What does the future hold for Donald Trump? - threadbans in OP

Penn

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120287003#Comment_120287003

Because it can be used by Trump to argue that the grand jury was biased against him and that they're investigating him for show.

We all know that's not true, and the evidence will surely show that's not true. But legal experts have suggested it'll likely be used by Trump to try and have any indictments dismissed.

Her comments likely didn't end up jeopardising the case, but they could have.

archermoo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120287054#Comment_120287054

Her fangirling over the chance that she could've met Trump shows bias AGAINST him? If anything it shows bias for him. She thought it would've been cool if she could have sworn him in. Sure, Trump's lawyers will bring up all sorts of crazy stuff to try and get any indictments against him dismissed. That was going to be the case whether she was interviewed or not. But unless his lawyers actually find something reasonable to object to they'll get laughed out of court. Like happened with almost all of the court cases he filed trying to get the election overturned in the first place.

Sure, the prosecutor would probably have been happiest if she hadn't done any of the interviews. But her interviews aren't going to be the deciding factor on whether or not Trump is convicted of any of the crimes he has committed.

martingriff

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120286955#Comment_120286955

In case you did not know Ireland and the US are different countries and laws. As in here there can be no discussions during a trial the US generally does not

Tell me how

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120286939#Comment_120286939

My original post on the matter alluded to the fact that I have an issue with the system allowing her to do this, not directly with her for doing the interviews, although I do think it is completely inappropriate when it relates to ongoing investigations.

The very fact that the GJ is investigating attempts to overthrow the results of an election is reason for here to stay out of the public eye, not justification for her to look to be in it.

She is not legally trained or qualified so to put herself in a position where she is determining the legality of questions being asked is a massive red flag in my view. Wait until it is over, write the book and do your media tour if you want, not going out at this point and thinking what you are doing is not going to have an impact is at best careless, at worst, idiotic.

Overheal

I think people are also forgetting she said one of the coolest things she got to do was ‘shake Guliani’s hand’

That statement and the one fangirling about swearing in the former president don’t legally jeopardize the process nor did it implicate a bias against the witnesses.

archermoo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120287229#Comment_120287229

She had an excellent reason to think that what she was doing wouldn't have an impact on the case. She and the other jurors were given instructions from the judge as to what they were and were not allowed to talk about. And she made sure she didn't cross that line.

And I haven't seen any indication that she sought any of this out. Have you seen anything indicating the she approached the news organizations rather than the other way around?

As to whether it should be legal or not, neither your nor my opinion on it really matters. That one is entirely up to the state of Georgia. Or possibly Fulton county, I'm not sure if their laws about grand juries differ from the state laws. And federal laws would only cover federal grand juries. I can say that in general such laws in the US are written from the perspective that individual rights should only be limited when there is a compelling reason to do so. This certainly causes problems sometimes, and not every locality agrees with what constitutes a compelling reason.

What I can say is that I certainly won't blame someone who is suddenly thrust into the limelight for talking about her experience to the extent that she is legally allowed to do so. An experience that she was clearly excited about having been a part of.

Rjd2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120287264#Comment_120287264

I understand for better or worse Trump having young fans, but she is what 30 or so? How the hell does anyone that age like Rudy , the guy is a laughing stock everywhere ffs.

Penn

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120289386#Comment_120289386

I don't think any of it is about liking Giuliani or fangirling over meeting Trump. In another comment she said to her boyfriend about how cool it was that as the foreperson of the grand jury into Trump's election meddling, if she was in a room with Biden and Trump, they'd both know who she was and would want to talk to her.

She appears more taken with her own rise in status and attention that these people would be interested in speaking with her and would know who she was, rather than her having the opportunity to meet or speak with them.

robinph

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120289386#Comment_120289386

Doesn't mean that you have to be a fan of said person. Gulliani is still someone notable from the Trump times and to be able to tell the grandkids that you once met them is of note, regardless of if you liked them or not.

archermoo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120289548#Comment_120289548

Yeah she seems much more to be excited about "I got to meet {famous person}!" than being a fan of that specific person. I think she'd have been just as excited about meeting Biden.

Quin_Dub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120286955#Comment_120286955

Not after the case is closed , which in her case it is.

Her job is done.

MisterAnarchy

https://twitter.com/WSJ/status/1629851338069667841

Well well well what do we have here ?

It only took them 2.5 years to figure out what the dog on the street knew.

Yet another prime example of the Fake News that Trump rightly called out during his tenure.

April 18, 2020:

Then-President Donald Trump, says “a lot of people are looking” into the possibility of a lab leak, and says the theory “seems to make sense”; Dr. Anthony Fauci, then the government’s leading infectious disease expert, refutes Trump’s claim, citing a study that found the virus’ mutations are “consistent with a jump of a species from an animal to a human.”

https://www.forbes.com/sites/marisadellatto/2023/02/26/timeline-how-the-covid-lab-leak-origin-story-went-from-conspiracy-theory-to-government-debate/?sh=775f6c2237b9

Quin_Dub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120293686#Comment_120293686

A conclusion they themselves describe as "low confidence" , meaning they don't really believe it either..

The Department of Energy and the FBI, have determined Covid-19 was leaked from a lab, according to the Journal. The FBI came to its conclusion in 2021 with “moderate confidence.” Four agencies have reportedly determined with “low confidence” the virus was transmitted naturally through animals. The CIA and one other unnamed agency remain undecided between the two origin theories.

AlmightyCushion

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120293686#Comment_120293686

Even the department of energy's latest stance is with a low degree of confidence. I may be misremembering but I don't think many of the experts completely dismissed it at being a lab leak. They dismissed that it was artificially created in a lab. This doesn't change anything. Just because it leaked from a lab doesn't mean it was artificially created.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/anthony-fauci-wuhan-lab-coronavirus-source-dismissal/

from 2020. Fauci doesn't dismiss the lab leak theory as fake news or whatever just says that it still means it developed in the wild and was brought in to a lab.

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120293686#Comment_120293686

What exactly was trump right about and Fauci wrong about? From the quote you use, it doesn't seem there was disagreement as they are on two different topics (was it created and leaked vs. was it from an animal and leaked):

Then-President Donald Trump, says “a lot of people are looking” into the possibility of a lab leak, and says the theory “seems to make sense”; Dr. Anthony Fauci, then the government’s leading infectious disease expert, refutes Trump’s claim, citing a study that found the virus’ mutations are “consistent with a jump of a species from an animal to a human.”

What Fauci said “consistent with a jump of a species from an animal to a human.” is still the prevailing wisdom.

TheIrishGrover

Ah that font of all knowledge is back: The Dog In The Street.

How can Covid have come from a Chinese Lab when it CLEARLY simultaneously didn't exist AND was created by Bill Gates to monitor people for when JFK Jnr returned from the grave to run with trump in 2024?

HOW? I mean it simply makes no sense!

Snake Plisken

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120293686#Comment_120293686

Embarrassing for the lads on here! Watch the usual excuses and deflections

https://twitter.com/SeanParnellUSA/status/1630181661454286849?s=19

Igotadose

#ETTD: Former Catholic adviser to TFG, now defrocked, is being accused of sexual molestation by a number of women: https://www.thedailybeast.com/trumps-ex-adviser-frank-pavone-of-priests-for-life-rocked-by-sex-scandal

TheIrishGrover

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120295227#Comment_120295227

Why?

everlast75

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120293686#Comment_120293686

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120295227#Comment_120295227

So what ye are telling me is that these two purported "gotchas" are nonsense?

Well, I never....

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120293740#Comment_120293740

Yeah, as long as we are keeping score there are more agencies stating it has a natural origin.

Though I find it mildly bizarre that each agency shares their own separate conclusions.

MisterAnarchy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120295032#Comment_120295032

Thats right yes, last time ye thought the dog on the street was amusing it was in denial of Musk taking over Twitter and Trump being reinstated on Twitter.

Guess what the dog was right.

Btw who did I have that bet with about Trump being back on Twitter before the end of 2022 , its time to pay up.

AlmightyCushion

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120295227#Comment_120295227

Read the actual article.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/7kpzv4/trumps-wuhan-lab-coronavirus-conspiracy-theory-is-bogus-according-to-uh-everyone

Trump made the claims at a White House press briefing last Thursday, claiming he had seen evidence that COVID-19 had originated at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, before US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo doubled-down on Sunday, saying there was “enormous evidence” to back up the theory.

with the World Health Organization, Western intelligence sources and even Trump’s top infectious disease expert Dr. Anthony Fauci all saying there is no evidence to back the theory.

So, their complaint is there is no evidence to back it up. Trump said there was enormous evidence. Maybe if he had shared it, they might have considered it.

“If you look at the evolution of the virus in bats and what's out there now, (the scientific evidence) is very, very strongly leaning toward this could not have been artificially or deliberately manipulated,” Dr. Fauci, director of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told National Geographic in an interview published Monday.

“Everything about the stepwise evolution over time strongly indicates that (this virus) evolved in nature and then jumped species.”

Fauci's main argument is that it is natural and not artificially created. In another article, I posted above he said he doesn't get involved in the discussion about it because either way it evolved in the wild which is the main problem.

“We have not received any data or specific evidence from the United States government relating to the purported origin of the virus — so from our perspective, this remains speculative,” WHO emergencies director Michael Ryan told an online press conference.

WHO dismiss it because they have not seen any evidence.

Meanwhile, intelligence sources in Britain and Australia told The Guardian that there is no evidence that the virus had leaked from the Chinese lab

Also, dismissing it because there is no evidence.

So they all dimissed it because they had not seen any of the evidence Trump and Pompeo claimed they had. If Trump and Pompeo had showed them this evidence maybe they would have changed their minds.

TheIrishGrover

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120296212#Comment_120296212

Oh there were SO MANY times TDITS was amusing.

I suppose this means that this damming report completely exonerates trump of his (proven) homophobic, racist, election-tampering, dictator supporting, hostile-nation-supporting, serial sexual assaulting, insurrection-instigating past.

I suppose this means that trump's response was correct (What with suggesting ingesting disinfectant and shining lights internally etc.). I must have a read.

As for who made the bet? No idea. Look it up......

TheIrishGrover

Shocked I say... SHOCKED!!!!! (Not really)

https://www.wsj.com/articles/in-deposition-rupert-murdoch-says-fox-news-hosts-endorsed-false-2020-election-claims-c9348fc0

https://www.axios.com/2023/02/27/rupert-murdoch-admits-fox-news-hosts-peddled-election-lies

And a million more. I'd check fox or oan but I'd only have to clear my cache afterwards. I'm assuming there is no mention.

Penn

God.... maybe Trump was right about a lot of things he said with no evidence...

Can anyone remember do I drink the bleach and put the lightbulb up my arse, or was it the other way round? I really don't want to get that wrong.

TheIrishGrover

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120296601#Comment_120296601

It depends. If it was the (sensitively named) "kung-Flu" virus that trump mentioned, then you shove the light up your ar5e. If you have fallen for the fake virus and taken Bill Gates' nano-bot "vaccine" then you need to swallow the light as this interrupts the signal. ONLY do this though if you want to witness JFK Jnr returning from the dead to run for VP with trump in 2024. And, needless to say, all trumpites should follow his recommendation on disinfectant...

..... that is assuming you buy the whole Covid thing. You do know it was just a ploy to get your guns or make you gay or woke or something.I'm sure fox will come out with the "fair and balanced" report soon... You know, the "fair and balanced" angle even the OWNER agrees they lied about.

everlast75

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120296271#Comment_120296271

"So they all dismissed it because they had not seen any of the evidence Trump and Pompeo claimed they had. If Trump and Pompeo had showed them this evidence maybe they would have changed their minds."

This is it in a nutshell.

Trump says something/anything which was dismissed as bullshit by others because

a) he is a bull shitter and

b) he has nothing to back it up.

Subsequently, it transpires that it might not be total bullshit, a semi bullshit statement if you will, and his supporters wail that yet again, Trump, the purveyor of truth is right again and no one listened.

Would any of his supporters care to wager the bullshit to truth ratio? I mean, how much utter nonsense spews from his mouth on a daily basis that is absolutely and will forever be utter bullshit and has no semblance to reality, and compare that to how correct he is on anything???

Didn't think so.

Maybe bear that in mind the next time you wish to post a "gotcha" moment...

archermoo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120296707#Comment_120296707

Exactly. Trump says whatever he thinks will make him look best or get him what he wants in the moment. Occasionally this means that something he says is true, but that isn't why he said it. And sometimes it means that something he said with absolutely no evidence ends up being accurate, at least in part. But again, that isn't why he said it. He is a con man and a narcissist. Has been since long before he decided that running for President would be a great way to con people out of money.

If you had a clock that every minute changed to a random time, occasionally the time it showed would be the actual current time. But the fact that occasionally the time it shows isn't wrong isn't proof that you should ever trust it. Much like Trump.

duploelabs

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120293686#Comment_120293686

Yes and we remember your denials at the trump/Russia connections, yet you must have read this right?

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2023/02/jesse-benton-donald-trump/

Actual court conviction as opposed to a conjecture piece of journalism