Orange Duce

[Farfromgeneva]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bigZ1fmwD-Q

[get it to x]

Just how much trouble is Trump in? So much trouble that two potential civil litigation matters in which the plaintiff has accused Trump of raping her barely garner any attention.

NEW YORK, Sept 20 (Reuters) - A writer who accused Donald Trump of raping her more than a quarter-century ago plans to file a new lawsuit against the former U.S. president, whose lawyer called the effort "extraordinarily prejudicial."

In a letter made public on Tuesday, a lawyer for E. Jean Carroll said the former Elle magazine columnist plans to sue Trump for battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress under New York state's Adult Survivors Act.

That law, recently signed by New York Governor Kathy Hochul, gives adult accusers a one-year window to bring civil claims over alleged sexual misconduct regardless of how long ago it occurred.

Carroll has accused Trump of raping her in late 1995 or early 1996 in a dressing room at the Bergdorf Goodman department store in Midtown Manhattan.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/trump-rap ... 022-09-20/

The plaintiff’s defamation case against Trump goes to trial next February.

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2022/07/19/tri ... duled.html


DocBarrister

She has the same eyes as your emoji.

What is it that you find so funny?

That Donald Trump has been credibly accused of rape?

Or do you customarily mock alleged rape victims?

DocBarrister

Believe all women. Just don't give them your credit card.

[Kismet]

Just how much trouble is Trump in? So much trouble that two potential civil litigation matters in which the plaintiff has accused Trump of raping her barely garner any attention.

NEW YORK, Sept 20 (Reuters) - A writer who accused Donald Trump of raping her more than a quarter-century ago plans to file a new lawsuit against the former U.S. president, whose lawyer called the effort "extraordinarily prejudicial."

In a letter made public on Tuesday, a lawyer for E. Jean Carroll said the former Elle magazine columnist plans to sue Trump for battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress under New York state's Adult Survivors Act.

That law, recently signed by New York Governor Kathy Hochul, gives adult accusers a one-year window to bring civil claims over alleged sexual misconduct regardless of how long ago it occurred.

Carroll has accused Trump of raping her in late 1995 or early 1996 in a dressing room at the Bergdorf Goodman department store in Midtown Manhattan.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/trump-rap ... 022-09-20/

The plaintiff’s defamation case against Trump goes to trial next February.

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2022/07/19/tri ... duled.html


DocBarrister

She has the same eyes as your emoji.

I would add that the NY law looks like a Bill of Attainder to me. A one year window. How convenient.

The law provides for a CIVIL action not a criminal one. Additionally, Orange Cheato can defend himself in court.

Please explain your reasoning why you think its a bill of attainder?

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bigZ1fmwD-Q

I snuck into the movie theater to watch that. Love it.

[dislaxxic]

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/22/opin ... -joke.html

"Donald Trump’s so-called big lie is not big because of its brazen dishonesty or its widespread influence or its unyielding grip over the Republican Party. It is not even big because of its ambition — to delegitimize a presidency, disenfranchise millions of voters, clap back against reality. No, the lie that Donald Trump won the 2020 election has grown so powerful because it is yoked to an older deception, without which it could not survive: the idea that American politics is, in essence, a joke, and that it can be treated as such without consequence.

The big lie depends on the big joke. It was enabled by it. It was enhanced by it. It is sustained by it.

[snip]

The writer describing The Big Joke (aka the Trumpublican MAGAts now running the GOP):

"When politicians publicly defend positions they privately reject, they are telling the joke. When they give up on the challenge of governing the country for the rush of triggering the enemy, they are telling the joke. When they intone that they must address the very fears they have encouraged or manufactured among their constituents, they are telling the joke. When their off-the-record smirks signal that they don’t really mean what they just said or did, they are telling the joke. As the big lie spirals ever deeper into unreality, with the former president mixing election falsehoods with call-outs to violent, conspiratorial fantasies, the big joke has much to answer for."

That whole article is an AWESOME summary of how we have come to this point in America's political realm. I've already sent it on to dozens of friends. Thanks so much for posting it in its entirety, SC(1)...

..

[ggait]

The companion piece to the Big Joke/Lie analysis is the classic book "On BS."

Trump and the GOP aren't liars in the conventional sense. They are BS artists.

Liars care about the truth, know the truth matters, and are careful to try to hide their lies.

BS artists consider the concept of truth completely irrelevant. They don't care if what they say is true or not. They just say stuff because it serves their ends, even when it is obviously and ridiculously false. Closely related to the "Firehose of Falsehood" as frequently practiced by the Soviets/Russians.

Hence Trump lives in a 30,000 square foot apartment (actually 10,000) on the 68th floor (of a 58 story building).

On BS is a 2005 book (originally a 1986 essay) by American philosopher Harry G. Frankfurt which presents a theory of BS that defines the concept and analyzes the applications of BS in the context of communication. Frankfurt determines that BS is speech intended to persuade without regard for truth. The liar cares about the truth and attempts to hide it; the BSer doesn't care if what they say is true or false, but cares only whether the listener is persuaded.

[Farfromgeneva]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bigZ1fmwD-Q

I snuck into the movie theater to watch that. Love it.

I keep copies of my speeches in my pants becuase of it.

[CU88]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bigZ1fmwD-Q

I am going to track this down online to watch this weekend. LOL

[DMac]

Gotta find the uncut version, might be my all time favorite movie.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eq3F0c2y5oI

[CU88]

Gotta find the uncut version, might be my all time favorite movie.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eq3F0c2y5oI

THE CLASSIC line!

[DMac]

Gotta find the uncut version, might be my all time favorite movie.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eq3F0c2y5oI

THE CLASSIC line!

You mean the, "Not to jump around like a bunch of Kansas City faggots." line?

[CU88]

Brandon Van Grack
Co-Chair, National Security practice
@MoFoLLP | fmr. DOJ natsec official incl. #FARA Unit Chief, Leak Czar, prosecutor | #sanctions #CFIUS #cyber | views my own

The Declass Defense : FPOTUS’s recent stmts that he declassified “everything” and may have done it secretly (“by thinking about it”) merit a review of how a secret declassification order would impact an Espionage Act charge for retaining nat'l defense info (“retention charge").

As a starting point, the fact that a document has been declassified is typically relevant to a retention charge, even though the law does not specifically refer to classified information. The Espionage Act predates our current classification procedures and nomenclature. /1

And although an appellate court just held the declassification question is a “red herring,” that decision concerned the narrow issue of whether FPOTUS could have a personal interest in docs w/ classification markings and thus deprive the DOJ of the docs—he could not. /2

It is unlawful under Esp. Act to willfully retain “national defense info,” which courts have generally held (i) must relate to the military and “national preparedness,” (ii) must be “closely held,” and (iii) the disclosure of the info “must be potentially damaging to the US.” /3

In the typical retention case, a decision to declassify is disqualifying to charges b/c the decision means the (i) info no longer requires special handling and protection (no longer “closely held”) and (ii) its disclosure would no longer potentially damage the US. /4

However, classified docs subject to a secret declassification order covering a broad set of sources and methods (300+ docs), done w/o consulting the intel community, and not communicated to the intel community (or anyone) would likely still be “national defense info.” /5

First, the underlying information, if it concerned the military and national preparedness, would be unaffected by the secret declassification order. The subject of the info is unchanged by the order. /6

Second, the intel community would still be treating the info as protected and “closely held” b/c they were unaware of the order. Even FPOTUS attys treated some docs as “closely held”—on June 3 they provided DOJ w/ 38 classified docs in an “envelope, double-wrapped in tape.” /7

Double-wrapping is how classified docs are required to be transferred from a secure facility. The material is covered—“wrapped”— twice to ensure the classified material is not accidentally seen by someone not authorized to receive it. /8

Additionally, FPOTUS and his attys have argued the classified docs were in a “locked room at Mar-a-Lago, a secure, controlled access compound . . . which to this day is monitored by the United States Secret Service.” /9

Such statements, if true, are actually evidence that the documents were “closely held.” In other words, the more evidence that FPOTUS did not disclose them and took measures to protect them, the stronger the case that he was retaining “national defense info.” /10

Finally, a secret declassification order that was not documented or based on the particular sources and methods at issue would not appear to affect the question of whether their disclosure would potentially damage the US. /11

DOJ would present evidence from the intel community of the potential damage to the US and FPOTUS would be limited in his ability to point to a specific fact or circumstance that justified the declassification of all 300+ docs. /12

Moreover, if FPOTUS had knowledge of all 300+ docs and was able to explain why their disclosure would not damage nat'l security, it would be evidence of knowledge that he possessed the 300+ docs and thus be evidence that he obstructed justice by not returning the docs. /13

So although declassification by FPOTUS would be an issue for DOJ to consider when charging, a secret declassification order for over 300 docs—even if valid —would not prevent DOJ from bringing a retention charge. /14

[njbill]

Gee, all along I thought you had to not only “think about it,” but also click your heels three times to declassify documents.

[Essexfenwick]

Gee, all along I thought you had to not only “think about it,” but also click your heels three times to declassify documents.

True.

President is the boss of the deep state and anything he says he declassified was declassified.

[Seacoaster(1)]

Gee, all along I thought you had to not only “think about it,” but also click your heels three times to declassify documents.

True.

President is the boss of the deep state and anything he says he declassified was declassified.

Sounds just like a system cabined in by the rule of law. Nice. How’s the Cult?

[Essexfenwick]

Gee, all along I thought you had to not only “think about it,” but also click your heels three times to declassify documents.

True.

President is the boss of the deep state and anything he says he declassified was declassified.

Sounds just like a system cabined in by the rule of law. Nice. How’s the Cult?

Rule of law…lol

Like illegal border crossers.. what a novel concept.

The cult is people who haven’t noticed Joe has dementia.

[PizzaSnake]

Gee, all along I thought you had to not only “think about it,” but also click your heels three times to declassify documents.

True.

President is the boss of the deep state and anything he says he declassified was declassified.

Sounds just like a system cabined in by the rule of law. Nice. How’s the Cult?

Rule of law…lol

Like illegal border crossers.. what a novel concept.

The cult is people who haven’t noticed Joe has dementia.

Okay, so let’s enforce I-9 compliance. You know, “rule of law”. Of course, American just wouldn’t be the same without its slaves, now would it?

No jobs, people wouldn’t come. If you think interdiction at the border is possible, and could be more effective than controlling employment, I’ve got some nice junior water rights for the Colorado to sell you.

[Farfromgeneva]

Gotta find the uncut version, might be my all time favorite movie.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eq3F0c2y5oI

THE CLASSIC line!

You mean the, "Not to jump around like a bunch of Kansas City faggots." line?

I think he said the sheriff is near.

Excuse me while I whip this out.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Gotta find the uncut version, might be my all time favorite movie.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eq3F0c2y5oI

THE CLASSIC line!

You mean the, "Not to jump around like a bunch of Kansas City faggots." line?

I think he said the sheriff is near.

Excuse me while I whip this out.

Baby please! I am not from Havana.

[DMac]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLDnPiXyME0