Trump's Incompetent Cabinet

[Caveira]

13 minutes ago, Tripnsweep said:

Read my second line 

[Bigbrog]

There for sure have been a couple head scratchers for pics but overall I am optimistic so far.

[Wrestleknownothing]

10 minutes ago, Bigbrog said:

There for sure have been a couple head scratchers for pics but overall I am optimistic so far.

Nothing really head scratching about them when you consider we have done the same thing two elections in a row, elected an old man with diminishing mental capacity. This one happens to like watching Fox News late at night so it is not particularly surprising that he will rely on Fox News personalities and the subjects of Fox News stories. Disappointing, yes. Surprising, no.

[ionel]

41 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

Nothing really head scratching about them when you consider we have done the same thing two elections in a row, elected an old man with diminishing mental capacity. This one happens to like watching Fox News late at night so it is not particularly surprising that he will rely on Fox News personalities and the subjects of Fox News stories. Disappointing, yes. Surprising, no.

Is it true that as an initial DOGE recommendation Fox News will be shutting down NY office space and moving to the West Wing February 1?  

[uncle bernard]

On 11/20/2024 at 12:25 PM, Husker_Du said:

watch this and then tell me they are incompetent

 

It's crazy that the right whined that someone who spent 20 years as a prosecutor, was a senator, then VP was somehow "unqualified" to be president and then they turn around and cheer when their daddy picks the wife of the founder of the WWE, who has been investigated multiple times for her involvement with steroid and sexual abuse scandals.

Imagine if the dems had nominated an MSNBC host who's been accused of sexual assault and cheated on both his wives to be the Secretary of Defense....

Or a guy who caused a measles outbreak in Samoa and believes HIV is fake to head up HHS?

Or a guy under investigation for statutory rape and sex trafficking to be Attorney General? (who also might have killed someone during a homosexual auto-erotic asphyxiation incident in college which was then covered up by his dad - this story has been out there for years, well before Gaetz was a national figure).

Imagine claiming Trump was anti-war and then he picks Marco Rubio as Sec of State and a guy who openly advocates for bombing Iran as Defense.

It's a joke.

 

[uncle bernard]

Well, right on cue lol

 

 

[Bigbrog]

I am not going to get into the partisan battle of who is qualified and who isn't qualified as it is just that nothing but partisan bs....and both sides do it.  But I am glad Gaetz stepped down.

Now they are going after Trumps Chief of Staff appointee claiming she isn't fit because of previous lobbying "stuff"...wonder if the R's will use the same tired identity politics response of "they are attacking her because she is a woman"  

[uncle bernard]

3 minutes ago, Bigbrog said:

I am not going to get into the partisan battle of who is qualified and who isn't qualified as it is just that nothing but partisan bs....and both sides do it.  But I am glad Gaetz stepped down.

Now they are going after Trumps Chief of Staff appointee claiming she isn't fit because of previous lobbying "stuff"...wonder if the R's will use the same tired identity politics response of "they are attacking her because she is a woman"  

They're actually going after Trump for this, not Wiles. One of his central promises was to "drain the swamp" and he's stacking his cabinet with lobbying insiders and fellow billionaires. 

Now, anybody with a brain knew he wasn't going to drain the swamp. He is the swamp. But that is why you're seeing articles pointing out that Wiles has an extensive lobbyist background for tobacco interests. 

You shouldn't be able to say this:

“You have to stop listening to lobbyists,” Mr. Trump said in an interview with the podcaster Theo Von in August. “You know, I was not a big person for lobbyists, and if they have even a little access to a president or a senator or a congressman or woman,” he added, “they get a lot of money, and in some cases they just take the money, they don’t do anything.”

and then pick a lobbyist for Chief of Staff.

[mspart]

Trump is the swamp?   First time I've ever heard of this.  

So now you are telling us all that Trump orchestrated the civil and criminal litigation against him.   Yeah right.

mspart

[red viking]

Gaetz is out so maybe Hulk Hogan or Dana White can replace him. 

[VakAttack]

2 minutes ago, mspart said:

Trump is the swamp?   First time I've ever heard of this.  

So now you are telling us all that Trump orchestrated the civil and criminal litigation against him.   Yeah right.

mspart

The greatest trick he ever pulled was somehow convincing people he was not a part of the swamp, lol.  The people that voted for him for that reason were hoodwinked and bamboozled.

[mspart]

Examples of the swamp:

1.  FBI  officials investigating Trump and his appointees.

2.  Russia Gate - FBI knew this was all false but went with it anyway

3.  Ukraine Gate - Which we now know was legit. 

4.  two impeacments based on nothign. 

5.  Mueller investigations into Russia gate

6.  Hunter laptop is Russia disinformation

7.  Censoring in social media at the behest of government officials  to quiet people that were speaking the truth about Covid, Russia gate, Huntergate etc. 

Please give examples of Trump as the Swamp.

mspart

[red viking]

3 minutes ago, mspart said:

Examples of the swamp:

1.  FBI  officials investigating Trump and his appointees.

2.  Russia Gate - FBI knew this was all false but went with it anyway

3.  Ukraine Gate - Which we now know was legit. 

4.  two impeacments based on nothign. 

5.  Mueller investigations into Russia gate

6.  Hunter laptop is Russia disinformation

7.  Censoring in social media at the behest of government officials  to quiet people that were speaking the truth about Covid, Russia gate, Huntergate etc. 

Please give examples of Trump as the Swamp.

mspart

As an expert attorney, I'm sure you know best that trump isn't guilty of anything, including the 30 or so counts that he was already convicted of.

[VakAttack]

8 minutes ago, mspart said:

Examples of the swamp:

1.  FBI  officials investigating Trump and his appointees.

2.  Russia Gate - FBI knew this was all false but went with it anyway

3.  Ukraine Gate - Which we now know was legit. 

4.  two impeacments based on nothign. 

5.  Mueller investigations into Russia gate

6.  Hunter laptop is Russia disinformation

7.  Censoring in social media at the behest of government officials  to quiet people that were speaking the truth about Covid, Russia gate, Huntergate etc. 

Please give examples of Trump as the Swamp.

mspart

The swamp, within politics, is used to refer to reducing the influence of special interest groups and lobbyists.  Trump is a part of the ruling class, he was president for 4 years, surrounds himself with lobbyists like Steven Mnuchin in his first term, and other creatures beholden to lobbyists like Marco Rubio and JD Vance this time thru.  I believe the super scary, very real conspiracy theory you're trying to reference is "the deep state" not "draining the swamp."

[mspart]

26 minutes ago, red viking said:

As an expert attorney, I'm sure you know best that trump isn't guilty of anything, including the 30 or so counts that he was already convicted of.

Yes, being the expert attorney that I am not, it is easy to see that the indictments upon which he was "convicted" were not valid.   You cannot state clearly what he was convicted for even today.   What specific crime did he commit?   You can't name it, the judge could not name it, the DA could not name it, and the jury could not name it.   It will get overturned on appeal.   Very easily. 

mspart

[mspart]

21 minutes ago, VakAttack said:

The swamp, within politics, is used to refer to reducing the influence of special interest groups and lobbyists.  Trump is a part of the ruling class, he was president for 4 years, surrounds himself with lobbyists like Steven Mnuchin in his first term, and other creatures beholden to lobbyists like Marco Rubio and JD Vance this time thru.  I believe the super scary, very real conspiracy theory you're trying to reference is "the deep state" not "draining the swamp."

I disagree.   The swamp is the entrenched bureaucracy and congressional folks will do anything to protect their way of doing things.  I gave examples above.   These represent the swamp.  

mspart

[VakAttack]

Just now, mspart said:

I disagree.   The swamp is the entrenched bureaucracy and congressional folks will do anything to protect their way of doing things.  I gave examples above.   These represent the swamp.  

mspart

You don't just get to make up your own definitions for things.

[VakAttack]

3 minutes ago, mspart said:

Yes, being the expert attorney that I am not, it is easy to see that the indictments upon which he was "convicted" were not valid.   You cannot state clearly what he was convicted for even today.   What specific crime did he commit?   You can't name it, the judge could not name it, the DA could not name it, and the jury could not name it.   It will get overturned on appeal.   Very easily. 

mspart

Flatly untrue.

[mspart]

From the indictment of the NY case. 

THE GRAND JURY OF THE COUNTY OF NEW YORK, by this indictment, accuses the defendant of the crime of FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS IN THE FIRST DEGREE, in violation of Penal Law §175.10, committed as follows:
The defendant, in the County of New York and elsewhere, on or about February 14, 2017, with intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof, made and caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise, to wit, an invoice from Michael Cohen dated February 14, 2017, marked as a record of the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, and kept and maintained by the Trump Organization.
SECOND COUNT:
AND THE GRAND JURY AFORESAID, by this indictment, further accuses the defendant of the crime of FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS IN THE FIRST DEGREE, in violation of Penal Law §175.10, committed as follows:
The defendant, in the County of New York and elsewhere, on or about February 14, 2017, with intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof, made and caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise, to wit, an entry in the Detail General Ledger for the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, bearing voucher number 842457, and kept and maintained by the Trump Organization.

It goes on for 34 counts.   They all say roughly the same thing as is bolded.  The whole felony basis of this with thee "another crime".  

What is that crime I wonder.  Bragg didn't say, Judge couldn't say, and Jury didn't know.   Perhaps you know what the specific crime was that turned misdemeanors into felonies.   If you can, you would be the only one ever to know.   If you can't, then saying what I wrote is flatly untrue is a bit of conjecture that is made to sound knowledgeable. 

mspart

[VakAttack]

8 minutes ago, mspart said:

From the indictment of the NY case. 

THE GRAND JURY OF THE COUNTY OF NEW YORK, by this indictment, accuses the defendant of the crime of FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS IN THE FIRST DEGREE, in violation of Penal Law §175.10, committed as follows:
The defendant, in the County of New York and elsewhere, on or about February 14, 2017, with intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof, made and caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise, to wit, an invoice from Michael Cohen dated February 14, 2017, marked as a record of the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, and kept and maintained by the Trump Organization.
SECOND COUNT:
AND THE GRAND JURY AFORESAID, by this indictment, further accuses the defendant of the crime of FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS IN THE FIRST DEGREE, in violation of Penal Law §175.10, committed as follows:
The defendant, in the County of New York and elsewhere, on or about February 14, 2017, with intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof, made and caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise, to wit, an entry in the Detail General Ledger for the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, bearing voucher number 842457, and kept and maintained by the Trump Organization.

It goes on for 34 counts.   They all say roughly the same thing as is bolded.  The whole felony basis of this with thee "another crime".  

What is that crime I wonder.  Bragg didn't say, Judge couldn't say, and Jury didn't know.   Perhaps you know what the specific crime was that turned misdemeanors into felonies.   If you can, you would be the only one ever to know.   If you can't, then saying what I wrote is flatly untrue is a bit of conjecture that is made to sound knowledgeable. 

mspart

Again, this is just flatly untrue.  You can read the jury instructions, read to the jury before deliberation for yourself.  Just because YOU don't know something doesn't mean nobody else does.

He was charged with falsifying his business records in an effort to conceal his violation of New York election law 17-152, regarding conspiring to promote or prevent the election.

https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/press/PDFs/People v. DJT Jury Instructions and Charges FINAL 5-23-24.pdf

[mspart]

21 minutes ago, VakAttack said:

He was charged with falsifying his business records in an effort to conceal his violation of New York election law 17-152, regarding conspiring to promote or prevent the election.

https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/press/PDFs/People v. DJT Jury Instructions and Charges FINAL 5-23-24.pdf

So you agree with me.   Very interesting.  The indictment, which is the charges, do not specifically state what the actual charges are.    Trump is entitled by the Constitution to know what he is being charged with so he can mount a defense.  Why do you use jury instructions which is after the fact.  So you are in effect saying the charges were not known until jury instructions.   Sounds like a pre-determined result.  It was a faux prosecution and the appeal will show this.  

Now why did the indictment not state exactly what law was he breaking specifically?   Why  term it as "another law"? You have to break a law to be prosecuted for it.  You and Bragg are not able to enumerate that.   Another wrinkle:  How could he conceal anything when the records were made after the election?  

Do you ever defend a client without knowing exactly what he/she did to break the law?  If so, did you not seek dismissal based on the 6th Amendment?   Quoted here:

Amendment VI           (1791)

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

mspart

Edited yesterday at 09:08 PM by mspart

[VakAttack]

9 minutes ago, mspart said:

So you agree with me.   Very interesting.  The indictment, which is the charges, do not specifically state what the actual charges are.    Trump is entitled by the Constitution to know what he is being charged with so he can mount a defense.  Why do you use jury instructions which is after the fact.  So you are in effect saying the charges were not known until jury instructions.   Sounds like a pre-determined result.  It was a faux prosecution and the appeal will show this.  

Now why did the indictment not state exactly what law was he breaking specifically?   Why  term it as "another law"? You have to break a law to be prosecuted for it.  You and Bragg are not able to enumerate that.   Another wrinkle:  How could he conceal anything when the records were made after the election?  

Do you ever defend a client without knowing exactly what he/she did to break the law?  If so, did you not seek dismissal based on the 6th Amendment?   Quoted here:

Amendment VI           (1791)

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

mspart

No, I don't agree with you.  Just because YOU don't know something doesn't make it a fact.  Everybody who cared to know/didn't have ulterior motives knew this was exactly what he was facing and what the charges were.  There was much discussion over how the charges were a somewhat novel legal theory.  It wasn't as the jury was receiving their instructions that the State revealed like a game show what crime they were alleging Trump was trying to conceal.

Prosecutors file vague indictments all the time, I deal with it constantly; that doesn't mean I don't know what they're alleging.  I can then, if I truly don't know and/or want to lock them in, file a Motion for a Statement of Particulars asking the court to force the State to commit to a specific charge/allegation.  This, of course, doesn't matter as in Florida the State is allowed to change the charges at any point up until the actual trial date.  And that's just for piddling charges with regular people as defendants, whereas with high profile defendants, like, say, former presidents, the State goes out of their way to cross t's and dot i's.

[WrestlingRasta]

1 hour ago, mspart said:

Examples of the swamp:

1.  FBI  officials investigating Trump and his appointees.

2.  Russia Gate - FBI knew this was all false but went with it anyway

3.  Ukraine Gate - Which we now know was legit. 

4.  two impeacments based on nothign. 

5.  Mueller investigations into Russia gate

6.  Hunter laptop is Russia disinformation

7.  Censoring in social media at the behest of government officials  to quiet people that were speaking the truth about Covid, Russia gate, Huntergate etc. 

Please give examples of Trump as the Swamp.

mspart

Other people being dirty does not mean Trump is not dirty as hell. 

[mspart]

31 minutes ago, VakAttack said:

No, I don't agree with you.  Just because YOU don't know something doesn't make it a fact.  Everybody who cared to know/didn't have ulterior motives knew this was exactly what he was facing and what the charges were.  There was much discussion over how the charges were a somewhat novel legal theory.  It wasn't as the jury was receiving their instructions that the State revealed like a game show what crime they were alleging Trump was trying to conceal.

Prosecutors file vague indictments all the time, I deal with it constantly; that doesn't mean I don't know what they're alleging.  I can then, if I truly don't know and/or want to lock them in, file a Motion for a Statement of Particulars asking the court to force the State to commit to a specific charge/allegation.  This, of course, doesn't matter as in Florida the State is allowed to change the charges at any point up until the actual trial date.  And that's just for piddling charges with regular people as defendants, whereas with high profile defendants, like, say, former presidents, the State goes out of their way to cross t's and dot i's.

OK, I'll bite.   What was he exactly charged with doing?  The judge gave the jury an out:  They could pick one of three things they thought he did and if they all came up with one of those, he was guilty.  Similar to saying he either killed someone, kicked someone, or spat on someone.  Jury gets to decide.  1/3 could say he killed someone, 1/3 could say he kicked someone, and 1/3 could say he spat on someone.   And he'd be found guilty even though the jury couldn't decide exactly what he did.   Please tell me how something like  this could be sent to a jury trial.  I've never heard of being found guilty of several separate things and that counting as convicted to charges in a felony case.   There is a reason many lawyers called this a novel case never before done.  

Elie Honig is one.   https://electionlawblog.org/?p=143384

So, to inflate the charges up to the lowest-level felony (Class E, on a scale of Class A through E) — and to electroshock them back to life within the longer felony statute of limitations — the DA alleged that the falsification of business records was committed “with intent to commit another crime.” Here, according to prosecutors, the “another crime” is a New York State election-law violation, which in turn incorporates three separate “unlawful means”: federal campaign crimes, tax crimes, and falsification of still more documents. Inexcusably, the DA refused to specify what those unlawful means actually were — and the judge declined to force them to pony up — until right before closing arguments. So much for the constitutional obligation to provide notice to the defendant of the accusations against him in advance of trial. (This, folks, is what indictments are for.)

As I said.   Please tell me where he gets this wrong. 

mspart

[Interviewed_at_Weehawken]

On 11/21/2024 at 11:03 AM, Caveira said:

Read my second line 

Anytime someone points out hypocrisy, certain people will say "whataboutism!"  So dumb.