[jimjam]

It's obvious to all of us that you are uneducated. Here is a 2nd grade education lesson...Any proper names even on internet forums start with a capital letter.

jimjam , like dipshit, is clearly not a proper name but a customized trademark inspired by:



Your second grade education, however, may be an explanation for why you are so easily conned by such an obvious grifter as Fat Donald.

[Verv]

It's not his proper name.

It still constitutes a proper noun, though.

Even funny nicknames get full capitalization as they are proper nouns.

John "Sixteen String Jack" Rann (1750 – 30 November 1774) was an English criminal and highwayman during the mid-18th century. He was a prominent and colourful local figure renowned for his wit and charm. He later came to be known as "Sixteen String Jack" for the 16 various coloured strings he wore on the knees of his silk breeches among other eccentric costumes.

Wikipedia

Unless we are doing the e.e. cummings thing (lol), I think it'd be 'Jimjam' or 'Ingliz' by default if it was an alias you used and you were arrested.

But yeah, sure, I mean... You can insist that your name shouldn't be capitalized. You have that right. He has the right to say that it's a proper noun and he will capitalize it.

[jimjam]

Wall Street Journal:

“For four years,” the editorial board claimed, “Mr Trump’s conduct stayed largely within constitutional bounds – no matter his rhetorical excesses and Democratic efforts to drive him from office by violating norms and flogging conspiracy theories.

“But Mr Trump’s dishonest challenge to the 2020 election, even after multiple defeats in court, clearly broke those bounds and culminated in the 6 January riot.

“Mr Trump may run again, but he won’t win another national election. He lost re-election before the events of 6 January, and as president his job approval never rose above 50%.

“He may go on a revenge campaign tour, or run as a third-party candidate, but all he will accomplish is to divide the centre-right and elect Democrats. The GOP’s defeats in the two 5 January Georgia Senate races proved that.

“The country is moving past the Trump Presidency, and the GOP will remain in the wilderness until it does too.”

[late]

Wall Street Journal

About a decade before Murdoch bought (and ruined) the WSJ, the Times went into a slump and the Journal was just killing it.

So I switched papers.

It didn't have the depth or breadth of the Times. As long as there is a sunday Times, that's not in the cards for anyone. But for a paper to read during a midmorning coffee break, it was superb. I esp. liked the science section.

The editorial page, esp. the lead editorial, was often fantasy writing as much as anything else; even back then. But back then the other editorial writers had more leeway. Once Murdoch bought the place, everyone that could leave, did.

But I miss it.

The last part of that was ok, but the idea he was ever within constitutional bounds is a sick joke.

[jimjam]

The Senate acquittal and Senator McConnel's speech insure that Trump will go to jail. Had Trump been convicted and barred from future office, many, including President Biden who is focused on unity and his agenda, would have felt justice was done and further litigation was not worth the cost.
Now every eager DA, AG or US Attorney will be eager to hang Trump's scalp on his belt. Certainly, Cyrus Vance, the SDNY and Leticia James will not feel constrained. Better yet, the Senator gave his and the institutional Republican blessing to prosecution.
Additionally, it seems that President Trump made calls to election and state officials in all the five swing states. Worse, since Trump used the phone, he is exposed to wire fraud prosecution in federal court.

Trump lawyers Michael van der Veen, Bruce Castor and David Schoen celebrated their client’s acquittal but faced widespread ridicule for a case built on flimsy arguments about freedom of speech and scattershot whataboutism concerning Democratic attitudes to protests against racism and police brutality. “They couldn’t get a summer internship with My Cousin Vinny,” Jamie Raskin commented, perhaps a deliberate reference to a bizarre and famously sweaty press conference given in November by another Trump lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, amid the former president’s failed attempts to prove mass fraud in his election defeat by Joe Biden.
Trump, who comes from Queens, refused to testify in his own defence. Raskin called him “a profile in absolute cowardice” and said: “He betrayed the constitution, the country and his people.

“Trump’s followers need to understand he has no loyalty to them."

[blackjack21]

No, it isn't believable the more I consider the circumstances, and Trump's enemies reactions are not those of an innocent group of people would have. Think of all the effort that went into gaslighting people about the election right here on PoFo...

The thing of it is that if Trump had done about as well as second term Obama, they might have made a Biden victory a little bit more believable. It's just that he gained 12M votes and held massive rallies. Additionally, he had more people attending his 1/6 rally than Biden had at his inauguration. More people watched Trump's farewell address than Biden's inauguration. To put a finer point on it, Biden's team ended up taking down the inauguration video, because it got less views than Trump's by an order of magnitude and more down votes than up votes.

In my own region, not exactly Red but more ''Purple'' if you will, I cannot think of anyone who voted for Biden that I know of, not a single person. And while there are plenty I know who freely state that Trump is an obnoxious arrogant asshole, but couldn't think of a single reason why they'd vote for the dismal and uncharismatic candidature of Biden/Harris.

I know some Democrats who voted for him. I don't know of anyone who did so enthusiastically.

Biden/Harris are ironically the ones who are going to face some serious problems domestic and foreign, while Trump reaps the rewards during his four year vacation from the White House. He and those backing him have a long term plan that only partly involves him being in the White House himself during their work. I would say that he knew in 2016 after winning then, that he wouldn't be allowed to win re-election in 2020.

He certainly knew something was up with the mail in ballots. HR1 basically shows what the Democrats want to do to make it impossible for them to ever lose again. Remember, they held on to the House for 40 straight years at one point, and it wasn't because they were eternally popular.

And that's fine too @blackjack21, I realize that now. Such ignorance, blinded by hatred and incomprehension against Trump and Trump voters, is itself part of a punishment.

Or as Nixon said about hating them, and you destroy yourself. That's what's happening to the establishment right now.

I hope the insurrection winds up in Federal court, because it's an open and shut case.

They sure did screw the pooch on their second impeachment. Not a shred of that would be admitted in a court of law. I think it would be comical if they did try to file charges, because they will ultimately fail while once again making Trump the center of attention.

You're a traitor.

My father's ancestors fought against the British Crown to create America. My mother's mother's family fought against the British Crown during the early 20th Century to create the Irish Free State and later the Republic of Ireland. I guess it runs in the family. I suppose you've always been a lacky for power, always doing what you're told...

How is it gaslighting? I am asking for some evidence. Like something, not feelings.

No sitting US president has ever gained massive votes and lost. The only person who even comes close to that billing was Grover Cleveland. You don't gain votes and lose. It just doesn't happen. You don't win Florida and Ohio and go on to lose. The only time that's happened was Nixon in 1960, and that was a contested election. You don't hold massive rallies while your competitor sits in a basement putting a lid on a campaign by 10 am. and lose. It just doesn't happen. You don't get more people coming to your protest rally than the victor gets as attendees at his inauguration. It's never happened in history. You don't get more people watching your farewell address than the incoming president gets views of his inauguration with more down votes than up votes such that he ends up taking down his own video. You don't get what is ostensibly the most popular president in history getting audibly booed at the Super Bowl only a month after being sworn in. It's patently obvious Biden lost.

You want to know how Biden got 81m votes. Because people actually hate Trump.

Hate votes generally don't turn out in big numbers.

In fact Trump did much much better than the polls suggested, but whatever, you can't understand this because the voices you hear are from the people you surround with who happen to have voted Trump.

Yes. He also had much bigger rallies than his competitor by orders of magnitude, not just multiples. When are we going to get to audit the signatures on the mail-in ballots? Is that going to be held up forever too?

With respect Poppet, I disagree. In the name of National security he is obliged to look. Hard.

Impeachment failed again. It was pathetic. They didn't produce any witnesses. All they had were news reports and second hand accounts and commentary about this or that. All of that is hearsay. It would never be admitted into evidence in a criminal court.

These people are just getting started.

I agree. I agreed it was just getting started when the establishment thought they had defeated the Tea Party. The American Revolution sort of kicked off in 1765 with the Stamp Act. It's not a much different amount of time between 1765 and 1776 than where we are right now. Trump was kind of their last warning, and they did not get the message. Trump really does have too much to lose, but a not-so-wealthy successor backed by wealthy people may be willing to lead that fight. Already, HR1 is looking a lot like the Intolerable Acts, as the Congress and the Biden administration are doing things like prosecuting people who spread memes back in 2016. It's very backward looking and they are going to find they are unable to move forward, because they are not popular.

or face what faced the ''Ancien Regime'' before 1789, or France in 1940.

If 1/6 scares them to death, when it really hits they will simply never recover.

“For four years,” the editorial board claimed, “Mr Trump’s conduct stayed largely within constitutional bounds – no matter his rhetorical excesses and Democratic efforts to drive him from office by violating norms and flogging conspiracy theories.

“But Mr Trump’s dishonest challenge to the 2020 election, even after multiple defeats in court, clearly broke those bounds and culminated in the 6 January riot.

The Democrats have contested every Republican presidential victory since Ronald Reagan's second term, when they got beat so bad they could believe it themselves. They are simply used to losers like Bob Michel or Mitch McConnell or even George W. Bush taking it on the chin all the time, that they can't believe Trump just took the arrow out of their own quiver and used it against them. That's what made the second impeachment even more glorious than the first. His defense didn't need more than three hours to make fools of them all.

The Senate acquittal and Senator McConnel's speech insure that Trump will go to jail.

They couldn't even land a punch in a political trial. The anti-Trumpers aren't going to get passed the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure of the Federal Rules of Evidence. It's just not going to happen.

Had Trump been convicted and barred from future office, many, including President Biden who is focused on unity and his agenda, would have felt justice was done and further litigation was not worth the cost.

Biden is definitely not focused on unity. He can't even keep the Democrats together.

Now every eager DA, AG or US Attorney will be eager to hang Trump's scalp on his belt. Certainly, Cyrus Vance, the SDNY and Leticia James will not feel constrained.

They can't. They couldn't present any credible witnesses or testimony in a completely rigged trial. Cyrus Vance can't even raise enough for re-election. People are leaving his office, knowing he's toast. The best bet would be somebody trying to sue Trump for damages in civil court, because that's where your burden of proof is the lowest. Trying to put him in jail just isn't going to happen. At any rate, doing anything to Trump just puts him right back in center stage.

“They couldn’t get a summer internship with My Cousin Vinny,” Jamie Raskin commented

Jamie Raskin had to scuttle his own argument on the grounds it was false--because he relied on fake news. He lost, and he's claiming the defense was weak? If a weak defense beats the prosecutor, what does that say about the prosecution?

[late]

They sure did screw the pooch on their second impeachment.

Not a shred of that would be admitted in a court of law.

I think it would be comical if they did try to file charges, because they will ultimately fail while once again making Trump the center of attention.

Yes, Republicans put on a venal display of dereliction of their duty.

That's not true. A court of law plays by different rules, but they do use video.

Don't bet the farm. I've seen profs of law call it open and shut. The problem is not in the evidence. The problem is jurisdiction. A DC court is unlikely to be able to address the larger issues. And a Federal court has it's problems, one of them being a reluctance to charge a former president.

No one ever anticipated this, we are going to need new laws to handle this sort of situation going forward.

I am hoping I am wrong here. A lot of legal experts think Justice will have to try and make a case.

A lot of criminals wind up in the hoosegow over their taxes. That may be how things wind up with Trump.

“The facts currently known warrant a criminal investigation of the president and others who were involved in inciting the insurrection at the Capitol,” Mary McCord, a former Justice Department official and Georgetown University law professor, told the Los Angeles Times in January.

She added: “Whether charges should be brought will depend on the results of that investigation and considerations of prosecutorial discretion, but accountability is important in the face of such grievous and dangerous abuses of power and privilege.”
https://wset.com/news/nation-world/legal-experts-say-trump-could-face-prosecution-now-that-hes-no-longer-president

This covers the limits of DC courts:
https://abc7news.com/washington-dc-attorney-general-karl-racine-trump-impeachment-trial-capitol-riot-district-of-columbia/10334206/

[blackjack21]

Yes, Republicans put on a venal display of dereliction of their duty.

Still a party man to the bitter end, eh? Like the Democrats, they can screw up a majority in both houses in no time flat.

That's not true. A court of law plays by different rules, but they do use video.

Yes, but video is not a back door to hearsay.

And a Federal court has it's problems, one of them being a reluctance to charge a former president.

Courts don't bring charges. They can refer, but it's up to Biden's DoJ to do that.

No one ever anticipated this, we are going to need new laws to handle this sort of situation going forward.

I did. I just thought it was going to happen on inauguration day, not the 6th.

A lot of criminals wind up in the hoosegow over their taxes. That may be how things wind up with Trump.

You have to show intent to prove fraud or evasion, and that's what you'd have to do with Trump since there is no failure to file. Additionally, he doesn't do his own taxes. So there are layers of indirection between Trump, his attorneys, his accountants and his tax advisers.

[ingliz]

Georgia is looking at indicting Trump for "the solicitation of election fraud, the making of false statements to state and local governmental bodies, conspiracy, racketeering, violation of oath of office and involvement in violence or threats related to the election’s administration" - 20 years or more if convicted.

[late]

Blah, more blah

You keep trying to punch above your weight class.

It doesn't work, and brain dead gaslighting is not worth bothering with.

"If that is so, then Donald Trump should be charged with the exact same crime covered in the impeachment, only in criminal court.

It’s there under the U.S. Criminal Code Title 18 Section 2383.

The law is simple and straightforward. It reads:

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell said “There's no question — none — that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day. No question about it. The people who stormed this building believed they were acting on the wishes and instructions of their president. The leader of the free world cannot spend weeks thundering that shadowy forces are stealing our country and then feign surprise when people believe him and do reckless things."

It would be an open and shut case.


https://www.azcentral.com/story/opin...rt/4480902001/

[blackjack21]

Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell said “There's no question — none — that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day. No question about it. The people who stormed this building believed they were acting on the wishes and instructions of their president. The leader of the free world cannot spend weeks thundering that shadowy forces are stealing our country and then feign surprise when people believe him and do reckless things."

Practical and moral isn't legal. If it were, Kamala Harris would be charged before Trump. That's not going to happen.

[late]

Practical and moral isn't legal. That's not going to happen.

It is this time.

But it's a sticky wicket, so who knows. Ironically, while Trump used the justice system as if it was his personal weapon, Biden wants badly to restore the wall between the White House and Justice. Garland will be quite aware of how Biden feels, and in this bizarre case, it will likely play a role in his deliberations.

Btw, before the election I told you that your gaslighting wasn't going to work, except among the brainwashed.

Guess what..

[Tainari88]

I am going to go out on a limb and say some truths.

Trump was acquitted twice. This means that the sellouts in both parties are too afraid of their own dirty diaper ways to convict the 45 conman.

The conman is not held accountable and the Trump supporters and their base and their movement will interpret that to mean the USA establishment on both sides are weak and you can eat them for breakfast with violence and threats.

They organize the violence and the threats and they start voting in extreme types like QÁnon and KKK types and Tea Partiers and a bunch of others who just want the end of liberalism/neoliberalism/Bush style neocons and Mitt Romney religious conservatives.

The USA is going to have insurrections in many state capitols.

And the pandemic economic fallout will accelerate this.

The end.

[jimjam]

Like so many other men living in Florida, Donald Trump has once again escaped from justice. This has to be the dumbest trial I’ve ever seen. Here’s how dumb it was: The jurors, who are deciding the case, were the ones attacked by defendant. The trial took place at the scene of the crime. And then right after the trial ended, one of the jurors who voted to acquit Trump ran out and said, “Someone’s got to prosecute this guy. He did it. This man belongs in jail.” What are you going to do? If you’re going to impeach the president for anything, don’t you think it’s sending a mob to kill the Vice President? I feel bad for Pence — 43 of his work friends were like, oh come on, Mike, they only tried to hang you. Stop being such a drama queen. I think it would be hilarious if Biden now sent rioters back into the Capitol. And he was like, What? You guys said it was fine.

[Beren]

On a positive note: The Senators who voted to impeach represent 62% of the American population.

The residual 38% is approximately the same as the NSDAP got in the July 1932 election (37.27%), at its peak during the Weimar Republic until Hitler was appointed chancellor.

[jimjam]

In the Money Talks, Bullshit Walks Dept. :

The Supreme Court on Monday rejected a last-ditch attempt by former President Donald J. Trump to shield his financial records, issuing a brief, unsigned order requiring Mr. Trump’s accountants to turn over his tax and other records to prosecutors in New York.

The case concerned a subpoena to Mr. Trump’s accountants, Mazars USA, by the office of the Manhattan district attorney, Cyrus R. Vance Jr., a Democrat. The firm has said it will comply with the final ruling of the courts, meaning that the grand jury should receive the documents in short order.

Mr. Trump has sustained significant losses, owes enormous debts that he is personally obligated to repay, has avoided paying federal income taxes in 11 of the 18 years The Times examined and paid just $750 in both 2016 and 2017.

Mr. Vance issued a three-word statement in response to the court’s order: “The work continues.”

[Istanbuller]

Good if Trump pays less taxes. You don't understand that paying less taxes is not a problem for many, do you?

[late]

You don't understand that paying less taxes is not a problem for many, do you?

You don't understand that crime is a problem for many, do you.

[jimjam]

Good if Trump pays less taxes. You don't understand that paying less taxes is not a problem for many, do you?

You don't understand that the amount of taxes paid by Fat Donald is irrelevant while the fact that he is a crook is quite relevant.

Al Capone was sent to prison for tax evasion, not for his various crimes as a mob boss. But everyone knew what his real crimes were.

Trump is also a mob boss, and if he goes to prison, it will be for financial crimes such as tax evasion and bank fraud, which can be established from documents without testimony. But everyone will know what his real crimes were.

[Rancid]

Wow, I wonder if they will actually find some wrong doing. I'm surprised to see it has made it this far.