The Washington Post. But if it does come down to Trump vs. Biden, he said, “I’ll do what I did in 2020: I wrote in the name of a conservative Republican.”
Farah Griffin doesn’t begrudge Bolton his write-in plan, and she considers him one of the “most important voices” on the anti-Trump right. But Barr? “He couldn’t be more dead wrong,” Farah Griffin says. “He heard the crazy that we heard.”
“It’s just ridiculous,” Matthews adds. “I mean, there’s really no comparison,” she says, between the dangers posed by Biden vs. Trump.
“It’s so disappointing, when you have these men who are twice my age, maybe three times, who stay silent,” she adds.
The women were friends in the Trump White House and have only gotten closer since becoming Trump apostates. They have a text chain, where one will reach out to the others — often “when we’re walking in airports, for some reason,” Farah Griffin says — wondering whether the person who bumped them had done so accidentally or because they’d “been radicalized to hate you by the former most powerful man on the planet.”
But besides each other, who is the audience for the Now-Never Trumpers? On the MAGA right, there’s a selective deafness to anyone disloyal to Trump. For those who already know they dislike Trump, the Hutchinsons, Matthewses and Farah Griffins of the media world offer validation that is in high demand; Farah Griffin is now a co-host of “The View,” and Hutchinson’s memoir, “Enough,” spent five weeks on the New York Times’s bestseller list. But are they in a position to talk anyone out of voting for Trump in November?
Sitting around the conference table, with soft curls and camera-ready makeup, they look the part of credible conservative messengers — and they probably are, says Sarah Longwell, an early Never Trumper and publisher of the Bulwark, an anti-Trump conservative news and opinion site. Among the most persuadable cohort are the “double doubters,” as Longwell calls them: voters who don’t like Trump or Biden, but will vote in November — and are exhausted by the former president’s election denialism.
“These former officials can help them make up their minds,” Longwell says. Anti-Trumpers who served for him have special status, because they can honestly say, as Matthews does: “Hey, look, I supported the guy, went to work for him as a spokesperson because I believed in the agenda, but January 6th was a red line for me.” Sharp. Witty. Thoughtful. Sign up for the Style Memo newsletter.
Beyond voters, Longwell also hopes that the visibility of outspoken former Trumpers who worked in the administration — or investigated the Jan. 6 insurrection, like former congresswoman Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) — can encourage more timid anti-Trumpers to speak their minds, too. “When you see Cassidy and Sarah and Liz, I think those who are being cowards feel shame,” Longwell says. “They’re the kind of people who would make Bill Barr or [New Hampshire Gov.] Chris Sununu go, ‘Ugh, I can’t stomach this.’”
Maybe. It’s been more than three years since Jan. 6, 2021, and the number of former Trump officials stepping up to encourage people to vote against him seems to have plateaued. “I’ve lost some degree of hope of more people coming forward,” Farah Griffin says.
Many of those who have come forward were at the Principles First Summit. The two days of panels featured the leading lights of the Never Trump movement, including George Conway, who became a prominent anti-Trump commentator while his then-wife, Kellyanne Conway, was working as a Trump adviser, and Brad Raffensperger, the Georgia secretary of state who rebuffed Trump’s efforts to overturn the state’s 2020 election results.
In a not-so-distant past, the Now-Never Trumpers would have been at the Conservative Political Action Conference, the annual right-wing gathering held in National Harbor, Md., each February. But MAGA has swallowed CPAC whole since Trump’s presidency, transforming the event into something of a TrumpCon — one at which Trump defectors are decidedly unwelcome. (Over there, Trump railed against the “liars and cheaters and fraudsters and censors and impostors” who opposed him, and promised a “Judgment Day” if he wins in the fall.)
Here at Principles First, in the sweeping second-floor atrium of the Conrad Hotel, was your father’s Republican Party: a herd of chinos, sports coats and the occasional Nikki Haley T-shirt. First held in 2020, the event was a refuge for conservatives who rejected the “personality cult” of Trumpism, as founder Heath Mayo put it. Marisol Maddox, an independent voter and climate risk analyst from Arlington, wanted to connect with “like-minded people” who put “country over party,” she said. Jonathan Funke, a New York-based consultant who supported former Ohio governor John Kasich in the 2016 primaries, came seeking an “emotional support group,” he said.
This year, Hutchinson was the star. Fans rushed toward her as she bounded across the atrium, her swingy dress a blur of royal blue. The line for her book-signing grew so long that it disappeared around a corner. Conference organizers bestowed her with their Profiles in Courage award — for standing up “as you did at such a young time in your career,” Mayo said when he presented her with the statue.
At a panel discussion featuring the three women, Farah Griffin made the audience laugh when she assured them that, as someone who “spent lots of time with him, the worst things you’ve heard [about Trump] are only scratching the surface.” Matthews accused Trump loyalists of being “more concerned with their own positions of power than they are with doing what’s right for the country.”
“In this next election, we start by doing everything we possibly can to make sure that Donald Trump never gets near the Oval Office again, and” — Hutchinson had more to say, but couldn’t continue, because the clapping drowned her out — “and to make sure that every member of Congress who has been an enabler of Donald Trump’s agenda is also held accountable and voted out of office.”
This brought the attendees back to their feet. The next morning, Trump would dominate the headlines yet again, beating Haley soundly in the South Carolina primary and continuing his relentless march toward the Republican nomination. But those who watched Farah Griffin, Hutchinson and Matthews from the audience left convinced that they could change voters’ minds, if voters would only listen to what they had to say.
“The three of them, up there in a row?” Dale Oak, a retired federal budget and appropriations expert, said after their panel. “Yeah, absolutely.”
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Feb 27, 2024 21:27:21 GMT
Certainly glad Bradly is not/has never been my attorney!!
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Feb 27, 2024 21:34:54 GMT
www.nytimes.com/2024/02/27/us/trump-georgia-fani-willis-terrence-bradley.htmlBut 90 minutes into Tuesday’s hearing, the defense had not achieved its goal of getting Mr. Bradley to contradict the two prosecutors about when the relationship began.
For weeks, the defense has suggested that Mr. Bradley could provide crucial testimony about the relationship’s timing. But Mr. Bradley testified in court on Tuesday that “I don’t know when the relationship started,” and that he “never witnessed anything.”
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Feb 27, 2024 22:05:55 GMT
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Feb 28, 2024 3:07:52 GMT
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Feb 28, 2024 11:53:29 GMT
heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/february-27-2024But Trump is a poor choice to give control over United States security. Yesterday, Special Counsel Jack Smith responded to Trump’s motion to dismiss the charges against him associated with his stealing and hiding classified documents on the grounds that he was being treated differently than President Biden, who had also had classified documents in his possession but was not criminally charged. Smith noted that while there have been many government officials who have accidentally or willfully kept classified documents, and even some who briefly resisted attempts to recover them, Trump’s behavior was unique. “He intentionally took possession of a vast trove of some of the nation’s most sensitive documents…and stored them in unsecured locations at his heavily trafficked social club.” Then, when the government tried to recover the documents, Trump “delayed, obfuscated, and dissembled,” finally handing over only “a fraction” of those in his possession. No one, Smith wrote, “has engaged in a remotely similar suite of willful and deceitful criminal conduct and not been prosecuted.”
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Feb 28, 2024 15:39:01 GMT
|
|