Trump unspools early morning all-cap freakout about half billion he owes as deadline looms

[Doc Socks Junior]

35 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

Says the person notorious for calling people liars!!! You should consider taking your own advice!

You of all people should know I have only do that when people lie. However, perhaps in your case I have also been too harsh. You, like Michelle, are frequently misled and unable to think for yourself.

Y'all are simply not intelligent enough to be true liars. The problem is, really, that your unquestioned passing on of others' lies is nearly as dangerous. Thus, my need to help you.

[+Link of Hyrule]

4 minutes ago, susieice said:

You have to read this. Trump just stepped on his own foot. 

Trump appears to undercut his own defense in new rant: 'So you don't want full immunity?' (msn.com)

I wonder how many judges have agreed with Trump's arguments that a president has full immunity....  

If the answer is zero, then why should Biden be immune just because Trump is using this as part of his arguments? It doesn't make sense. If Trump was made immune by any of the courts then MAYBE there would be grounds here to also say Biden has immunity. But since he is not, it's not controversial to say that the law should also apply equally. 

Lastly, this will only be a problem for Trump if the judge allows social media posts to be counted as evidence against Trump. Considering the context of the comments, I don't think these comments will ever be used in a court of law. \

[Agent0range]

3 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

So you admit the story is a media beat up, a non-issue? Seriously, you need only read through this thread to find salty meltdowns 

If Trump doesn't win we'll never have another election.  You're a clown.  You are the most partisan person on this site aside from And Then, and you aren't even American.  There was a reason I  baited you in the other post, where Trump said there wouldn't be another election if he didn't win.  You tried to defend that, and then here you are.  I don't meltdown.  I bring home a comfortable 6 figures no matter who is the President.  I can't even name a single Australian politician.  So who is melting down?  You have some weird crush on an old man that fake tans, dyes his hair, and has never worked a real day in his life.  You're a salty girl.

[Hankenhunter]

14 minutes ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

You of all people should know I have only do that when people lie. However, perhaps in your case I have also been too harsh. You, like Michelle, are frequently misled and unable to think for yourself.

Y'all are simply not intelligent enough to be true liars. The problem is, really, that your unquestioned passing on of others' lies is nearly as dangerous. Thus, my need to help you.

👍

[Agent0range]

6 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

I wonder how many judges have agreed with Trump's arguments that a president has full immunity....  

If the answer is zero, then why should Biden be immune just because Trump is using this as part of his arguments? It doesn't make sense. If Trump was made immune by any of the courts then MAYBE there would be grounds here to also say Biden has immunity. But since he is not, it's not controversial to say that the law should also apply equally. 

Lastly, this will only be a problem for Trump if the judge allows social media posts to be counted as evidence against Trump. Considering the context of the comments, I don't think these comments will ever be used in a court of law. \

WTF are you even talking about?  Biden immune from what, you twit?  If you're really a teacher, it's sad.  You should not be teaching any children.  

[Hankenhunter]

1 minute ago, Agent0range said:

WTF are you even talking about?  Biden immune from what, you twit?  If you're really a teacher, it's sad.  You should not be teaching any children.  

Thanks for saying what I was thinking. He has no critical thinking skills, and he's teaching children? Although, he'd be a shoe in to teach in Alabama.

[+Link of Hyrule]

14 minutes ago, Agent0range said:

If Trump doesn't win we'll never have another election. 

The democrats are saying the same thing - if Trump wins we'll never have another election  

 

14 minutes ago, Agent0range said:

You're a clown.  You are the most partisan person on this site aside from And Then, and you aren't even American.  There was a reason I  baited you in the other post, where Trump said there wouldn't be another election if he didn't win.  You tried to defend that, and then here you are.  I don't meltdown.  I bring home a comfortable 6 figures no matter who is the President.  I can't even name a single Australian politician.  So who is melting down?  You have some weird crush on an old man that fake tans, dyes his hair, and has never worked a real day in his life.  You're a salty girl.

I don't think you even know what I believe, honestly. 

Australia isn't that important in the scheme of things. I'd be really surprised if you did know many Australian politicians. Like it or not, the eyes of the world are on America, and many people from around the world know what's happening over there far more than what Americans think about the rest of the world. 

[+Link of Hyrule]

20 minutes ago, Agent0range said:

WTF are you even talking about?  Biden immune from what, you twit?  If you're really a teacher, it's sad.  You should not be teaching any children.  

Trump wrote a social media post questioning whether what Biden was doing was legal or election interference. 

Quote

"At what point are the actions of a sitting President, using LAWFARE against his opponent for purposes of Election Interference, considered ILLEGAL?"

The reactions to this seem to be people claiming that Trump is arguing in court that a president should have immunity. So what? Trump's arguments have not been successful yet in any court of law, so it doesn't matter. The implication of this is that even if Biden was using lawfare against his opponents for the purposes of election interference, Trump shouldn't complain because according to Trump's own arguments Biden should be immune. But if Trump's arguments have been as yet unsuccessful then why shouldn't Trump point out the excessive lawfare used by Biden and the democrats against him?

The meaning should have been clear to anyone with a basic grasp of English grammar!!!! 

Edited March 24 by Paranoid Android

[Agent0range]

6 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

The democrats are saying the same thing - if Trump wins we'll never have another election  

You're dumb.  No one believes that.  Don't try to justify some old man's words.  

[+Link of Hyrule]

10 minutes ago, Agent0range said:

You're dumb.  No one believes that.  Don't try to justify some old man's words.  

Now you're just handwaving. Joe Biden makes comments about how MAGA Republicans are a threat to democracy and Trump cannot be allowed to be given another term, because if he does he will abuse his power and be a dictator and then if we're not careful we won't have another election. 

It's the same rhetoric, just from a different side. But because Orange Man Bad, you assign a different value to Trump's comments! 

[Tatetopa]

3 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

I wonder how many judges have agreed with Trump's arguments that a president has full immunity....  

NONE.  Why should any president have absolute immunity?

[acidhead]

3 hours ago, Hankenhunter said:

Thanks for saying what I was thinking. He has no critical thinking skills, and he's teaching children? Although, he'd be a shoe in to teach in Alabama.

Critical thinking skills... 

🤔

A few days ago you proudly claimed to have used Google Lens to fact check a meme as untrue that Trump sabotaged a boat in the late 1800's.  

🤣

 

 

[Grim Reaper 6]

7 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

NONE.  Why should any president have absolute immunity?

I totally agree Tate, I think that the entire Presidential Immunity question needs to be reevaluated. Allowing the House of Representatives and the Senate making all the decisions concerning impeachment is a bad idea. Because, except for a rare case like Watergate the Presidents party cannot be trusted to honestly and without bias vote on impeachment. I believe that the final decision of impeachment should be left to the vote of the American People. I fully understand that this would require an amendment to the Constitution but Presidents would not have the immunity they have now.

[+Link of Hyrule]

42 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

NONE.  Why should any president have absolute immunity?

I agree. Why should any president have absolute immunity? As no court has agreed that presidents have immunity, it is reasonable when Donald Trump points out the blatant lawfare being used against him. 

[Hankenhunter]

Well according to Trump, Biden can grab the fat orange one, toss his ass into Gitmo, and throw away the key without any repercussions.

   Biden could open up investigations into every Republican in Congress, paying special attention to the ones stalling money to Ukraine, then charge them with Treason, and toss them in with Trumplethinskin. No TV, no internet, and no phones. Fait accompli.

  Is that what Trumps trying to say? 

Putun would crap his drawers. Lol.

Edited March 24 by Hankenhunter

[psyche101]

10 hours ago, Hawken said:

Well, when Trump was in office. I enjoyed $2 gas/gal. $1 eggs/doz. and a growing retirement. I witnessed that in my own community.

The corporate media didn't brainwash me to think Orange Man Bad. I've said it before. Trump is a Jerk, Arrogant & Harsh.

But I liked his policies, and his mannerism never did personally affect me.

No the right wing media brainwashed you to think that America is the only place on the planet that suffers inflation. It also brainwashed you to think voting for Trump will bring back 1950s prices. 

People like you are why voting fails. Why things like Jan 6 happen, why people can be fooled by stolen election lies and why America is more divided than it has ever been. 

Educate yourself. Read up on the Phillips Curve. 

[Tatetopa]

15 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

I agree. Why should any president have absolute immunity? As no court has agreed that presidents have immunity, it is reasonable when Donald Trump points out the blatant lawfare being used against him. 

Hi PA.  I am not being intentionally dense here.  But I don't see how the first and second half of that statement fit together.   

The average citizen does not have immunity from prosecution for crimes.  Crimes against other citizens or financial crimes will be prosecuted.  Presidents do not have immunity for those sorts of crimes either when they leave office.  Donald Trump is not being charged in court for perfect phone calls, private conversations with Putin or any presidential duties or decisions.  We backed him when he took our Suelemani.  knowing that revenge might kill Americans. 

Cheating on his taxes and loan fraud before he was president, has nothing to do with presidential immunity.  Lawfare?  Is that what elites call it when they are subject to the same laws as the rest of us?.

Insulting E Jean Carrol time after time has nothing to do with being president.  It is just stupid. Loading classified documents on a plane the same day  the FBI came looking for them is not compliance or cooperation. It is stealing and a cover up.  Very much not the same as returning the documents when asked. 

Performing the duties of the office of the president  to the  best of his abilities is the expectation  for that office.  It is the office that has continuation and tradition.  For an  individual, staying in power  is absolutely not a duty of the office.

 

 

[+Link of Hyrule]

4 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

Hi PA.  I am not being intentionally dense here.  But I don't see how the first and second half of that statement fit together.   

The average citizen does not have immunity from prosecution for crimes.  Crimes against other citizens or financial crimes will be prosecuted.  Presidents do not have immunity for those sorts of crimes either when they leave office.  Donald Trump is not being charged in court for perfect phone calls, private conversations with Putin or any presidential duties or decisions.  We backed him when he took our Suelemani.  knowing that revenge might kill Americans. 

Cheating on his taxes and loan fraud before he was president, has nothing to do with presidential immunity.  Lawfare?  Is that what elites call it when they are subject to the same laws as the rest of us?.

Insulting E Jean Carrol time after time has nothing to do with being president.  It is just stupid. Loading classified documents on a plane the same day  the FBI came looking for them is not compliance or cooperation. It is stealing and a cover up.  Very much not the same as returning the documents when asked. 

Performing the duties of the office of the president  to the  best of his abilities is the expectation  for that office.  It is the office that has continuation and tradition.  For an  individual, staying in power  is absolutely not a duty of the office.

 

 

On their own these are interesting questions, many of which you may find I even agree with you about.   We can go into specific is you like, but I'm going to argue that this isn't really the point.  My comment was a response to an article linked in post #75, which suggested Trump undercut his own attempt at presidential immunity. Leaving aside the obvious issue that this only undercuts his defence if this social media post is admitted into evidence at trial,  the article goes on to cite some user comments pointing out that Trump is asking for presidential immunity. I'm in bed posting from my phone so I won't quote exactly, but I'm sure you've seen the article linked. 

None of your arguments are predicted on presidential immunity, which was the context of the comments and article in post #75.To those comments on such the article was based, my response is that if Trump's arguments aren't being accepted in court, then why should we accept the premise here? 

Whether Trump actually is being treated unfairly is not really the core point. That's a separate argument, very interesting in its own right, and as noted at the start it may even be that I agree with you on a lot of it. I'm sure we wouldn't agree on everything, either.  But that's not really the point.  Trump's comments were a social media post where he cited "various highly respected legal scholars". None by name, but thats the joy of social media. 

Does this clarify my point in any meaningful way? If it does, excellent, if there more you'd like clarified I'll do so tomorrow. Have a good night, I'm headed to bed 😴

[cerberusxp]

On 3/22/2024 at 6:22 PM, Paranoid Android said:

99% of the time, people would be better off not posting on social media. Trump uses social media to talk a lot of s***, he knows the media will give him free publicity if he says anything even hovering around a negative statement. Trump knew the headlines if he posted,  and the mainstream media bought right into it

 

Like I have said early in 2016 "His tweets were like him waving a laser around at a bunch of cats.".

[cerberusxp]

What astonishes me is how many people believe propaganda and lies perpetrated on everyone through MSM including Fox. 

Such as the instance when Trump walked in front of the Queen. Before they started walking across the court yard she told him go ahead and shooed him in front of her with both hands and arms. MSM edit that part out. They do that type of "LIE" every chance they get.

I'm sure everyone loves paying 30% to 50% more on living expenses I have 2 annual and 1 semi annual payments that were raised that much in 1 year. Home insurance 30% land tax 30% car insurance 30% some groceries 50 to 100%. Really you like that?

Edited March 24 by cerberusxp
Add

[Gromdor]

15 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

Trump wrote a social media post questioning whether what Biden was doing was legal or election interference. 

The reactions to this seem to be people claiming that Trump is arguing in court that a president should have immunity. So what? Trump's arguments have not been successful yet in any court of law, so it doesn't matter. The implication of this is that even if Biden was using lawfare against his opponents for the purposes of election interference, Trump shouldn't complain because according to Trump's own arguments Biden should be immune. But if Trump's arguments have been as yet unsuccessful then why shouldn't Trump point out the excessive lawfare used by Biden and the democrats against him?

The meaning should have been clear to anyone with a basic grasp of English grammar!!!! 

Actually, the argument has to be taken to meaning that Trump and his lawyers truly believe it.  If they file frivolous motions that they don't truly believe in to bog down the court or delay, they face sanctions and disbarment.  

[+Link of Hyrule]

2 hours ago, Gromdor said:

Actually, the argument has to be taken to meaning that Trump and his lawyers truly believe it.  If they file frivolous motions that they don't truly believe in to bog down the court or delay, they face sanctions and disbarment.  

Presumably you can cite law (with precedents) to demonstrate that a lawyer and client MUST believe the argument that they are presenting? 

I'm 99% certain I'm on record as saying that the presidential immunity argument  is Trump's weakest argument and that it has almost no chance of success but if a lawyer didn't try this avenue they would arguably be incompetent. I'm also 99% sure I've said that I don't think anyone on the Trump team expects a judge to agree with this line of reasoning. But again, it's an obvious legal avenue to argue, and arguably a sign of incompetence if the lawyer didn't try that avenue of argument. 

Arguing whether a case is "frivolous" is not the same as arguing whether the defendant believes the argument! Certainly it's irrelevant if the lawyer believes the argument. The lawyer need only do their best to advocate for their client, believing their argument is not relevant.

Edited March 24 by Paranoid Android

[Gromdor]

18 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

Presumably you can cite law (with precedents) to demonstrate that a lawyer and client MUST believe the argument that they are presenting? 

I'm 99% certain I'm on record as saying that the presidential immunity argument  is Trump's weakest argument and that it has almost no chance of success but if a lawyer didn't try this avenue they would arguably be incompetent. I'm also 99% sure I've said that I don't think anyone on the Trump team expects a judge to agree with this line of reasoning. But again, it's an obvious legal avenue to argue, and arguably a sign of incompetence if the lawyer didn't try that avenue of argument. 

Arguing whether a case is "frivolous" is not the same as arguing whether the defendant believes the argument! Certainly it's irrelevant if the lawyer believes the argument. The lawyer need only do their best to advocate for their client, believing their argument is not relevant.

I can.  Lets start with what a frivolous claim is: Frivolous litigation - Wikipedia 

"Frivolous litigation is the use of legal processes with apparent disregard for the merit of one's own arguments. It includes presenting an argument with reason to know that it would certainly fail, or acting without a basic level of diligence in researching the relevant law and facts."

And here are 17 lawyers that got sanctioned related to Trump alone: Meet the Trump Lawyers Who Have Been Sanctioned for Election Lawsuits (businessinsider.com)

 

[+Link of Hyrule]

16 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

I can.  Lets start with what a frivolous claim is: Frivolous litigation - Wikipedia 

"Frivolous litigation is the use of legal processes with apparent disregard for the merit of one's own arguments. It includes presenting an argument with reason to know that it would certainly fail, or acting without a basic level of diligence in researching the relevant law and facts."

And here are 17 lawyers that got sanctioned related to Trump alone: Meet the Trump Lawyers Who Have Been Sanctioned for Election Lawsuits (businessinsider.com)

 

Trump doesn't need to believe his lawyer's arguments, and not believing them doesn't make it frivolous! Just because there is only a tiny chance of success based on presidential immunity it doesn't mean the lawyer's shouldn't try, and in fact if they didn't try I would argue they would be incompetent as they did not do their very best to advocate for their client. Remember I asked you for evidence that a client must believe the lawyer's argument, I notice you didn't provide evidence of that. I also asked for evidence that a lawyer must believe their own argument, and though that is worth discussing, this isn't a social media post from Trump's lawyers, it's a social media post from Trump, so we don't actually have any insight into what Trump's lawyers think.

Edit: your own link confirms this. You conveniently didn't quote the next sentence of your wiki link: 

That an argument was lost does not imply the argument was frivolous; a party may present an argument with a low chance of success, so long as it proceeds from applicable law. 

Edited March 24 by Paranoid Android

[Gromdor]

4 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

Trump doesn't need to believe his lawyer's arguments, and not believing them doesn't make it frivolous! Just because there is only a tiny chance of success based on presidential immunity it doesn't mean the lawyer's shouldn't try, and in fact if they didn't try I would argue they would be incompetent as they did not do their very best to advocate for their client. Remember I asked you for evidence that a client must believe the lawyer's argument, I notice you didn't provide evidence of that. I also asked for evidence that a lawyer must believe their own argument, and though that is worth discussing, this isn't a social media post from Trump's lawyers, it's a social media post from Trump, so we don't actually have any insight into what Trump's lawyers think.

Edit: your own link confirms this. You conveniently didn't quote the next sentence of your wiki link: 

That an argument was lost does not imply the argument was frivolous; a party may present an argument with a low chance of success, so long as it proceeds from applicable law. 

"Disregard for the merit of one's own arguments" is completely different than "That an argument was lost does not imply the argument was frivolous". 

Trump and his lawyer are free to make arguments with a low chance of success, but if they disregard the merit of thier own argument, then it is frivolous.

If they make an argument that they know is false or don't believe to be true then they risk sanctions- just like the 17 lawyers in my other link.

If I was Trump's lawyer, I would have him act like he at least believes in the argument that he is putting before the court because Trump isn't the one facing sanctions or disbarment.