Criminal Charges Against Trump / Trump Indicted / Hush Money Part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Man said:
Hell no, give him the eternal ignominy he deserves. Billions of years form now in a galaxy far, far away. Students of all galactic species should be given classes in how not to be such a self-eviscerating dufus.

Lesson #1: At times keep your freak’n mouth, or enunciating hole (for other species), shut!

ETA: The saddest part is if he had just held to that precept and kept the quite part a bit more quite he might have gotten closer to emulating those tyrants he so admires. Still, no fat lady singing yet, so complacency is not an option.
Click to expand...
I would pay top dollar to see him tarred and feathered outside the White House, then clapped in the stocks pantless for a few days on Pay-Per-View. But that ain't gonna happen.

The only ignominy Trump acknowledges and hates is when he is ignored. Zero ratings. No churn. Name not in print. Etc. And that would be in the form of some headline like "Absolute certain nominee Trump 100% rejected in favour of younger, more successful candidates...in the GOP primaries".
 
I know the Dominion lawsuit wasn't a criminal charge, but this seemed the best thread for this:


The Independent

Donald Trump launched into a bizarre rant on Truth Social about the payout to Dominion Voting Systems.

“So Dominion gets almost a Billion Dollars and I, after years of Fake News, Hoaxes, Scams, and Investigations, am entitled to NOTHING? Is that really the way it’s supposed to work? I don’t think so!” the former president wrote on Tuesday.
Click to expand...

Someone hand that man a cheese plate.
 
Norman Alexander said:
I would pay top dollar to see him tarred and feathered outside the White House, then clapped in the stocks pantless for a few days on Pay-Per-View. But that ain't gonna happen.

The only ignominy Trump acknowledges and hates is when he is ignored. Zero ratings. No churn. Name not in print. Etc. And that would be in the form of some headline like "Absolute certain nominee Trump 100% rejected in favour of younger, more successful candidates...in the GOP primaries".
Click to expand...


Run out on a rail, by his own supporters, like in "Oh Brother Where Art Thou" would at least be my preference.

Who the freak cares what he acknowledges or hates? That just feeds into him. If you can't be famous be infamous. He's chosen the latter, he can have it. How can it not be, the defamation adjudication. His enunciating hole, south of his mouth hole has set him up to be punitively if not judiciary slapped, or both, hard. His acknowledgement is not, even legally a concern. He's cooked his own goose there. That it has already been legally determined as defamatory before means you can't even argue otherwise now.

Now a younger, more successful candidates...in the GOP primaries would have a better chance of doing their dirty deeds done dirt cheep, politically wise. **** trump, they're the one's you'd have to look out for. Thankfully the GOP can't get fully behind anyone else (if there were any) yet.
 
Last edited:
The Don said:
Maybe if he actually managed to successfully sue someone...:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Didn't he manage to successfully sue his own bank for being stupid enough to lend to him?

He also won some lawsuit against some paper for damaging his reputation. The paper's argument was IIRC that he had damaged his own reputation to such a degree that anything he was trying to attribute to them was trivial. He won for $1, again IIRC.
 
The Man said:
Didn't he manage to successfully sue his own bank for being stupid enough to lend to him?

He also won some lawsuit against some paper for damaging his reputation. The paper's argument was IIRC that he had damaged his own reputation to such a degree that anything he was trying to attribute to them was trivial. He won for $1, again IIRC.
Click to expand...

But people are saying it was the BEST $1 award in the history of $1 award lawsuits...like you've never seen before.

Question: How could Trump's reputation being damaged any more than it already is?
 
Stacyhs said:
But people are saying sir, it was the BEST $1 award in the history of $1 award lawsuits...like you've never seen before.

Question: How could Trump's reputation being damaged any more than it already is?
Click to expand...

FIFY

Exactly the papers argument, heck I'd go as high as $5 if I could possibly damage his reputation any more than he has already.
 
It's being reported that Trump had two employees move boxes of documents the day before the FBI search at Mar a Lago.

Two employees of Donald Trump moved boxes of papers at Mar-a-Lago a day before the Justice Department visited the former president’s residence to collect classified documents , The Washington Post reported Thursday.

The Post, citing people familiar with the matter, reported that investigators view the timing – just before FBI agents and a prosecutor visited the Florida resort to recover the documents sought as part of a subpoena – as a potential sign of obstruction.

Investigators have evidence, the newspaper reported, that the former president kept classified documents in a visible place in his office and had shown them to others. He also allegedly conducted “a ‘dress rehearsal’ for moving sensitive papers” along with his team before they were subpoenaed in May 2022, according to the report.
Click to expand...
 
The Man said:
Didn't he manage to successfully sue his own bank for being stupid enough to lend to him?

He also won some lawsuit against some paper for damaging his reputation. The paper's argument was IIRC that he had damaged his own reputation to such a degree that anything he was trying to attribute to them was trivial. He won for $1, again IIRC.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that is when the source was wrong about what they said so the jury legally has to find the person guilty, but they award that amount to show that their reputation was utter trash to begin with.

James Randi, from whom this forum used to be named, was sued by a guy he had called a "child molester" when the guy in question had only pled guilty to possession of child pornography. Said guy admitted to having sex with a minor he was the legal guardian of during the trial. The jury had to find Randi guilty but award the plaintiff $1.

Its the legal way of saying "you're too much of a **** to be slandered".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom