Trump is what Lenin called a “useful idiot”. Just stroke his ego and you can get him to do or say practically anything.
What are the legal differences between preserving, protecting, defending and supporting The Constitution? Only real and not clown lawyers need respond.
Trump has put his foot in his mouth so much recently with his threats against the country and the constitution that even the most conservative Republicans (that have any brains) will come to the realization, like the Koch organization, that this man is not only an idiot but a threat to any rational conservative platform or vision for the future.
For the record, I always assumed he was the one giving the shower .... not receiving. I know in the kinky world it would be the other way, but with Trump I assumed it was the degrading of another human that was a turn on for him.
I'd read accounts of him being an extreme germophobe. Maybe there's a specific sub-group of germophobes who aren't worried about unprotected sex with porn stars?
Didn't Trump go through Covid refusing to wear a mask? I think that his affinity for raping and degrading women, along with amassing a personal fortune, are his primary motivations in life. Anything to do with germs has to be way back on the list, assuming the idiot even believes in germs.
Actually the charge was not that he either gave or received a "golden shower". I agree that would not have made sense given that he is a confirmed germaphobe. The charge was that he witnessed prostitutes urinating on the bed that Obama slept in, as some type of demonstration of contempt for Obama rather than something sexual. That makes far more sense and negates any consideration of whether a confirmed germaphobe would participate.
Ah yes, good catch. The women and STD jokes are still interesting to me in the germ context, but you're right about the tape rumors (not that they have any validity).
I'm not certain there is such a distinction. But that is not the argument the Court fixated on. The argument is that the prohibition applies to lessor federal offices, but not to the Presidency or Vice-Presidency. The order is here. https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/02nd_Judicial_District/Denver_District_Court/11_17_2023 Final Order.pdf Paragraph 225 Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment, passed in 1866 and ratified by the states in 1868, provides that: No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. Paragraph 229: 299. For Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment to apply to Trump this Court must find both that the Presidency is an “office . . . under the United States” and that Trump took an oath as “an officer of the United States” “to support the Constitution of the United States.” U.S. CONST. amend. XIV, § 3. 302. To lump the Presidency in with any other civil or military office is odd indeed and very troubling to the Court because as Intervenors point out, Section Three explicitly lists all federal elected positions except the President and Vice President. Under traditional rules of statutory construction, when a list includes specific positions but then fails to include others, courts assume the exclusion was intentional. Dep’t of Homeland Sec. v. MacLean, 574 U.S. 383, 391 (2015) (finding that Congress intended to exclude rules or regulations when it included only the word “law” versus elsewhere where it used the phrase “laws, rule or regulation”). 313. Here, after considering the arguments on both sides, the Court is persuaded that “officers of the United States” did not include the President of the United States. While the Court agrees that there are persuasive arguments on both sides, the Court holds that the absence of the President from the list of positions to which the Amendment applies combined with the fact that Section Three specifies that the disqualifying oath is one to “support” the Constitution whereas the Presidential oath is to “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution, 19 it appears to the Court that for whatever reason the drafters of Section Three did not intend to include a person who had only taken the Presidential Oath
Trump broke a court order by not notifying a the court appointed auditor when transferring $40 million from his organization to his personal account. Trump used the money to pay what he owed E. Jean Carroll and a tax bill. Not a good idea to ignore a court order when you're on trial for financial fraud. And this move will likely cost Trump more with another fine. But it's all political persecution, right? Why should Trump have to comply with court orders anyway?
The only thing surprising about that story is that he paid Carroll. I figured he would appeal that till his last breath.
Think Trump will pay taxes on that 40 mill? Pretty sure such a transfer from a business entity to his personal account is a taxable event, and you don’t get to deduct it as a business expense either. But I’d lay money on Trump not paying his taxes on this. Like you I’m surprised he actually paid this obligation at all until a court ordered or garnished it. I’m also surprised his business actually had $40 million in liquidity. I would have expected this to come from political donations. Who knows, maybe it did (indirectly).
The bigger story here is that he needed to access these funds from the business. It is looking more and more cash wise like he is functionally broke.
Well, his “net worth” has always been based on business asset valuation. No different from any other so-called real estate mogul - most of it is illiquid and tied up in real estate and possibly leveraged with debt. I don’t think that aspect is unique or a big deal imo. Of course in the past Trumps business failed in BK, most banks want nothing to do with Trump org. It calls into question the current source of leverage on their current holdings. He did make good money off The Apprentice, but not billionaire money.
ABC News reporting that Donald Trump's attorneys told him explicitly that he wouldn't be charged if he complied (consistent with the actions of others with classified documents), but that he would be charged if he did not. He did not. Attorney warned Trump 'it's going to be a crime' if he didn't comply with subpoena for classified docs: Sources
I'm not an attorney but that seems pretty damning. Maybe they'll claim he got conflicting legal advice and other attorneys told him he didn't have to comply?
NY Appellate Court reinstates gag order. New York appeals court reinstates gag order against Donald Trump in civil fraud trial | CNN Politics
