Donald Trump Announces 2016 White House Bid
- Thread starter B00Mer
- Start date
There are no police, no prosecutor, and no charges. A civil case is X suing Y, leading to a money judgment or an injunction.
Police, prosecutors, and charges are in criminal cases.
Police, prosecutors, and charges are in criminal cases.
Well if the US doesn't need anything we have...
Fuck em.
Shut everything we deal to the US down, negotiate to send it elsewhere, OR we can, you know, manufacture/use it ourselves.
We're CANADA, not the Fucking USA.
Trump can go fuck himself with his 'shroom dick.
So... who had Dictator Trump on their Bingo Card? (*raises hand*)
Fuck O'Leary, he's no Canadian if he's pushing for ANY sort of "blending" between the US/Canada. (also O'Leary forgets we can squash the "4 year mandate" if PP fucks up real good. Again, Fuck O'Leary.)
Maybe he means between states? That would be a good way to keep the riffraff from California from migrating to more enlightened jurisdictions.Trump appears to blame Biden border policy for New Orleans attack by U.S. citizen
Author of the article:Washington Post
Washington Post
Marianne LeVine, Cat Zakrzewski, The Washington Post
Published Jan 02, 2025 • Last updated 2 days ago • 3 minute read
President-elect Donald Trump appeared to blame the Biden administration’s border policies for the vehicular attack that killed 15 people in New Orleans on Wednesday morning, even though authorities have identified the assailant as a native-born U.S. citizen.
“With the Biden ‘Open Border’s Policy’ I said, many times during Rallies, and elsewhere, that Radical Islamic Terrorism, and other forms of violent crime, will become so bad in America that it will become hard to even imagine or believe,” Trump said in a social media post Thursday. “That time has come, only worse than ever imagined.”
The FBI has identified Shamsud-Din Jabbar as the man who drove a truck with an Islamic State flag into a crowd on Bourbon Street early on New Year’s Day. Jabbar, who was killed at the scene, was an Army veteran from Texas and a U.S. citizen.
Although Trump didn’t explicitly say he was referring to the New Orleans attack, the timing of his Thursday post and his mention of “Radical Islamic Terrorism” suggest he was making the connection. The Trump transition team did not immediately respond to a request for comment. President Joe Biden said Wednesday that Jabbar’s attack appeared to have been inspired by ISIS.
In social media posts that appeared related to the attack, Trump sought to blame migrants for crime in the United States, reprising a central theme of his presidential campaign. In one particularly notable episode in September, the Trump campaign and its allies distorted Homeland Security statistics on undocumented immigrants with criminal records, claiming that the migrants entered the country during the Biden administration. In fact, most did not enter during Biden’s White House tenure. The statistics span the past four decades, and many of the migrants in question entered the country during Trump’s first term.
Jabbar was born in the U.S. during President Ronald Reagan’s administration.
There is no evidence that undocumented immigrants commit crimes at a higher rate than U.S. citizens. The vast majority of those arrested at the southern border do not have criminal convictions. Illegal border crossings reached the highest levels ever recorded during the first three years of Biden’s terms, but those numbers have dropped significantly in recent months.
Hours after the New Orleans attack, Trump claimed on social media that “that the criminals coming in are far worse than the criminals we have in our country” and said “our hearts are with all of the innocent victims and their loved ones, including the brave officers of the New Orleans Police Department.”
Trump’s message suggesting a tie between “criminals coming in” and the New Orleans attack took off on social media Wednesday after Fox News reported that the suspect drove a truck with a Texas licence plate across the border in Eagle Pass, Texas, on Dec. 30. The news network later clarified that new reporting revealed that the truck crossed the border on Nov. 16, and the ID of the driver did not appear to be Jabbar’s. Officials have said that Jabbar rented the car he drove into the crowd, a white Ford F-150 Lightning, through Turo, an online marketplace that allows people to rent out their personal vehicles.
In a Fox News interview Thursday morning, Rep. Michael Waltz (R-Fla.), Trump’s incoming national security adviser, brought up the border when asked about how to prevent further attacks.
“We’ve got to take a hard look at our defences, first and foremost, close our border,” Waltz said.
In addition to appearing to blame the attack on the Biden administration’s border policies, Trump also reprised his claim of a weaponized justice system in a social media post early Thursday, and claimed that the United States is a “laughing stock all over the World!”
“This is what happens when you have OPEN BORDERS, with weak, ineffective, and virtually nonexistent leadership,” Trump said. “The DOJ, FBI, and Democrat state and local prosecutors have not done their job. They are incompetent and corrupt, having spent all of their waking hours unlawfully attacking their political opponent, ME.”
— Meryl Kornfield contributed to this report.
Trump appears to blame Biden border policy for New Orleans attack by U.S. citizen
Donald Trump appeared to blame the Biden administration's border policies for the vehicular attack that killed 15 people in New Orleans.torontosun.com
They do, but most of it can be bought from other third world countries a lot cheaper. Except electricity. That is still difficult to transport in a ship.
Name we one politician who has never spoken an untruth , left right or center ? Thought so .
Appeals court rejects Trump’s latest attempt to get Friday’s hush money sentencing called off
Author of the article:Associated Press
Associated Press
Michael R. Sisak and Jennifer Peltz
Published Jan 06, 2025 • Last updated 18 hours ago • 3 minute read
NEW YORK — A New York appeals court judge on Tuesday denied President-elect Donald Trump ’s latest bid to delay this week’s sentencing in his hush money case.
In a one-sentence ruling following an emergency hearing, Judge Ellen Gesmer denied Trump’s request for an immediate order that would spare him from being sentenced while he appeals Judge Juan M. Merchan’s decision last week to uphold the historic verdict.
It was the second time in two days that Trump was denied.
Trump went to the Appellate Division of the state’s trial court a day after Merchan rebuffed his initial bid to indefinitely postpone sentencing.
Trump’s sentencing remains on schedule for Friday, though he can still ask other courts to intervene.
At an emergency hearing, Trump lawyer Todd Blanche argued that Trump can’t be sentenced because, as president-elect, he enjoys the same immunity from criminal proceedings as a president.
Merchan had rejected that idea in his ruling last week and Steven Wu, arguing for the Manhattan district attorney’s office, said it flew in the face of the long-held concept of one president at a time.
Trump did not attend the hearing.
Trump, less than two weeks from his inauguration, is poised to be the first president to take office convicted of crimes. If his sentencing doesn’t happen before his second term starts Jan. 20, presidential immunity could put it on hold until he leaves office.
Merchan has signaled that he is not likely to punish Trump for his conviction on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records and will accommodate the transition by allowing him to appear at sentencing by video, rather than in person at a Manhattan courthouse.
Still, the Republican and his lawyers contend that his sentencing should not go forward because the conviction and indictment should be dismissed. They have previously suggested taking the case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Merchan last Friday denied Trump’s request to throw out his conviction and dismiss the case because of his impending return to the White House, ruling that Trump’s current status as president-elect does not afford him the same immunity from criminal proceedings as a sitting president.
Merchan wrote that the interests of justice would only be served by “bringing finality to this matter” through sentencing. He said giving Trump what’s known as an unconditional discharge — closing the case without jail time, a fine or probation — “appears to be the most viable solution.”
In his filing Tuesday, Blanche argued that Merchan’s interpretation of presidential immunity was wrong and that it should extend to a president-elect during “the complex, sensitive process of presidential transition.”
“It is unconstitutional to conduct a criminal sentencing of the president-elect during a presidential transition, and doing so threatens to disrupt that transition and undermine the incoming president’s ability to effectively wield the executive power of the United States,” Blanche wrote.
Trump’s lawyers are also challenging the judge’s prior decision rejecting Trump’s argument that the case should be thrown out because of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling last July that gave presidents broad immunity from prosecution.
Manhattan prosecutors have pushed for sentencing to proceed as scheduled, “given the strong public interest in prompt prosecution and the finality of criminal proceedings.”
Trump was convicted last May on charges involving an alleged scheme to hide a hush money payment to porn actor Stormy Daniels in the last weeks of Trump’s 2016 campaign to keep her from publicizing claims she’d had sex with him years earlier. He says that her story is false and that he did nothing wrong.
The case centred on how Trump accounted for reimbursing his then-personal lawyer Michael Cohen, who had made the payment to Daniels. The conviction carried the possibility of punishment ranging from a fine or probation to up to four years in prison.
Trump’s sentencing initially was set for last July 11, then postponed twice at the defence’s request. After Trump’s Nov. 5 election, Merchan delayed the sentencing again so the defence and prosecution could weigh in on the future of the case.
torontosun.com
Author of the article:Associated Press
Associated Press
Michael R. Sisak and Jennifer Peltz
Published Jan 06, 2025 • Last updated 18 hours ago • 3 minute read
NEW YORK — A New York appeals court judge on Tuesday denied President-elect Donald Trump ’s latest bid to delay this week’s sentencing in his hush money case.
In a one-sentence ruling following an emergency hearing, Judge Ellen Gesmer denied Trump’s request for an immediate order that would spare him from being sentenced while he appeals Judge Juan M. Merchan’s decision last week to uphold the historic verdict.
It was the second time in two days that Trump was denied.
Trump went to the Appellate Division of the state’s trial court a day after Merchan rebuffed his initial bid to indefinitely postpone sentencing.
Trump’s sentencing remains on schedule for Friday, though he can still ask other courts to intervene.
At an emergency hearing, Trump lawyer Todd Blanche argued that Trump can’t be sentenced because, as president-elect, he enjoys the same immunity from criminal proceedings as a president.
Merchan had rejected that idea in his ruling last week and Steven Wu, arguing for the Manhattan district attorney’s office, said it flew in the face of the long-held concept of one president at a time.
Trump did not attend the hearing.
Trump, less than two weeks from his inauguration, is poised to be the first president to take office convicted of crimes. If his sentencing doesn’t happen before his second term starts Jan. 20, presidential immunity could put it on hold until he leaves office.
Merchan has signaled that he is not likely to punish Trump for his conviction on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records and will accommodate the transition by allowing him to appear at sentencing by video, rather than in person at a Manhattan courthouse.
Still, the Republican and his lawyers contend that his sentencing should not go forward because the conviction and indictment should be dismissed. They have previously suggested taking the case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Merchan last Friday denied Trump’s request to throw out his conviction and dismiss the case because of his impending return to the White House, ruling that Trump’s current status as president-elect does not afford him the same immunity from criminal proceedings as a sitting president.
Merchan wrote that the interests of justice would only be served by “bringing finality to this matter” through sentencing. He said giving Trump what’s known as an unconditional discharge — closing the case without jail time, a fine or probation — “appears to be the most viable solution.”
In his filing Tuesday, Blanche argued that Merchan’s interpretation of presidential immunity was wrong and that it should extend to a president-elect during “the complex, sensitive process of presidential transition.”
“It is unconstitutional to conduct a criminal sentencing of the president-elect during a presidential transition, and doing so threatens to disrupt that transition and undermine the incoming president’s ability to effectively wield the executive power of the United States,” Blanche wrote.
Trump’s lawyers are also challenging the judge’s prior decision rejecting Trump’s argument that the case should be thrown out because of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling last July that gave presidents broad immunity from prosecution.
Manhattan prosecutors have pushed for sentencing to proceed as scheduled, “given the strong public interest in prompt prosecution and the finality of criminal proceedings.”
Trump was convicted last May on charges involving an alleged scheme to hide a hush money payment to porn actor Stormy Daniels in the last weeks of Trump’s 2016 campaign to keep her from publicizing claims she’d had sex with him years earlier. He says that her story is false and that he did nothing wrong.
The case centred on how Trump accounted for reimbursing his then-personal lawyer Michael Cohen, who had made the payment to Daniels. The conviction carried the possibility of punishment ranging from a fine or probation to up to four years in prison.
Trump’s sentencing initially was set for last July 11, then postponed twice at the defence’s request. After Trump’s Nov. 5 election, Merchan delayed the sentencing again so the defence and prosecution could weigh in on the future of the case.
Appeals court rejects Trump’s latest attempt to get Friday’s hush money sentencing called off
A New York appeals court judge on Tuesday denied Donald Trump ’s latest bid to delay this week’s sentencing in his hush money case.
The part where a recount might cost him seats. Recounts are always chancy. Especially if it is done properly.
The man thinks he got millions and millions in a 'mandate'.
If it gives a 'better' majority, it won't matter at this point.
Sigh. . . Trump got all of NC's electoral votes. Except for a couple of small states, it's an all-or-nothing system. Trump won NC. The only change possible is for Trump to lose NC.
Let me wise you up some, Tax, before you go spouting off about an electoral system of which you are utterly ignorant.
The people don't elect the President. The states elect the President. The Constitution says. . .
Got that? "In such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct." The states don't have to hold popular elections at all. The state legislature can just draw up a slate of electors and send 'em off. Maine and Nebraska, each of which has three electoral votes (out of a total of 538) allow "split" electoral delegations, two to the winner and one to the loser, based on electoral districts within the state.
All state legislatures have, at this point, chosen popular elections as the method for determining electors. But all but Maine and Nebraska are "winner take all" states. If you win 50.1% of the popular vote in California, for example, you get all 55 electoral votes from California. Same with all the other states, except Maine and Nebraska.
By winning the popular election in North Carolina, Trump got all 15 of North Carolina's electoral votes. If the popular election is challenged and Trump won, but by a smaller margin than the margin in the "corrupt" election, he still gets all 15 NC electoral votes. If the popular election, after recount, reconsideration, or whatever-the-fuck they decide to do about it results in Harris winning the popular vote, she will get all 15 NC electoral votes.
And here's the key point. . . it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference. If the reconsideration of NC's election gives the state to Harris, she still won't win. As things stand, the Electoral College count was Trump - 312, Harris - 226. If the EEE-vil libruls connive to shift NC's electoral votes to Harris, it'll be Trump - 297, Harris - 241. And Trump will still win.
So whatever EEE-vil librul plot you're cooking up in your information-free brain, it. . . won't. . . matter.
Sorry to put a hitch in yer git-along.
The people don't elect the President. The states elect the President. The Constitution says. . .
U.S. Const., Art. II, sec. 1, cl. 2.
Got that? "In such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct." The states don't have to hold popular elections at all. The state legislature can just draw up a slate of electors and send 'em off. Maine and Nebraska, each of which has three electoral votes (out of a total of 538) allow "split" electoral delegations, two to the winner and one to the loser, based on electoral districts within the state.
All state legislatures have, at this point, chosen popular elections as the method for determining electors. But all but Maine and Nebraska are "winner take all" states. If you win 50.1% of the popular vote in California, for example, you get all 55 electoral votes from California. Same with all the other states, except Maine and Nebraska.
By winning the popular election in North Carolina, Trump got all 15 of North Carolina's electoral votes. If the popular election is challenged and Trump won, but by a smaller margin than the margin in the "corrupt" election, he still gets all 15 NC electoral votes. If the popular election, after recount, reconsideration, or whatever-the-fuck they decide to do about it results in Harris winning the popular vote, she will get all 15 NC electoral votes.
And here's the key point. . . it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference. If the reconsideration of NC's election gives the state to Harris, she still won't win. As things stand, the Electoral College count was Trump - 312, Harris - 226. If the EEE-vil libruls connive to shift NC's electoral votes to Harris, it'll be Trump - 297, Harris - 241. And Trump will still win.
So whatever EEE-vil librul plot you're cooking up in your information-free brain, it. . . won't. . . matter.
Sorry to put a hitch in yer git-along.