[Discussion] Impeachment, Legacy, and Discussion of Individual 45

Though noted as discussion, news, debate, and all things related to events that occurred during the Tr*mp administration can go here. The scope of this thread is specific to the former administration and it's hangers-on in the aftermath of the shift in power for the United States and impacted areas worldwide.

OG_slinger wrote:

And the last bit of news involves McConnell. Back in August 2019 McConnell used his position to jam through legislation that overturned US sanctions against the Russian company Rusal, its Kremlin-linked founder, Oleg Deripaska, and others that were put in place as punishment for Russia's interference in our 2016 election.

While McConnell was busy eliminating those sanctions Craig Bouchard was negotiating a deal with Rusal to help him finance a new aluminum-rolling mill in, of all places, Kentucky.

Bouchard announced the new mill in 2017 and immediately set to work trying to raise the nearly $2 billion that was needed to built it. The mill would be the first of its kind in decades and represent an economic boon to the region and generated hundreds of jobs. The state of Kentucky also ponied up a bunch of tax incentives and even kicked in $15 million in cash to get the project going.

Weeks after the US sanctions were dropped Bouchard completed his deal with Rusal, which promised to invest over $200 million in the project. Bouchard desperately needed Rusal's investment. He was already way behind schedule to have the plant built and operational by 2020.

This weekend and Rusal announced it was pulling out of the deal. This is probably going to kill the mill project, but Bouchard's had his own problems lately. He had to sell company valuable assists for a song last year to keep things going. In January his board of directors booted him in and investigated all of his expenses. Bouchard sold them all of his stock for $6 million as part of a negotiated settlement.

So McConnell likely sold out the country to help a huckster who promised a few jobs in Kentucky.

Re: McConnell story, that post links back to a gated Bloomberg article from which I was able to pull this golden nugget:

A spokesman for Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, then majority leader, told the Washington Post that the lawmaker didn’t know at the time that Braidy had hopes of a deal with Rusal when he backed the effort to lift sanctions on the Russian company.

Haaaaaaa

This is a novel idea.

Recall that Sidney Powell is being sued by Dominion Voting Systems for defamation because of all the stuff she said about how they helped steal the election, and how they claim she knew her claims were both false and harmful to the company.

Powell's defense: No reasonable person would have believed her. (CNN)

Keldar wrote:

This is a novel idea.

Recall that Sidney Powell is being sued by Dominion Voting Systems for defamation because of all the stuff she said about how they helped steal the election, and how they claim she knew her claims were both false and harmful to the company.

Powell's defense: No reasonable person would have believed her. (CNN)

IMAGE(https://i.imgflip.com/52rycj.jpg)

Keldar wrote:

This is a novel idea.

Recall that Sidney Powell is being sued by Dominion Voting Systems for defamation because of all the stuff she said about how they helped steal the election, and how they claim she knew her claims were both false and harmful to the company.

Powell's defense: No reasonable person would have believed her. (CNN)

Ahh... the “Fox News Defense.” They used the same tactic the last time Tucker Carlson got sued.

I’m pretty certain he won that case, too.
EDIT: Yep.

That would be hilarious if it wasn’t so infuriating.

ruhk wrote:
Keldar wrote:

This is a novel idea.

Recall that Sidney Powell is being sued by Dominion Voting Systems for defamation because of all the stuff she said about how they helped steal the election, and how they claim she knew her claims were both false and harmful to the company.

Powell's defense: No reasonable person would have believed her. (CNN)

Ahh... the “Fox News Defense.” They used the same tactic the last time Tucker Carlson got sued.

I’m pretty certain he won that case, too.
EDIT: Yep.

Tucker didn't go around filing multiple state and federal lawsuits alleging that very thing really did happen and saying the exact same thing to any reporter who would listen. And doing so for months.

Citing the plaintiff's briefs to characterize your conduct as unbelievable is a tactic, I guess.

Plaintiffs themselves characterize the statements at issue as “wild accusations” and “outlandish claims.” They are repeatedly labelled “inherently improbable” and even “impossible.” Such characterizations of the allegedly defamatory statements further support Defendants’ position that reasonable people would not accept such statements as fact but view them only as claims that await testing by the courts through the adversary process.

https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...

qaraq wrote:

Citing the plaintiff's briefs to characterize your conduct as unbelievable is a tactic, I guess.

Plaintiffs themselves characterize the statements at issue as “wild accusations” and “outlandish claims.” They are repeatedly labelled “inherently improbable” and even “impossible.” Such characterizations of the allegedly defamatory statements further support Defendants’ position that reasonable people would not accept such statements as fact but view them only as claims that await testing by the courts through the adversary process.

I guess it actually...is?

It's a defamation case, so if no one believes your claims, you haven't actually 'defamed' anyone.

The sleight-of-hand (or mouth) is in saying people could believe them "only as claims that await testing by the courts" but if you believe the result of the adversary process could be a test result that finds them true, well, you've just admitted that reasonable people could accept such statements as fact.

As evidenced by reality, people did believe them.

Edit: However, if they're saying that only unreasonable, stupid people believed them... well...

reasonable ones ; D

edit: crossed in posting : D

Those were very close together. Haha! I had that thought and came back.

Which is why we are now creating laws in states to stop said fake thing that only idiots would believe? The hoops my friends....the hoops...

While I disagree with Carlson's case win I can see the argument that a commentator has no obligation and duty to the truth.

An attorney should not be able to make that claim. At a minimum she should be disbarred and prevented from ever again holding an official position.

JLS wrote:

While I disagree with Carlson's case win I can see the argument that a commentator has no obligation and duty to the truth.

An attorney should not be able to make that claim. At a minimum she should be disbarred and prevented from ever again holding an official position.

She should also argue that she was stupid and unreasonable enough to believe her client's position... in which case, as their attorney, she had to represent it.

Rat Boy wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:

The first is just pure Schadenfreude. CNN reported over the weekend that Trump's personal Boeing 757 is currently languishing on an airport tarmac in Orange County, New York, about 60 miles north of Manhattan. One engine is wrapped in plastic and the other engine nacelle is empty.

With all the money they were taking the US for, they didn't take any to fix the plane?

He had a much nicer 747 to fly around on during the last 4 years, so I'm entirely unsurprised that his old rustbucket was gathering dust that entire time.

My guess is that they're looking for a single flight cycle not to get to a repair facility, but to get to a junkyard. I further guess that the reason that one engine is already missing is that it's already been cannabalized for parts to make a quick buck.

JLS wrote:

While I disagree with Carlson's case win I can see the argument that a commentator has no obligation and duty to the truth.

An attorney should not be able to make that claim. At a minimum she should be disbarred and prevented from ever again holding an official position.

Precisely. The argument made in defense of Tucker Carlson was that he was clearly not stating facts but rather entertaining an audience. And as an "entertainer" he was no more obligated to tell the truth than was, say, John Lovitz.

I think this argument is quite a bit harder to make as a member of the court.

LouZiffer wrote:
JLS wrote:

While I disagree with Carlson's case win I can see the argument that a commentator has no obligation and duty to the truth.

An attorney should not be able to make that claim. At a minimum she should be disbarred and prevented from ever again holding an official position.

She should also argue that she was stupid and unreasonable enough to believe her client's position... in which case, as their attorney, she had to represent it.

Even in this example there is still a difference between saying "the election was stolen" and actually falsely pointing at a company. (I think)

I saw my first Trump 2024 window sticker on a car ahead of me at a stop light today...

Court voids Trump campaign's non-disclosure agreement

Politico wrote:

A federal judge ruled Tuesday that a broad non-disclosure agreement that Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign required employees to sign is unenforceable.

U.S. District Court Judge Paul Gardephe’s ruling generally steered clear of the constitutional issues presented by such agreements in the context of political campaigns. Instead, the judge — an appointee of President George W. Bush — said the sweeping, boilerplate language the campaign compelled employees to sign was so vague that the agreement was invalid under New York contract law.
...

Gardephe issued the ruling in a case brought by Jessica Denson, a Hispanic outreach director for Trump in 2016 who accused the campaign of sex discrimination in separate litigation.

...

Technically, Gardephe’s decision applies only to Denson, barring the campaign from enforcing the NDA against her. But her attorneys said Tuesday they think the decision effectively nullifies all the NDAs the Trump campaign has issued.

Court lets ex-'Apprentice' contestant's defamation suit vs. Trump proceed again

NBC News wrote:

Former President Donald Trump could face questioning under oath about a former “Apprentice” contestant's sexual assault allegations against him, following a ruling from New York's highest court Tuesday.

Evidence-gathering has been on hold in Summer Zervos' defamation lawsuit since Trump asked the high court last year to declare that the presidency protected him from being sued in state courts. In a one-sentence ruling, the Court of Appeals tossed Trump's appeal as moot now that he's out of the White House.

New York attorney general probes finances of key Trump aide

Washington Post wrote:

The New York attorney general has gathered personal financial records of the Trump Organization’s longtime chief financial officer and his family, according to a witness who provided some documents — another sign of legal pressure on one of former president Donald Trump’s closest aides.

Allen Weisselberg has handled Trump’s finances for decades, rising to become the company’s most powerful person not named “Trump.”

Now, as the Trump Organization faces two separate investigations — led by state Attorney General Letitia James (D) and Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance Jr. (D) — it appears that both sets of investigators have begun scrutinizing Weisselberg’s personal finances as well.

In complex investigations, prosecutors often seek evidence of wrongdoing by subordinates as a way to pressure them to “flip” and reveal damaging information about their bosses. The pressure by both offices being brought to bear on Weisselberg appears designed to pursue that strategy against Trump, although neither James nor Vance has alleged wrongdoing by Trump, Weisselberg or anyone else.

James’s interest in Weisselberg’s personal finances was described by Jennifer Weisselberg, the CFO’s former daughter-in-law. Jennifer Weisselberg, who was married to Weisselberg’s son Barry from 2004 to 2018, told The Washington Post on Thursday that James’s investigators had taken seven boxes of financial data from her in November, including records of accounts held jointly by Barry and his father.

Jennifer Weisselberg said James’s office also wanted records about two Trump Organization-controlled apartments where she said she and her husband had lived rent-free. Barry Weisselberg was also a Trump employee: He helped manage one of the company’s ice rinks. In situations like this, tax experts say that a free apartment might be considered income for tax purposes.

“The attorney general is really focused on compensation,” Jennifer Weisselberg said. She said the investigators’ goal seemed to be determining whether proper taxes had been paid on free benefits.

Jennifer Weisselberg’s attorney, Duncan Levin, confirmed the inquiry by James’s office.

Attorneys for Allen and Barry Weisselberg both declined to comment for this article. The Trump Organization did not respond to a request for comment Thursday, but has previously cast James’s investigation as politically motivated.

I'd wager that kind of thing happens regularly in a multinational environment and automated procedures.

Still, I first read your statement as "Trump's Last Bladder" and couldn't wait to see what I'd find after the link!

Incompetent right up to the very last day. It's almost impressive how terrible he was at everything.

A 20-year veteran of the Salt Lake City police--who was once named officer of the year--just got popped by the FBI for taking part in the January insurrection.

A friend and relative of his both tipped off the FBI because he had sent them text messages saying ‘We stormed the Capitol, I am in here now!;’ ‘I know you don’t like [Donald] Trump, but He is the rightful President!;’ and, ‘We will return until we win!’ as well as photos from inside the Capitol Crypt.

A cop for two decades and the dumb motherf*cker does everything possible to incriminate himself.

His last blunder as president maybe. I'll believe it's his LAST blunder when he's cold in the ground.

OG_slinger wrote:

A cop for two decades and the dumb motherf*cker does everything possible to incriminate himself.

Well, sure. He probably expected a f*cking medal for his treason.

And being a cop, he's used to being insulated from any significant consequences for his actions.

How was Trump's campaign getting so many donations? Fraud.
NYTimes: How Trump Steered Supporters Into Unwitting Donations
Online donors were guided into weekly recurring contributions. Demands for refunds spiked. Complaints to banks and credit card companies soared. But the money helped keep Donald Trump’s struggling campaign afloat.

Stacy Blatt was in hospice care last September listening to Rush Limbaugh’s dire warnings about how badly Donald J. Trump’s campaign needed money when he went online and chipped in everything he could: $500.

It was a big sum for a 63-year-old battling cancer and living in Kansas City on less than $1,000 per month. But that single contribution — federal records show it was his first ever — quickly multiplied. Another $500 was withdrawn the next day, then $500 the next week and every week through mid-October, without his knowledge — until Mr. Blatt’s bank account had been depleted and frozen. When his utility and rent payments bounced, he called his brother, Russell, for help.

What the Blatts soon discovered was $3,000 in withdrawals by the Trump campaign in less than 30 days. They called their bank and said they thought they were victims of fraud.

“It felt,” Russell said, “like it was a scam.”

But what the Blatts believed was duplicity was actually an intentional scheme to boost revenues by the Trump campaign and the for-profit company that processed its online donations, WinRed. Facing a cash crunch and getting badly outspent by the Democrats, the campaign had begun last September to set up recurring donations by default for online donors, for every week until the election.

Contributors had to wade through a fine-print disclaimer and manually uncheck a box to opt out.

At one point 3% of all US credit card complaints were due to Trump campaign fraud.

Several bank representatives who fielded fraud claims directly from consumers estimated that WinRed cases, at their peak, represented as much as 1 to 3 percent of their workload. An executive for one of the nation’s larger credit-card issuers confirmed that WinRed at its height accounted for a similar percentage of its formal disputes.

That figure may seem small at first glance, but financial experts said it was a shockingly large percentage, considering that political donations represent a tiny fraction of the overall United States economy.

And yet a record number of them still voted for Trump despite his campaign ripping them off...

NYT wrote:

But for some Trump supporters like Ron Wilson, WinRed is a scam artist. Mr. Wilson, an 87-year-old retiree in Illinois, made a series of small contributions last fall that he thought would add up to about $200; by December, federal records show, WinRed and Mr. Trump’s committees had withdrawn more than 70 separate donations from Mr. Wilson worth roughly $2,300.

“Predatory!” Mr. Wilson said of WinRed. Like multiple other donors interviewed, though, he held Mr. Trump himself blameless, telling The Times, “I’m 100 percent loyal to Donald Trump.”

OG_slinger wrote:

And yet a record number of them still voted for Trump despite his campaign ripping them off...

NYT wrote:

But for some Trump supporters like Ron Wilson, WinRed is a scam artist. Mr. Wilson, an 87-year-old retiree in Illinois, made a series of small contributions last fall that he thought would add up to about $200; by December, federal records show, WinRed and Mr. Trump’s committees had withdrawn more than 70 separate donations from Mr. Wilson worth roughly $2,300.

“Predatory!” Mr. Wilson said of WinRed. Like multiple other donors interviewed, though, he held Mr. Trump himself blameless, telling The Times, “I’m 100 percent loyal to Donald Trump.”

Someone on Twitter said modern conservatism itself is as a scam. Trump will de-fraud you, Ben Shapiro hawks supplements, god knows what FOX NEWS is selling now. Conservative leaders have bottomless contempt for their followers, and it's easy to see why.

Colloidal silver baby!

freedom isn't free