Donald Trump discussion Thread IX (threadbanned users listed in OP)

Has the hack made public shown much detail on what the donations to the fund were being used for and have the owners of the hacked site managed to repair the fund firewall and stop more information leaking from it?

I would assume the hacked information would be of use to people on the investigation and prosecution side if anything plainly illegal or improper being done by the fund manager/s was left open for view publicly without the hackers being aided or abetted by anyone connected to anyone on any of the several investigation and prosecution teams.

They can't separate from Trump and still be members of the Republican party. Trump took over the party lock stock and barrel, all that is left is his cult and RINOs who won't get anywhere.

It is the party of Trump, their policy is just whatever Trump says and anything going against him will just see their base reject them.

He intends to run the USA as sucessfully as Elon has run Twitter. Sorry, 'X'. I hope we won't see any 'unscheduled disassamblies' in the US economy.

I would disagree. There's enough 'never trumpers' and undecided on a candidate combined to beat Trump. The problem is, none of the candidates are strong enough to attract a large enough number of those points. Christie could well have been the best hope, but missed his shot to shine tonight. Nikki Haley tried to move into that lane by attacking Trump in a new strategy but the Republican voters have historically panned female candidates, Margaret Chase Smith in 1964, Dole in 2000 and Bachmann in 2012. They will only unite behind a white man.

Canada will always exist for those wealthy enough to allow their mistresses to travel.

Haley was the only one realistic about abortion. I was surprised by how much she went after Trump also. She landed the best attack of the night on him, but it won't mean anything as her campaign is dead.

Tbf the DeSantis campaign have got plenty of shots in on Trump and its not really working because the voters really like Trump. That might sound simplistic, but gun to head etc, their is maybe a 10% lane of never trump conservatives and that won't win any elections.

I think that at this stage it's gone beyond Trump's ability to have people believe what he says is honest joe talk - the B/S he spun about the democrats firstly, and when they swallowed that, he followed it up with RINO and other lies about senior decades-in-service GOP members.

It's more that they now CHOOSE to believe he is the best thing the GOP has going for it rather than admit they were gullible enough to be taken in by him. So many of the party members tried to wake them up to the liar Trump is and failed, and the thanks they got was to be thrown out of the party leadership at his behest. They believe in TV reality show performances so much they cant tell the difference between it and real life.

Edit: There is a difference between the US Republican Party and the British Labour Party, the rules governing them. AFAIK, the different states have the say on whom is a member of the state party and not those sitting in Washington.

By people, I meant the average GOP voter. I understand Trump assessed the gullibility of the democrat party when he was a supporter of it and found it unfit for purpose so he went to the GOP, assessed it and found it fit for his purpose.

The US military is well used to B/S and came to know Trump for what he is. Unfortunately they are restricted due to their oath to the constitution and all it stands for. I believe any person of command rank would have insisted that Trump provide them with the questionable order signed and in writing. I believe Trump however has no such morals and he tossed his oath of loyalty to the US constitution into the bin solely for his own benefit.

I'm mindful that this thread is about Trump and the attempt he made to steal the election from the US citizens as a whole [that includes the GOP] and from the winner so I'm going to stick with that, if you don't mind. There is one thing that I've come to accept from Trump the defendant and that is everything he says is a lie, that the opposite is the truth. Last night's "“As you know, you have many people that you’ve been watching over the years, do the same thing,” Trump said. “Whether it’s Hillary Clinton or Stacy Abrams or many others, when you have that great freedom to challenge, you have to be able to, otherwise you can have very dishonest elections. What has taken place here is a travesty of justice. We did nothing wrong. I did nothing wrong and everybody knows that, I've never had such support.” statement after the jail episode is the usual Trump untruth.

One thing he did was replace one of his lawyers, Drew Findling with Steve Sadow, another Atlanta lawyer, before his visit to Fulton County Jail to be booked in there as a defendant in the felony racketeering case against him. I assume he was advised to take on Sadow, rather than by doing a Golden Pages pick for a lawyer.

Thanks for the book tip, BTW.

I suspect a few community notes might go missing in the case of Trump.

Would Trump's campaign to be re-elected have petered out if he wasn't being prosecuted at all?

Do the opinion polls tell the whole story about the extent of support for Trump in the Republican party?

Seeing reports that the trial date has been set for March 4th 2024.

It seems, as of now, Trump's trial in Georgia state will be televised live from court. The public won't be relying on reporters handwritten notes of what went on in court.

Meadows is on the stand now making the case for his change of venue request from State to Federal court. If he succeeds and gets a move, apparently it will be to another part of Georgia more populated by GOP voters.

Edit; A change from State to Federal court would result in no live TV feed of the trial due to court rules. Georgia state law allows for TV cameras in its courts and the Federal courts do not. If the venue change is allowed, no one would see what a live feed would show.

I read an opinion-piece by Eugene Robinson in the W/Post about the group of republican candidates in the live debate and how realistic they are as candidates relative to how they - when asked at the end of the debate if they would support Trump - all raised their hands in an Aye show of hands. This show of hands indicates an unspoken putting of party loyalty above the constitution when they did not swear fealty to the party but did do to upholding the constitution. Ein Fuhrer, Ein Party, and Ein????

Somewhere along the line while reading the W/Post item, I saw an aside to a distinct issue [allegiance to the constitution] linked to Trumps activities in Washington on the 06th Jan. It included a reference to the 14th amendment and representation.

The 14th amendment to the US constitution relative to the number of senators, congresspersons and other elected persons at state level etc came up and I saw in the amendment that the number of elected representatives persons would be reduced if the number of male over 21 years of age citizen voters fell below a certain number. The amendment makes specific mention of representative numbers being reduced when voters participated in a rebellion. The 14th amendment makes no mention of female over 21 years of age citizen voters. Is it to be taken that the female voters are included, just not mentioned, in the whole number of persons in the state.

The amendment does make specific mention of untaxed Indians in its wording reference them not being included in the count of number of persons in each state so it appears it is capable of including wording about a specific number of persons in the states.