The Liberal Gun Club Forum

Trump Found Liable In Second E. Jean Carroll Lawsuit Trump Found Liable In Second E. Jean Carroll Lawsuit

A federal judge has ruled that former President Donald Trump is liable for making defamatory statements against writer E. Jean Carroll in 2019, after she went public with claims that he raped her decades earlier.

Judge Lewis Kaplan ruled Wednesday that the jury in the trial for Carroll’s civil lawsuit will consider how much Trump should pay her in monetary damages.

Judge brutally rejects Trump request for yet another trial delay: 'Completely without merit'

A New York judge quickly dismissed a last-minute request by Donald Trump to delay his bank and tax fraud trial in New York.

The former president's attorneys asked for a three-week halt so the judge can rule on requests from both New York attorney general Letitia James and Trump for a summary judgment in the $250 million civil suit, but Justice Arthur F. Engoron scrawled a nine-word response, reported The Daily Beast.

“Decline to sign; Defendants’ arguments are completely without merit,” Engoron wrote on the draft order, signing with his initials.

Trump and his family are scheduled to stand trial in less than four weeks in the trial for allegedly inflating the value of their assets and lying on official paperwork to gain a financial advantage.

Trump issues call for Senate Republicans to prepare for revenge: 'We will put them all in jail'

For a second time in a week, Donald Trump threatened to jail his political opponents, this time telling Senate Republicans to get ready to help him.

Trump began by throwing out some of his favorite slogans on Truth Social including "Russia hoax," "No Collusion!" "Mueller Hoax" "Fake Dossier!" Not included was his often repeated phrase "Perfect Call" relating to both the Ukraine call and the call to Georgia officials demanding they "find" him votes to win.

"They spied on my Campaign, Impeached me twice," he proclaimed without naming who "they" is. "If I am elected, they will be brought to JUSTICE, something that Republicans have always been afraid to do."

POLL: Should Trump be allowed to run for office?

In a second post, Trump explained why the Senate must not only go Republican, but be for Republicans that will support him in his crusade to jail his political opponents.

"Right now Republicans in Congress and the Senate have to get tough, and put everything together in one big, neat package, because I will be President in one and a half years, and we will pick the strongest, toughest, and most respected Attorney General, and if guilty, we will put them all in jail where they belong, just as they are trying to do to me based on NOTHING," he ranted.

TrueTexan wrote: Wed Sep 06, 2023 5:13 pm

Trump issues call for Senate Republicans to prepare for revenge: 'We will put them all in jail'

For a second time in a week, Donald Trump threatened to jail his political opponents, this time telling Senate Republicans to get ready to help him.

Trump began by throwing out some of his favorite slogans on Truth Social including "Russia hoax," "No Collusion!" "Mueller Hoax" "Fake Dossier!" Not included was his often repeated phrase "Perfect Call" relating to both the Ukraine call and the call to Georgia officials demanding they "find" him votes to win.

"They spied on my Campaign, Impeached me twice," he proclaimed without naming who "they" is. "If I am elected, they will be brought to JUSTICE, something that Republicans have always been afraid to do."

POLL: Should Trump be allowed to run for office?

In a second post, Trump explained why the Senate must not only go Republican, but be for Republicans that will support him in his crusade to jail his political opponents.

"Right now Republicans in Congress and the Senate have to get tough, and put everything together in one big, neat package, because I will be President in one and a half years, and we will pick the strongest, toughest, and most respected Attorney General, and if guilty, we will put them all in jail where they belong, just as they are trying to do to me based on NOTHING," he ranted.

Article: https://www.rawstory.com/trump-senate-r ... democrats/

When will the judges slam him down for making all these threats against anybody that doesn’t follow him as if he was the messiah of the GOP. He needs to have his internet access removed or monitored and censored. I know there will be screaming about First Amendment rights, but if I make threatening comments remarks including bodily harm or other serious harm, that is a felony. He only has the same rights as any citizen.

highdesert wrote: Wed Sep 06, 2023 6:24 am HRC lost in 2016 because Dems thought no one would ever vote for Trump. Keep drinking the Kool Aid TNG.

sikacz wrote: Thu Sep 07, 2023 8:28 am

highdesert wrote: Wed Sep 06, 2023 6:24 am HRC lost in 2016 because Dems thought no one would ever vote for Trump. Keep drinking the Kool Aid TNG.

I remember those discussions here too. If the dems were smart they would focus on a consensus unity platform and drop their divisive agenda platform points. Leave the divisive issues to the repubs.

Biden also holds a commanding 51% to 31% lead over Trump when all voters are asked their voting preferences in a general election rematch. However, nearly half of the state’s electorate also say they would be very open (24%) or somewhat open (23%) to supporting a third-party candidate should Biden and Trump emerge as their party’s respective nominees.

Observed IGS co-director Eric Schickler, “Even with all of his legal troubles, former President Donald Trump’s lead in the Republican primary looks more like what one expects to see from an incumbent running for reelection than for a candidate in an open-seat. While it remains early, it has to frustrate Trump’s opponents that his lead has grown even amid his series of indictments.”

highdesert wrote: Thu Sep 07, 2023 8:47 am A new LA Times poll done by the Institute of Governmental Studies at the University of California, Berkeley.

Biden also holds a commanding 51% to 31% lead over Trump when all voters are asked their voting preferences in a general election rematch. However, nearly half of the state’s electorate also say they would be very open (24%) or somewhat open (23%) to supporting a third-party candidate should Biden and Trump emerge as their party’s respective nominees.

Observed IGS co-director Eric Schickler, “Even with all of his legal troubles, former President Donald Trump’s lead in the Republican primary looks more like what one expects to see from an incumbent running for reelection than for a candidate in an open-seat. While it remains early, it has to frustrate Trump’s opponents that his lead has grown even amid his series of indictments.”

https://escholarship.org/content/qt4fj3 ... 0jenv&v=lg

42% of Democrats are open or somewhat open to a 3rd party candidate while 37% of Republicans are open or somewhat open to a 3rd party candidate, if Biden and Trump are the nominees. "Third Party" is not what the Democratic and the Republican parties want to hear.

sig230 wrote: Thu Sep 07, 2023 8:43 am

sikacz wrote: Thu Sep 07, 2023 8:28 am

highdesert wrote: Wed Sep 06, 2023 6:24 am HRC lost in 2016 because Dems thought no one would ever vote for Trump. Keep drinking the Kool Aid TNG.

I remember those discussions here too. If the dems were smart they would focus on a consensus unity platform and drop their divisive agenda platform points. Leave the divisive issues to the repubs.

The question though is what is the model, method, mechanism, process or procedure likely to get the Democrat Party to focus on a consensus unity platform and drop their divisive agenda platform points?

Writing letters and sending emails has not worked in the last two elections.

What can be done that has a likelihood of success and avoiding a Republican Presidency?

highdesert wrote: A new LA Times poll done by the Institute of Governmental Studies at the University of California, Berkeley.

Biden also holds a commanding 51% to 31% lead over Trump when all voters are asked their voting preferences in a general election rematch. However, nearly half of the state’s electorate also say they would be very open (24%) or somewhat open (23%) to supporting a third-party candidate should Biden and Trump emerge as their party’s respective nominees.

Observed IGS co-director Eric Schickler, “Even with all of his legal troubles, former President Donald Trump’s lead in the Republican primary looks more like what one expects to see from an incumbent running for reelection than for a candidate in an open-seat. While it remains early, it has to frustrate Trump’s opponents that his lead has grown even amid his series of indictments.”

https://escholarship.org/content/qt4fj3 ... 0jenv&v=lg

42% of Democrats are open or somewhat open to a 3rd party candidate while 37% of Republicans are open or somewhat open to a 3rd party candidate, if Biden and Trump are the nominees. "Third Party" is not what the Democratic and the Republican parties want to hear.

sig230 wrote: Thu Sep 07, 2023 8:52 am

highdesert wrote: Thu Sep 07, 2023 8:47 am A new LA Times poll done by the Institute of Governmental Studies at the University of California, Berkeley.

Biden also holds a commanding 51% to 31% lead over Trump when all voters are asked their voting preferences in a general election rematch. However, nearly half of the state’s electorate also say they would be very open (24%) or somewhat open (23%) to supporting a third-party candidate should Biden and Trump emerge as their party’s respective nominees.

Observed IGS co-director Eric Schickler, “Even with all of his legal troubles, former President Donald Trump’s lead in the Republican primary looks more like what one expects to see from an incumbent running for reelection than for a candidate in an open-seat. While it remains early, it has to frustrate Trump’s opponents that his lead has grown even amid his series of indictments.”

https://escholarship.org/content/qt4fj3 ... 0jenv&v=lg

42% of Democrats are open or somewhat open to a 3rd party candidate while 37% of Republicans are open or somewhat open to a 3rd party candidate, if Biden and Trump are the nominees. "Third Party" is not what the Democratic and the Republican parties want to hear.

Unfortunately the most likely third parties so far are still undesirables.

Unless a reasonable third party is on the horizon I don't see anything but yet another authoritarian run by oligarchs in out future.

God it's good to be old.

highdesert wrote: Thu Sep 07, 2023 9:03 am

sig230 wrote: Thu Sep 07, 2023 8:52 am

highdesert wrote: Thu Sep 07, 2023 8:47 am A new LA Times poll done by the Institute of Governmental Studies at the University of California, Berkeley.

Biden also holds a commanding 51% to 31% lead over Trump when all voters are asked their voting preferences in a general election rematch. However, nearly half of the state’s electorate also say they would be very open (24%) or somewhat open (23%) to supporting a third-party candidate should Biden and Trump emerge as their party’s respective nominees.

Observed IGS co-director Eric Schickler, “Even with all of his legal troubles, former President Donald Trump’s lead in the Republican primary looks more like what one expects to see from an incumbent running for reelection than for a candidate in an open-seat. While it remains early, it has to frustrate Trump’s opponents that his lead has grown even amid his series of indictments.”

https://escholarship.org/content/qt4fj3 ... 0jenv&v=lg

42% of Democrats are open or somewhat open to a 3rd party candidate while 37% of Republicans are open or somewhat open to a 3rd party candidate, if Biden and Trump are the nominees. "Third Party" is not what the Democratic and the Republican parties want to hear.

Unfortunately the most likely third parties so far are still undesirables.

Unless a reasonable third party is on the horizon I don't see anything but yet another authoritarian run by oligarchs in out future.

God it's good to be old.

I agree, the monied donors that run the two political parties don't want competition from 3rd parties and money controls our political parties. 2024 is a lost cause, maybe 2028 but I'm not hopeful.

Wino wrote: Thu Sep 07, 2023 9:25 am If turd wins 2024, we won't have to worry about 2028 elections or elections at all - Donnie will appoint his successor shortly before he passes for the next prez forever, probably around 2044. In the interim he'll disband congress, jail liberals on SCOTUS and across the land, install a throne room in White House, start a war with Canada and Mexico, withdraw from NATO and have lavish state dinners for Putin and the NK idiot - just for starters. Our future looks truly bright - should he win. I thought about ending here with the 'sarcasm' smilie, but not sure this can't all come about.

sikacz wrote: Thu Sep 07, 2023 9:39 am I doubt a dictatorship is going to happen that easily. It would mean suspending the constitution and also controlling the legislature and SCOTUS. If any of that was likely to happen we would be in a civil war. Fear mongering won’t extort my vote or conscience.

Dictatorships. This type of government has no parliament with teeth, or a judiciary with bite. It’s a one-branch show run at the top by a dictator and his trusted yes-men. Corruption via overly complicated legislation runs rampant. Opposition parties are banned. Trade with the outside world is usually banned or heavily regulated. It’s an insult used in the West to hurl at electoral opponents. Blahblahblah. You know what a dictatorship is, and many scholars and journalists today are concerned that this form of government is flowering at the expense of the much-harder-to-maintain liberal democratic system. Vladimir Putin just won an “election” with 77 percent of the Russian vote. Viktor Orbán and his party in Hungary hold 133 out of 199 seats. Recep Tayy?p ErdoÄ?an is packing the Turkish judiciary with Islamists. Poland’s Mateusz Morawiecki is, along with his party, working hard against the secular Western values of the European Union, which Poland voluntarily joined in 2004.

sikacz wrote: Thu Sep 07, 2023 8:59 am

sig230 wrote: Thu Sep 07, 2023 8:43 am

sikacz wrote: Thu Sep 07, 2023 8:28 am

highdesert wrote: Wed Sep 06, 2023 6:24 am HRC lost in 2016 because Dems thought no one would ever vote for Trump. Keep drinking the Kool Aid TNG.

I remember those discussions here too. If the dems were smart they would focus on a consensus unity platform and drop their divisive agenda platform points. Leave the divisive issues to the repubs.

The question though is what is the model, method, mechanism, process or procedure likely to get the Democrat Party to focus on a consensus unity platform and drop their divisive agenda platform points?

Writing letters and sending emails has not worked in the last two elections.

What can be done that has a likelihood of success and avoiding a Republican Presidency?

That is the question and the problem. Perhaps partially answered by the following post.

highdesert wrote: A new LA Times poll done by the Institute of Governmental Studies at the University of California, Berkeley.

Biden also holds a commanding 51% to 31% lead over Trump when all voters are asked their voting preferences in a general election rematch. However, nearly half of the state’s electorate also say they would be very open (24%) or somewhat open (23%) to supporting a third-party candidate should Biden and Trump emerge as their party’s respective nominees.

Observed IGS co-director Eric Schickler, “Even with all of his legal troubles, former President Donald Trump’s lead in the Republican primary looks more like what one expects to see from an incumbent running for reelection than for a candidate in an open-seat. While it remains early, it has to frustrate Trump’s opponents that his lead has grown even amid his series of indictments.”

https://escholarship.org/content/qt4fj3 ... 0jenv&v=lg

42% of Democrats are open or somewhat open to a 3rd party candidate while 37% of Republicans are open or somewhat open to a 3rd party candidate, if Biden and Trump are the nominees. "Third Party" is not what the Democratic and the Republican parties want to hear.

Perhaps hearing and reading about support for a third party will shake up the party elites, but I doubt it. In the end I’m pessimistic that a reasonable response will come out of the dem leadership. Threatening to not vote a dem should have an effect on any reasonable party.

sikacz wrote: Thu Sep 07, 2023 9:39 am I doubt a dictatorship is going to happen that easily. It would mean suspending the constitution and also controlling the legislature and SCOTUS. If any of that was likely to happen we would be in a civil war. Fear mongering won’t extort my vote or conscience.

Latin for "that you have the body." In the US system, federal courts can use the writ of habeas corpus to determine if a state's detention of a prisoner is valid. A writ of habeas corpus is used to bring a prisoner or other detainee (e.g. institutionalized mental patient) before the court to determine if the person's imprisonment or detention is lawful. A habeas petition proceeds as a civil action against the State agent (usually a warden) who holds the defendant in custody. It can also be used to examine any extradition processes used, the amount of bail, and the jurisdiction of the court. See, e.g. Knowles v. Mirzayance 556 U.S. 111 (2009), Felker v. Turpin 518 US 1051 (1996) and McCleskey v. Zant 499 US 467 (1991).

The habeas corpus first originated back in 1215, through the 39th clause of the Magna Carta signed by King John, which provided "No man shall be arrested or imprisoned...except by the lawful judgment of his peers and by the law of the land,"

Article I, Section 9, Clause 2: The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

highdesert wrote: Thu Sep 07, 2023 11:27 am

sikacz wrote: Thu Sep 07, 2023 9:39 am I doubt a dictatorship is going to happen that easily. It would mean suspending the constitution and also controlling the legislature and SCOTUS. If any of that was likely to happen we would be in a civil war. Fear mongering won’t extort my vote or conscience.

I agree, Democrats and Republicans may be divided by many things, but start taking away their rights and in unison they'll start protesting. And it would likely divide our military and law enforcement.

Arrest and suspend habeas corpus.

Latin for "that you have the body." In the US system, federal courts can use the writ of habeas corpus to determine if a state's detention of a prisoner is valid. A writ of habeas corpus is used to bring a prisoner or other detainee (e.g. institutionalized mental patient) before the court to determine if the person's imprisonment or detention is lawful. A habeas petition proceeds as a civil action against the State agent (usually a warden) who holds the defendant in custody. It can also be used to examine any extradition processes used, the amount of bail, and the jurisdiction of the court. See, e.g. Knowles v. Mirzayance 556 U.S. 111 (2009), Felker v. Turpin 518 US 1051 (1996) and McCleskey v. Zant 499 US 467 (1991).

The habeas corpus first originated back in 1215, through the 39th clause of the Magna Carta signed by King John, which provided "No man shall be arrested or imprisoned...except by the lawful judgment of his peers and by the law of the land,"

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitutio ... ion-clause

US Constitution

Article I, Section 9, Clause 2: The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War and George W Bush suspended it after 9/11. Start arresting people and not bringing them before a court will cause riots. As I've said before, Trump's SCOTUS appointments haven't been lapdogs approving all his appeals, he's mostly lost and I don't see that changing if he again was elected.

Both political parties whip up their followers by saying "...this is the most important election in your lifetime..." so "VOTE" Democrat or Republican. They treat us as dumb sheep, just follow and don't ask questions.

In CA we can't vote for a 3rd party in the general election, so the only way to protest is not voting for either candidate. If they want to end the bullshit, then stop restricting third parties.

'Terrific quote for the government to use': Internet slams Trump saying he can do 'whatever I want'

Donald Trump during an interview with a conservative radio host Wednesday said he didn’t break the law in the classified documents case because he’s “allowed to do whatever I want,” and his remarks have created a stir on social media.

Trump was responding to a question from Hugh Hewitt about whether any of the rival Republican presidential candidates would make a suitable vice president when he took a detour to rant about the classified documents case.

“Like the records case, I come under the Presidential Records Act. I’m allowed to do it. Biden’s not allowed to do it, because he wasn’t president. It’s a special act that was passed in great detail in 1977, in tremendous detail. It tells you everything you’re allowed to do, and it’s not criminal. It has nothing to do with the criminal. It’s not a criminal act,” Trump said.

Former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti said Trump’s comments are likely to become part of special counsel Jack Smith’s case against the former president.

“I wouldn’t be surprised if Jack Smith uses this statement against Trump at trial. Trump thinks he is ‘allowed to do whatever I want,” Mariotti said.

“The jury will receive instructions from the judge indicating that the law indicates otherwise.”

Conservative attorney and Trump critic George Conway responded to Mariotti, saying the quote is likely to be used at sentencing, as well.

TrueTexan wrote: Thu Sep 07, 2023 12:39 pm TOS will become the best legal example of not listening to your lawyer and not keeping your mouth shut cause you to go to jail.

TrueTexan wrote: Thu Sep 07, 2023 12:39 pm I am surprised that he even still has any form of legal advisors and lawyers willing to defend him.