Quote:

---

Originally posted by THG:


Here is a list of crimes Donald Trump has been credibly accused of since first running for office: This does not include his last indictment nor the Georgia indictment yet to come.

1) 52 U.S.C. §§ 30109, 30116, 30118; 18 U.S.C. § 2 Causing (or accepting) an individual contribution in excess of the lawful limit (2015)
2) 18 U.S.C. § 371 Conspiring to commit campaign finance offenses and/or defraud the enforcement of campaign finance laws (2015-2017)
3) 52 U.S.C. §§ 30104, 30109; 18 U.S.C. § 2 Causing a campaign committee to fail to report an unlawful corporate contribution (2016 - AMI)
4) 52 U.S.C. §§ 30104, 30109; 18 U.S.C. § 2 Causing a campaign committee to fail to report an unlawful corporate contribution (2016 - Cohen)
5) 52 U.S.C. §§ 30109, 30116, 30118; 18 U.S.C. § 2 Causing (or accepting) an individual campaign contribution in excess of statutory limits (2016)
6) 52 U.S.C. §§ 30109, 30118; 18 U.S.C. § 2 Causing (or accepting) an unlawful corporate campaign contribution (2016)
7) 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1519 Causing a campaign committee to fail to report an unlawful corporate contribution (2016-2017)
8) 18 U.S.C. § 1001 Knowingly omitting or failing to disclose a material fact (2017)
9) 5 U.S.C. app. § 104(a)(1)-(2) Knowingly and willfully failing to report required information (2017)
10) 18 U.S.C. § 1001; 18 U.S.C. § 2 Obstruction of justice and witness tampering (2017)
11) 18 U.S.C. §§ 1503, 1505, 1512(b); 1512(c)(2) Obstruction of justice and witness tampering (2017)
12) 18 U.S.C. §§ 1503, 1505, 1512(c)(2) Obstruction of justice (2017 - Flynn)
13) 18 U.S.C. §§ 1503, 1505, 1512(c)(2) Obstruction of justice (2017 - firing Comey)
14) 18 U.S.C. §§ 1503, 1505, 1512(c)(2) Obstruction of justice (2017 - Mueller)
15) 18 U.S.C. §§ 1503, 1505, 1512(c)(2) Obstruction of justice (2017 - attempted influencing Comey)
16) 18 U.S.C. §§ 1503, 1505, 1512(c)(2) Obstruction of justice (2017 - attempted firing Mueller)
17) 18 U.S.C. §§ 1503, 1505, 1512(c)(2) Obstruction of justice (2017 - 2018 - Sessions)
18) 18 U.S.C. § 1001 False statement (2017 - 2019)
19) 5 U.S.C. app. § 102(a)(3)) Criminal violation of the Ethics in Government Act (2017 - 2019)
20) 18 U.S.C. § 1361 Willful destruction of government property (2017 - 2021)
21) 18 U.S.C. § 2071 Willful destruction of government records (2017 - 2021)
22) 18 U.S.C. §§ 1503, 1505, 1512(b); 1512(c)(2) Obstruction of justice and witness tampering (2018 - Manafort)
23) 18 U.S.C. §§ 1503, 1505, 1512(c)(2) Obstruction of justice (2018 - McGahn)
24) 18 U.S.C. §§ 1503, 1505, 1512(c)(2) Obstruction of justice (2018 - Manafort jury)
25) 18 U.S.C. §§ 1503, 1505, 1512(b); 1512(c)(2) Obstruction of justice and witness tampering (2018 - 2019 - Cohen)
26) 18 U.S.C. §§ 1503, 1505, 1512(b); 1512(c)(2) Obstruction of justice and witness tampering (2018 - 2019 - Stone)
27) 18 U.S.C. § 201 Bribery (2019)
28) 18 U.S.C. § 610 Coercion of political activity (2019)
29) 18 U.S.C. § 641 Misappropriation of federal funds (2019)
30) 18 U.S.C. §§ 1505, 1512 Obstruction of Justice (2019 -Ukraine)
31) 52 U.S.C. §§ 30109, 30121 Soliciting unlawful foreign campaign contributions (2019)
32) 18 U.S.C. § 595 Criminal violation of the Hatch Act (2020)
33) 8 U.S.C. § 241 Conspiracy against rights (2020 - 2021)
34) 52 U.S.C. § 20511(2)(B) Depriving state residents a fair and impartial election process (2020 - 2021)
35) Ga. Code Ann. § 16-10-20 Knowingly making a false statement (2020 - 2021)
36) Ga. Code Ann. § 16-10-93 Influencing government officials to withhold or alter a record (2020 - 2021)
37) GaCodeAnn.§16-4-7 (soliciting at least one of GaCodeAnn.§§16-10-1, 16-10-20, 16-10-71, 16-10-8, 16-9-1(b), 16-9-93(b), 16-9-93(c)) Criminal solicitation of a felony (false statements and writings, false official certificates, false swearing, and/or computer trespass) (2020-1)
38) Ga. Code Ann. § 21-2-566 Interfering with primaries and elections (2020 - 2021)
39) Ga. Code Ann. § 21-2-603 Conspiracy to commit election fraud (2020 - 2021)
40) Ga. Code Ann. § 21-2-604 (soliciting at least one of Ga. Code Ann. §§ 21-2-596, 21-2-560, or 21-2-576 for a misdemeanor or Ga. Code Ann. §§ 21-2-566, 21-2-575, or 21-2-562 for a felony) Criminal solicitation to commit election fraud (2020 - 2021)
We know we said Justice Dept. up top, but yeah, some of these are state crimes. There are a lot of crimes. Back to the list:
41) Ga. Code Ann. § 21-2-604 (soliciting at least one of Ga. Code Ann. §§ 21-2-596, 21-2-560, or 21-2-576 for a misdemeanor or Ga. Code Ann. §§ 21-2-566, 21-2-575, or 21-2-562 for a felony) Criminal solicitation to commit election fraud (2020 - 2021)
42) Ga. Code Ann. § 21-2-604 (soliciting at least one of Ga. Code Ann. §§ 21-2-596, 21-2-560, or 21-2-576 for a misdemeanor or Ga. Code Ann. §§ 21-2-566, 21-2-575, or 21-2-562 for a felony) Criminal solicitation to commit election fraud (2020 - 2021 - Fake electors)
43) Ga. Code Ann. § 21-2-604 (soliciting at least one of Ga. Code Ann. §§ 21-2-596, 21-2-560, or 21-2-576 for a misdemeanor or Ga. Code Ann. §§ 21-2-566, 21-2-575, or 21-2-562 for a felony) Criminal solicitation to commit election fraud (2020 - 2021 - fraudulent results)
44) 18 U.S.C. § 1512 Obstruction of an Official Proceeding (2020 - 2021)
45) 18 U.S.C. § 371 Conspiracy to defraud (2020 - 2021)
46) 18 U.S.C. § 372 Conspiracy to prevent an officer from discharging any duties (2020 - 2021)
47) 18 U.S.C. § 595 Interference in Election by Employees of Federal or State Governments (2020 - 2021)
48) 18 U.S.C. § 610 Coercion of political activity (2020 - 2021)
49) 18 U.S.C.§ 2384 Seditious conspiracy (2020 - 2021)
50) Ga. Code Ann. § 16-14-1 et. seq Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) violation (2020 - 2021)
51) Ga. Code Ann. § 21-2-597 Intentional interference with the performance of election duties (2021)
52) 18 U.S.C. § 793(e) Unauthorized possession of national defense information (2021 - 2022)
53) 18 U.S.C. § 1519 Obstruction of justice (2021 - 2022)
54) 18 U.S.C. § 2071 Concealment, removal, or destruction of government records (2021 - 2022)
55) 18 U.S.C. § 1343 Wire fraud (2021-2022)
So there it is — 55 crimes that Donald J. Trump has credibly been accused of. And that's just since he started running for president. It doesn't include the crimes he may have committed before then.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JAYNEZTOWN:
So let's imagine he wins a little more than half

From that other thread

---

Quote:

---

We are seeing courtroom victories, legislative leadership, investigation breakthroughs, partnership opportunities, and best of all, a steady rise in the number of faithful Americans who recognize our country is in peril and are speaking out and stepping up in new ways, translating their passions into actions, all for the good of the Republic. It’s exciting!

The last few years have been extremely difficult - and we all know the difficulties are far from over. But, there is no battle that cannot be won if Americans stand together. I’ll restrain myself from launching a full-on pep rally, but we have a lot to be positive about:

Arizona Superior Court in Yavapai County found that the state’s process for signature matching on mail-in ballots was unlawful. A Georgia Federal Court affirmed protections against ballot harvesting and dropbox abuse. And in Florida Federal Court, a suit that attempted to prevent President Trump from running for reelection was dismissed.

Common-sense legislative reforms are happening all over the country. To give you a sense of the scale of battle, check out this tracker from Voting Rights Lab, currently following 1,894 election related bills. (Note: Voting Rights Lab is not a fan of ours, nor do we share their views, but I thought you would find their spreadsheet approach insightful).

Researchers are making strides in uncovering ballot trafficking, machine manipulation, election finance abuse, noncitizen registration, and more. Evidence-backed announcements from Kari Lake’s team and Gateway Pundit are testaments to the value of perseverance - and there’s more to come! We are privileged to work with so many great teams, providing research, tech, and legal support when needed.

Last week I wrote about our three non-negotiable goals for 2024:

Election processes must follow the law.

Voter rolls must be accurate.

Citizens, sheriffs, and legislators must be equipped to participate.

While we continue to make great headway, last week we advanced exponentially; new tech, new collaborations, new opportunities - all good!

And finally, we are thrilled to see the growing numbers of people who recognize that America is worth saving; that we are not going to stand by silently and let WEF, WHO, and Marxist politicos define our future; and that engaging in elections, by voting, by serving, will unite us in ways we’ve never experienced, for the good.

Hard times are still ahead. We will continue to take massive incoming. But we are over the target. And God’s people are awake and increasingly, rightfully, unafraid.

Keep the faith. Never quit.

Ever onward-

PS - I’ll be back online tonight (Monday, 9/11 @ 7p et). Click here to join in!

Quote:

---

October 06, 2023 | Read Online
Logo
Ineligibles and The Aftermath

Several weeks ago, True the Vote published a short paper titled The Aftermath. Written as part of a broader collection of our recent work in Georgia, The Aftermath addressed the impact Georgia’s dirty voter rolls had on the 2020 election and a meeting I had in 2020 with Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger and his team, where we discussed True the Vote’s plans to assist Georgia citizens in challenging ineligible voter records.
The Lawsuit

Our efforts were immediately met with a lawsuit filed against us by attorney Marc Elias on behalf of Stacey Abrams’ organization Fair Fight. The DOJ has now joined with Fair Fight against us. This case has been ongoing since December 2020. Our federal court trial begins in Georgia on October 26th, 2023.
The Indictments

Now, nineteen people, including Donald Trump, have been indicted by Fulton County D. A. Fani Willis. She’s charged them with multiple felony counts over their involvement in the 2020 election, each related explicitly to whether there were known, potentially outcome-determinative inaccuracies in Georgia’s election that were being covered up.
The Truth

Seeing this, I decided to take what I’d written in The Aftermath and turn it into an affidavit. A notarized copy is attached here for use in any way that may be helpful. Here’s an excerpt:

“... I left the meeting unsettled by the seeming indifference the Raffensperger team had shown about their knowledge that the voter rolls had been so markedly inaccurate during the November election. At that time we did not yet have a copy of the state’s published record of voters in the General Election, but because the state uses services like ERIC, which also uses NCOA to identify ineligible records, the Secretary of State’s office knew, or should have known, there were hundreds of thousands of potentially ineligible voters casting votes, hence Raffensperger’s admonition that “The G.O.P should have been doing this all along.”

8. Little more than two weeks later, on January 2nd, 2021, Secretary Raffensperger and members of his staff had a call with President Trump and members of his team. On that call, President Trump asked about inaccurate voter records. Both Secretary Raffensperger and General Counsel Ryan Germany stated that they had fully evaluated the various claims of election irregularities and said without qualification there was no evidence to support them, including no problems with the voting records. This statement was knowingly false. Both men were well-aware of that falsity at the time.

9. True the Vote has completed a review of the voting patterns relating to those 364,541 records identified as ineligible based on permanent change of residency.

10. In Georgia’s November 2020 elections, approximately 67,284 votes were cast that should likely not have been counted because the voters’ registrations were ineligible based on permanent change of residency.

a. Out of County. 48,207 of those votes corresponded to voters who had moved to a different county within Georgia.

b. Out of State. 19,077 of those votes corresponded to voters who no longer lived in Georgia.

11. While we cannot know who voted for which candidate in those ballots that should not have been counted, we do know that the two presidential candidates were separated by only 11,779 votes. It is of great concern that the number of votes for which the address verification requirement was essentially waived in the 2020 General Election could well have been outcome-determinative.”
Aftermath of The Aftermath

This week, Secretary Raffensperger announced efforts to evaluate, inactivate, or remove the voter registration records of 679,749 ineligible voter records.

While we applaud what appear to be efforts to ensure only eligible voters vote in 2024, there were no such efforts in 2020. According to available state and federal data, over 300,000 ineligible records were on the rolls, and over 67,000 ineligible voters appear to have voted.

It was not only fitting for leaders to question the accuracy of the 2020 General Election, it was their obligation to do so.

May God guide us all through these dark days. May the journey make us stronger.

Ever onward -

P.S. On April 15th, 2023 Georgia Governor Brian Kemp said, “For nearly three years now, anyone with evidence of fraud has failed to come forward -- under oath -- and prove anything in a court of law.” Cleverly worded, Kemp leaves out the number of cases presented but never investigated or filed but not advanced to discovery. They didn’t want to know the answers, so they prevented questions from being asked.

People have had enough. Things are changing for the better. Never quit.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
The day Trump's bond was reduced by about $300 million, his Truth Social went public, and he acquired over $3 Billion in cash position - the wealthiest he has been in his life. 2 days later, it was $5 Billion.

The Stock marker is DJT.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

Twitter has never made anybody any money outside of its trading in the stock market. So if they haven't figured out how to do this in all of that time, I have no idea how anybody believes that Truth Social will crack that code.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

Twitter has never made anybody any money outside of its trading in the stock market. So if they haven't figured out how to do this in all of that time, I have no idea how anybody believes that Truth Social will crack that code.

---

Truth Social is more of Trump Casino. Both were solely about making Trump rich and not designed to make investors rich, other than to temporarily give investors good feelings so that they will invest with Trump.

The last time a Trump company went public it didn't go well for investors
Trump made millions in the 1990s when his casino company went public. Investors lost a fortune.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/last-time-trump-company-
went-public-didnt-go-well-investors-rcna144657

Will Truth Social face the same fate as Trump's casinos? (It will.)
CNN's Brianna Keilar breaks down the parallels between the financial struggles former President Donald Trump faced with his casino empire and his present day troubles with Truth Social.
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2024/04/04/truth-social-trump-casi
nos-sot-src-vpx.cnn

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
The day Trump's bond was reduced by about $300 million, his Truth Social went public, and he acquired over $3 Billion in cash position - the wealthiest he has been in his life. 2 days later, it was $5 Billion.

The Stock marker is DJT.

---

Well... you've got to tell the whole story as it is when you report it...

Especially when it's so easy to look up even if you didn't offer up the stock marker.

---

Quote:

---

Not trying to crap on your parade or anything, but you should probably either vet your own news sources when somebody makes claims, or if you're actually presenting false and/or old information that is now longer true as currently true, you probably shouldn't do it with something that is blatantly and easily verifiable as not true.

I hope Trump does well with the Truth Social thing, but I haven't brought it up a single time in here yet because I'm the last person who is going to pretend to understand how social media platforms that don't actually make any money have market caps like they do. Maybe people are so heavily invested in them as a form of gambling that one day one of them will finally figure out how to successfully market their platforms in a tangible way where they actually make quarterly profits that aren't built entirely on speculation.

This whole thing to me is not to dissimilar to the NFT scams and what I believe will one day be the largest I Told You So moment of my life when Bitcoin goes bust and the entire crypto market vaporizes.


Twitter has never made anybody any money outside of its trading in the stock market. So if they haven't figured out how to do this in all of that time, I have no idea how anybody believes that Truth Social will crack that code.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I was not aware that folk buying DJT were making financial investment choices. I had not heard of this being the case.

---

Quote:

---

If Blackrock invests solely in all of the garbage social media, then why would not reasonable folk put their money into the opposite?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
SCOTUS questioning on the Immunity Appeal for Jan 6 - why was Bowman not imprisoned for an actual, real violation of this Fake Charge?

Ruling comes out in June or July. It is looking good.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Has been really hard to keep up with all of the news of all of the cases Trump is winning.

Yet another Biden Orchestrated and Synchronized Lawfare scam falls flat, won't move before the election.

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/judge-delays-donald-trumps-classified-212100
014.html

Of the 4 main Biden Orchestrated and Synchronized Lawfare cases, it looks like all have failed so far. Only the accounting scam in corrupt NYC is doing anything (such as cranking up Trump's poll numbers).

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
You'd better pray that the Porn Star saves you...

Trump classified documents trial suspended indefinitely

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/justice/2995090/trump-classifi
ed-documents-trial-suspended-indefinitely/

That was your only thing coming close to a real case. It ain't happening until after the election, if at all.



--------------------------------------------------

Political correctness is just tyranny, with a smiley face.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I was not aware that folk buying DJT were making financial investment choices. I had not heard of this being the case.

---

Oh really?

Quote:

---

If Blackrock invests solely in all of the garbage social media, then why would not reasonable folk put their money into the opposite?

---

Knock yourself out. Let us know how it goes.

Right now it's worth $26.55. Just a couple cents more than it was worth on January 19th.

I hope you didn't buy it on day one of the IPO. You're not getting that money back.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I was not aware that folk buying DJT were making financial investment choices. I had not heard of this being the case.

---

Oh really?

Quote:

---

If Blackrock invests solely in all of the garbage social media, then why would not reasonable folk put their money into the opposite?

---

Knock yourself out. Let us know how it goes.

Right now it's worth $26.55. Just a couple cents more than it was worth on January 19th.

I hope you didn't buy it on day one of the IPO. You're not getting that money back.

---

Looks like DJT has been hanging around $50.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN (on May 8th):

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I was not aware that folk buying DJT were making financial investment choices. I had not heard of this being the case.

---

Oh really?

Quote:

---

If Blackrock invests solely in all of the garbage social media, then why would not reasonable folk put their money into the opposite?

---

Knock yourself out. Let us know how it goes.

Right now it's worth $26.55. Just a couple cents more than it was worth on January 19th.

I hope you didn't buy it on day one of the IPO. You're not getting that money back.

---

Looks like DJT has been hanging around $50.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN (on May 8th):

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I was not aware that folk buying DJT were making financial investment choices. I had not heard of this being the case.

---

Oh really?

Quote:

---

If Blackrock invests solely in all of the garbage social media, then why would not reasonable folk put their money into the opposite?

---

Knock yourself out. Let us know how it goes.

Right now it's worth $26.55. Just a couple cents more than it was worth on January 19th.

I hope you didn't buy it on day one of the IPO. You're not getting that money back.

---

Looks like DJT has been hanging around $50.

---

https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/djt?mod=mw_quote_switch

Today DJT closed over $53. On the 9th it closed over $54. I thought it bounced up to $58 one of those days.

Yup, quite the loser. $26 to $54.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN (11 April):
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/apr/10/allen-weisselberg-sent
enced-perjury-trump-fraud-trial

He is 76.
So sure, he plead the case.
He admitted testifying truthfully under oath, and for that - in New York Court, it is called perjury - he will serve some time.
New York corrupt Court, crooked Judge, corrupt AG needed him to lie under oath and say Mar-a-Lago really, really, really was worth only $18 or so, along with all of his other properties, just like the Judge said they were worthless.
But he didn't lie under oath, he never lied about Trump, and so he must pay the price for honestly - being convicted (I think) or at least pleading to perjury.

Yet another win for Trump.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN (on May 8th):

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I was not aware that folk buying DJT were making financial investment choices. I had not heard of this being the case.

---

Oh really?

Quote:

---

If Blackrock invests solely in all of the garbage social media, then why would not reasonable folk put their money into the opposite?

---

Knock yourself out. Let us know how it goes.

Right now it's worth $26.55. Just a couple cents more than it was worth on January 19th.

I hope you didn't buy it on day one of the IPO. You're not getting that money back.

---

Looks like DJT has been hanging around $50.

---

https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/djt?mod=mw_quote_switch

Today DJT closed over $53. On the 9th it closed over $54. I thought it bounced up to $58 one of those days.

Yup, quite the loser. $26 to $54.

---

Sell it now and make a few bucks then.
Or completely disregard the facts in my last post and hold it until it's worthless.
It ain't my money. You do whatever you feel is right.
And I see that there was zero attempt on your part to enlighten us just as to how a company like DJT is actually making money and legitimately propping up the stock price beyond it being just another gambling site for stock speculators.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN (on May 8th):

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I was not aware that folk buying DJT were making financial investment choices. I had not heard of this being the case.

---

Oh really?

Quote:

---

If Blackrock invests solely in all of the garbage social media, then why would not reasonable folk put their money into the opposite?

---

Knock yourself out. Let us know how it goes.

Right now it's worth $26.55. Just a couple cents more than it was worth on January 19th.

I hope you didn't buy it on day one of the IPO. You're not getting that money back.

---

Looks like DJT has been hanging around $50.

---

https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/djt?mod=mw_quote_switch

Today DJT closed over $53. On the 9th it closed over $54. I thought it bounced up to $58 one of those days.

Yup, quite the loser. $26 to $54.

---

Sell it now and make a few bucks then.
Or completely disregard the facts in my last post and hold it until it's worthless.
It ain't my money. You do whatever you feel is right.
And I see that there was zero attempt on your part to enlighten us just as to how a company like DJT is actually making money and legitimately propping up the stock price beyond it being just another gambling site for stock speculators.

---

You don't seem to be listening. Even though you just quoted the answers.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN (on May 8th):

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I was not aware that folk buying DJT were making financial investment choices. I had not heard of this being the case.

---

Oh really?

Quote:

---

If Blackrock invests solely in all of the garbage social media, then why would not reasonable folk put their money into the opposite?

---

Knock yourself out. Let us know how it goes.

Right now it's worth $26.55. Just a couple cents more than it was worth on January 19th.

I hope you didn't buy it on day one of the IPO. You're not getting that money back.

---

Looks like DJT has been hanging around $50.

---

https://www.marketwatch.com/inve
sting/stock/djt?mod=mw_quote_switch

Today DJT closed over $53. On the 9th it closed over $54. I thought it bounced up to $58 one of those days.

Yup, quite the loser. $26 to $54.

---

Sell it now and make a few bucks then.
Or completely disregard the facts in my last post and hold it until it's worthless.
It ain't my money. You do whatever you feel is right.
And I see that there was zero attempt on your part to enlighten us just as to how a company like DJT is actually making money and legitimately propping up the stock price beyond it being just another gambling site for stock speculators.

---

You don't seem to be listening. Even though you just quoted the answers.

---

Those aren't answers. Those are just bullshit disguised as sentences.

Explain to me how DJT makes actual tangible profits. What service does it provide and how does it monetize this service? How is it profitable? How much Gross profit does it make from quarter to quarter? How much are their expenses in those same quarters? How much net revenue do they expect next quarter? What do they project for the same quarter five years from now?

You won't answer one of those questions because you CAN'T answer any of those questions.

Have fun gambling.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I was not aware that folk buying DJT were making financial investment choices. I had not heard of this being the case.If Blackrock invests solely in all of the garbage social media, then why would not reasonable folk put their money into the opposite?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
None of that means anything or matters.

---

Quote:

---

6 Takeaways From the Supreme Court’s Decision on Trump and Presidential Immunity
By Elie Honig, a former federal and state prosecutor and a contributor to CAFE
Supreme Court

We now have the Supreme Court’s immunity decision and — wow.

In large part, it’s what we expected and forecast in this space. But the Court’s opinion expands presidential power (and bolsters Trump’s legal defenses) substantially more than anybody reasonably predicted.

There’s a lot here, so let’s break down today’s decision. Here are the biggest takeaways.

Criminal immunity exists. This is, in itself, a headline. We’ve recognized civil immunity — protecting federal officials from lawsuits for their official, on-the-job actions — since the 1982 Supreme Court decision Nixon v. Fitzgerald. But, until today, it remained an open question whether there even was such a thing as criminal immunity. Now we know: There is.

Criminal immunity is not “blanket” or “absolute” — but it’s pretty darn broad. This has mostly been a problem of nomenclature. It’s easy to scoff at a claim that a president is immune (absolutely!) for everything he does from the moment he takes the oath of office at noon on January 20 until his term ends four years later. But, in reality, Trump’s team made no such argument to the Supreme Court, though it did (unwisely) float it below. Rather, his team argued for a more limited form of criminal immunity, which the Supreme Court has now accepted and then some. He’s immune, in many circumstances (more on this in a moment) — but no president or former president has all-encompassing, “blanket” coverage.

It all depends on whether the president’s actions were official or unofficial. As expected, and roughly parallel with civil immunity, a president is criminally immune for official acts taken within the scope of the job. But there are two crucial kickers here.

First, the Court will construe the job description quite broadly in the president’s favor. According to the decision, the boss is immune for anything within “the ‘outer perimeter’ of the President’s official responsibilities, covering actions so long as they are ‘not manifestly or palpably beyond his authority.”

Second, while a president cannot be indicted for his official acts, a prosecutor cannot even introduce evidence of any official act as part of a prosecution. So, for example, in DOJ special counsel Jack Smith’s 2020 election subversion case, the Court made clear that Trump’s contacts with the Justice Department (to try to arm-twist prosecutors to investigate and find election fraud) are within the scope of the job and cannot play any part in Smith’s presentation of evidence of the jury, even if necessary to explain the entire sequence of events in a coherent manner.

A president (probably) cannot order SEAL Team Six to assassinate a political rival and get away with it. As we discussed in a recent column, the SEAL Team Six hypothetical — and Trump’s claim that he could be indicted only if he was first impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate — oversimplified and distorted the actual legal issue at hand. I wrote then, “Count on the Supreme Court blowing past the impeachment argument and rejecting it out of hand. But that won’t end the inquiry. Look for the Court to consider, and potentially to create, a criminal-immunity test based roughly on whether conduct falls within or beyond the president’s official job responsibilities.” That’s essentially what has now happened.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor argues that the Court’s ruling would permit a president to order an assassination without consequences, but I respectfully dissent from that dissent. I don’t see any way a court concludes that such a plot would be an “official act” within the scope of the job. I might be wrong; we don’t know. Justice Sotomayor is right to at least highlight the dilemma.

This trial will not happen before the election. It’s over, folks. The chances of a pre-election trial on Smith’s 2020 election indictment have now slipped from “unlikely but possible” to flat-out zero. That’s because the Court sent the case back down to the district court with instructions to hold a hearing to determine which acts are within or beyond the scope of the presidency. Okay, so can’t Judge Tanya Chutkan hold that hearing in the next couple weeks and get this thing back on track for an early fall trial? Nope. Because the Supreme Court went out of its way to specify, several times over, that Trump has the right to appeal the trial judge’s determinations on this issue before the trial. That’ll blow this case out until well after the November 2024 election.

All four Trump criminal cases are in trouble to varying degrees. Smith’s 2020 election case won’t happen before the election — or maybe even in 2025, given that he can go through the whole appeal process again — and his indictment will look like Swiss cheese once all the official acts are removed. Fulton County district attorney Fani Willis’s election-subversion indictment was already circling the drain on its own demerits, and now it faces the same immunity problems as Smith’s case. Trump also has claimed immunity in Smith’s federal classified-documents case and, while it’s tough to imagine how he could be immune for conduct that occurred entirely after he left office, Trump will have a renewed argument that he obtained the government documents in the first place as part of his job as president. Even the Manhattan hush-money conviction now stands in doubt. Watch for Trump to argue that some of the evidence admitted against him — including conversations he had with White House adviser Hope Hicks, while he was in office in 2017 — is entitled to immunity and was wrongly admitted at trial. It’s all a big mess, far more so now than it was yesterday.

We all cherish the slogan “No person is above the law.” But now we need to add a rejoinder: “Except, in large part, the president.”

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
SCOTUS rules that Presidential Immunity actually exists? SHOCKERS!!

Some Fake News outlets have hammered on the partial portion of the ruling. This is simply because in order to defend the obvious Immunity against the obvious Abuse of DoJ, they needed to not curtail the scope of future presidents, and made expansive opportunities for SCOTUS to support - and so this gave the Court ample room to give table scraps to the Abusive Ministry Of Truth.


Regarding the other charges thrown out, I have not heard if there has been a mass exodus from jails and prisons of those falsely charged (and convicted).

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
SCOTUS rules that Presidential Immunity actually exists? SHOCKERS!!

Some Fake News outlets have hammered on the partial portion of the ruling. This is simply because in order to defend the obvious Immunity against the obvious Abuse of DoJ, they needed to not curtail the scope of future presidents, and made expansive opportunities for SCOTUS to support - and so this gave the Court ample room to give table scraps to the Abusive Ministry Of Truth.


Regarding the other charges thrown out, I have not heard if there has been a mass exodus from jails and prisons of those falsely charged (and convicted).

---

I have no idea what you just posted. Can you re- explain?

Seems like this gives past Presidents of BOTH parties license to do all sorts of criminal mischief.

That's a mighty big stick to give to either party.

Can't imagine that's what SCOTUS intended, so maybe some examples might help.

-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." - Henry Kissinger

Why SECOND'S posts are brainless: "I clocked how much time: no more than 10 minutes per day. With cut-and-paste (Ctrl C and Ctrl V) and AI, none of this takes much time."
Or, any verification or thought.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
SCOTUS rules that Presidential Immunity actually exists? SHOCKERS!!

Some Fake News outlets have hammered on the partial portion of the ruling. This is simply because in order to defend the obvious Immunity against the obvious Abuse of DoJ, they needed to not curtail the scope of future presidents, and made expansive opportunities for SCOTUS to support - and so this gave the Court ample room to give table scraps to the Abusive Ministry Of Truth.


Regarding the other charges thrown out, I have not heard if there has been a mass exodus from jails and prisons of those falsely charged (and convicted).

---

I have no idea what you just posted. Can you re- explain?

Seems like this gives past Presidents of BOTH parties license to do all sorts of criminal mischief.

That's a mighty big stick to give to either party.

Can't imagine that's what SCOTUS intended, so maybe some examples might help.

---

I'd like to know more as well.

Though I'll be the first person to celebrate another Trump win, I wonder if this will be an unfortunate power grab that could be misused by anybody in the future.

If so, anybody crying about it today would be cheering it on when people they vote for use it, and vice versa, until there's really nothing left to fight about.

I'd like to know more about the specifics of this one and ponder over how it might be used and misused in the future.

---

Quote:

---

“Today’s decision to grant former Presidents criminal immunity reshapes the institution of the Presidency,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in her dissent. “It makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law.”

“The majority today endorses an expansive vision of Presidential immunity that was never recognized by the Founders, any sitting President, the Executive Branch, or even President Trump’s lawyers, until now. Settled under- standings of the Constitution are of little use to the majority in this case, and so it ignores them,” Sotomayor said.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Trump Classified Docs Case Dismissed, Judge Finds Special Counsel Appointment Unconstitutional

"The Special Counsel’s position effectively usurps that important legislative authority, transferring it to a Head of Department, and in the process threatening the structural liberty inherent in the separation of powers," Cannon wrote in her decision. "He can be appointed and confirmed through the default method prescribed in the Appointments Clause, as Congress has directed for United States Attorneys throughout American history."

"Dismissal of this action is the only appropriate solution for the Appointments Clause violation."

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/trump-classified-docs-case-dismissed
-judge-finds-special-counsel-appointment

-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." - Henry Kissinger

Why SECOND'S posts are brainless: "I clocked how much time: no more than 10 minutes per day. With cut-and-paste (Ctrl C and Ctrl V) and AI, none of this takes much time."
Or, any verification or thought.

---