Trump CONVICTED - NO new Trump threads part III

Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III
From: Donuel
Date: 30 Jan 24 - 07:04 PM

Most likely a Trump supporter made an anonymous call for SWAT to respond to a shooting of a female at Nikki Halley's house.
Only her elderly parents were home and were greeted by dozens of hair-trigger automatic weapons and fully armored 'troops'.

Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III
From: Helen
Date: 31 Jan 24 - 01:27 AM

I'm proposing a new entry in the dictionary: not "temper tantrums" but "temper tanTrumps". What do you think?

I'm sure the tanTrumps will be multiplying over the next few months at least, but probably until the election and its aftermath. We've already seen the post E. Jean Carroll settlement tanTrump. :-D

Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III
From: Donuel
Date: 31 Jan 24 - 10:23 AM

FUNNY Helen

The Kingdom, the Power and the Glory
American evangelism in the age of extremism by Tim Alberta

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/12/01/evangelicals-american-politics-tim-alberta-book-excerpt-00129319

The Trump Messiah Project

There is also a Homeschooling branch of evangelicals teaching Holy Trumpism

Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 31 Jan 24 - 12:23 PM

Last night on PBS (Public Broadcasting System) the documentary program Frontline took a look at the reason for the cases around Trump. 90 minutes well spent should you choose to watch it (and if it is available in your country. Might want to use a VPN with a US IP if you can't see it from there.)

A Guide to the Criminal Cases Against Donald Trump

As FRONTLINE examines in the new documentary Democracy on Trial, some of those charges against Trump — who is now the front-runner for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination — stem from his election loss in 2020 and his role in widespread efforts to overturn the results.

The former president has pleaded not guilty to the charges against him and is scheduled to stand trial in multiple cases in the coming months. Trump has insisted that the cases against him are politically motivated and his lawyers have filed motions arguing that presidents have absolute immunity from prosecution for actions taken while in office. “Donald Trump is going to be the defendant and the candidate all wrapped into one,” New Yorker journalist Susan Glasser tells FRONTLINE in the documentary. “It’s just unprecedented.”

As the scheduled start dates of the trials approach, and Trump’s team has sought delays, here are key details of the criminal cases pending against the former president.

See the list of cases by following the link at the top.

Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III
From: Helen
Date: 01 Feb 24 - 01:27 PM

Another lawsuit has not gone in Trump's favour (I've copied the first half of the article):

Donald Trump lawsuit over allegations of 'perverted sexual acts' in Russia dismissed by UK court

"In short: A judge has thrown out a lawsuit which former US president Donald Trump brought against a former British spy, whose dossier containing allegations of ties between Mr Trump and Russia caused a political storm in 2017.

"The so-called Steele dossier claimed Mr Trump also engaged in "perverted sexual acts" in Russia, which Mr Trump has always denied.

"What's next? A judge ruled there were "no compelling reasons" for Mr Trump's claim to proceed to a trial, and he is yet to comment publicly.

"A judge in London's High Court threw out a lawsuit by former US president Donald Trump on Thursday, which accused a former British spy of making "shocking and scandalous claims" that were false and harmed his reputation.

"Mr Trump, the frontrunner for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, had sued private investigations firm Orbis Business Intelligence about claims in a dossier written by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele, who co-founded the firm.

"The so-called Steele dossier alleged ties between Mr Trump's campaign and Russia.

"Mr Trump, 77, said in a witness statement made public in October that he brought the case to prove claims in the dossier, published by the BuzzFeed website in 2017, that he engaged in "perverted sexual acts" in Russia, were false.

"The uncorroborated allegations caused a political storm just before Mr Trump's inauguration in January 2017.

"Mr Steele, who once ran the Russia desk for Britain's Secret Intelligence Service, also known as MI6, was paid by Democrats to compile research that included salacious allegations that Russians could potentially use to blackmail Mr Trump."

Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 01 Feb 24 - 03:07 PM

Since it has been proven in court here in the US that Trump partakes in "perverted sexual acts" he really can't make the case over in the UK or Russia.

Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III
From: Lighter
Date: 01 Feb 24 - 05:37 PM

Wikipedia:

"On March 24, 2022, Trump filed a RICO lawsuit in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida against Clinton, Steele, and many others.[543] The case was dismissed on September 8, 2022. The judge wrote that "despite the numerous references to [Steele] in Trump's lawsuit, 'none specifically attribute any false statement about Plaintiff to him'".[544]"

Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III
From: Helen
Date: 01 Feb 24 - 08:19 PM

Thanks Lighter, I knew I had heard of the Steele dossier before. I guess Trump thinks that if a case doesn't work out for him in the U.S. he can try it on again in the U.K.

SRS, I agree. I laughed out loud at this bit:

Trump "...accused a former British spy of making 'shocking and scandalous claims' that were false and harmed his reputation".

Huh??!! What does he think his reputation looks like to everyone? The way to "harm" his reputation would be to polish it up and make him look like a saint ... which he ain't.

Which reminds me, didn't his name get revealed in the documents released about the Jeffrey Epstein case?

Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III
From: Lighter
Date: 02 Feb 24 - 07:29 AM

Clinton was "named" too, Helen, which only means mentioned as having associated with Epstein.

Neither Clinton nor Trump was accused of wrongdoing.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2024/01/03/jeffrey-epstein-list-clinton-trump/72086945007/

Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Feb 24 - 09:02 AM

Can someone explain how the Fundraising for the presidential campaigns fits in?

The linked article (From Polico, an online news service founded in Washington) seems to indicate that the more money someone has, the more likely they are to be elected :-( I know there is a lot wrong with UK politics but I don't think we have that problem yet! Can you also tell me that the fundraising for Trump cannot go towards his legal bills? It reads as though it does but surely that is fraud. Not that that matters to Trump.

A much more uplifting article from the same magazine (which I can understand) is 30 things about Biden you might have missed. Fire these back at Biden detractors. Not that they will take any nitice but at least it is good ammunition

Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III
From: Helen
Date: 02 Feb 24 - 12:05 PM

Thanks SRS. All I saw was an article which briefly mentioned the documents released and stated that Trump was one of the names listed.

I confess, mea culpa, that as soon as I saw his name on the list I made the assumption that he was likely to have done some of the bad things.

Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III
From: Donuel
Date: 02 Feb 24 - 07:22 PM

McConnel's lament: the party's over
INTRO.
I always ew you're no good for us.
Learning to lose took guts,
Tore my shirt to stop your bleedin'
But nothin' ever stops your liein
And I'll call you when the party's over
But nothin' is better sometimes
Once we've both said our goodbyes
Let's just let it go
Let me let you go


Verse:
The party's over
It's time to call it a day
They've burst your petty balloon
And taken your cash away
It's time to wind up the masquerade
Just make your mind up the piper must be paid
The party's over
The candles flicker and dim
You golfed and dreamed through the night
It seemed to be right just being the Don
Now you must wake up, all dreams must end
Take off your orange mask, the party's over
It's all over, ass hole
The party's over
It's time to call it a day
Now you must wake up, all dreams must end
Take off your makeup, the party's over
It's all over, ass hole

Subject: BS: USA FOREIGN POLICY
From: The Sandman
Date: 04 Feb 24 - 04:54 AM

The United States led the ranking of countries with highest military spending in 2022, with 877 billion U.S. dollars dedicated to the military. That constituted nearly 40 percent of the total military spending worldwide that year, which amounted to 2.2 trillion U.S. dollars.30 Nov 2023.
Is there likely to be any difference if Republicans win an elewction instead of Democrats?
Can any USA members know of any specific election promises relating to arms spending

Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 04 Feb 24 - 10:21 AM

Dick's dog whistle post (was the start of a new thread) has been moved over here because it boils down to a discussion of what crazy things would Trump do if he was elected again. We can see what Biden is attempting (though quiet diplomacy seems to be a concept beyond the pundits at FAUX news). Support of Ukraine, and still try for a two-state solution. Trump doesn't want either of those.

Put briefly: the Democrats are the party that manages to reduce the national debt, though I don't know if Biden has been able to put a dent in what Trump generated in his four years. The intersection of COVID and the war in Ukraine may have made trimming impossible at this point.

What Trump says and what he does are influenced and often exaggerated by the lunatic chorus in the House of Representatives (in particular). They say they want to spend less but then spend all of their time giving tax breaks to the rich and corporations to reduce revenue, following by cuts in essential services due to the revenue drop. Their spending on military things seems to remain the same (though they say they'll cut off Ukraine if Trump is elected. That's the foolish penny wise and pound foolish approach to world stability.)

Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III
From: Helen
Date: 04 Feb 24 - 12:53 PM

Yesterday I watched this TV show for only the second time. As it happens this episode was about spending intentions of Biden compared with Trump, including military spending, and one of the comments was that Trump has made no statements about his spending intentions or his political aims in his campaign speeches.

(Note: I suspect that his only intention in getting re-elected is to grant himself some pardons and do some damage to those he considers to be his political enemies.)

PBS Washington Week With The Atlantic

The info about the show is: "PBS Washington Week with The Atlantic is the longest-running primetime news and public affairs program on television. The show features a group of journalists participating in a weekly roundtable discussion of major news events. Moderated by Jeffrey Goldberg, Editor-in-Chief of The Atlantic."

The episode I saw yesterday shows it as a preview now but the full episode should become available soon - I expect:

Preview: Coming Up on Washington Week with The Atlantic Feb. 01, 2024 AT 7:23 p.m. EST

Episode overview:

"U.S. Retaliation Amid Middle East Chaos:

"Earlier this week, President Biden told reporters that he has decided how the U.S. will respond to the Iran-backed militia drone attack that killed three American soldiers in Jordan on Sunday. The Biden administration has made it clear that the U.S. does not want war with Iran, as any plans to retaliate could further escalate tensions in the Middle East.

"It’s unclear if the mounting foreign conflicts will spill over into the voting booth as Americans head for a potential Biden-Trump rematch this November.

"Joining editor in chief of The Atlantic and moderator, Jeffrey Goldberg to discuss this and more:

    "Peter Baker, Chief White House Correspondent, New York Times
    "Susan Glasser, Staff Writer, The New Yorker
    "Lara Seligman, Defense Reporter, POLITICO
    "Nancy Youssef, National Security Correspondent, Wall Street Journal"

Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 04 Feb 24 - 01:23 PM

I watch that program almost every week (when I remember). It was Washington Week In Review forever and had some standout hosts. Heartbreak when Gwen Ifill died (age 61). They have had different hosts over the years, not for so long. It is a recent development that they merged with The Atlantic magazine for this program.

I don't remember hearing any particular revelations regarding the outlook for military spending on that program.

Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III
From: Helen
Date: 04 Feb 24 - 02:28 PM

Regarding military spending, I think that the Ukraine situation was mentioned, but probably not military spending within the U.S.

Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 05 Feb 24 - 02:26 PM

Lots of moving parts when keeping track of Trump trials. There are two higher courts looking at his claims of immunity and his standing as far as appearing on ballots in states.

Looking into the final verdict in the civil fraud trial that wrapped up last month, last Friday a spokesman for the New York State Office of Court Administration said "It’s looking like early to mid-February, as a rough estimate, and subject to modifications. But that’s the working plan now."

In the E. Jean Carroll second trial, Trump has 30 days after the judgement to pay at least $90M, though she can't collect until after the appeal. Trump is trying to get the results overturned because Carroll's lead attorney worked in the same legal firm as the judge thirty years ago. He is the king of grasping at straws. He already dropped $5M in cash for the first Carroll verdict last year.

In Business Insider they say

A source familiar with the case, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to do so publicly, told Business Insider that Trump's $5.5 million was still there, pending the outcome of his appeal of that first verdict. An appellate court is set to eventually decide whether Carroll gets all, some, or none of that $5.5 million.

This time around, Trump can again ask the judge to let him set Carroll's second, much higher damages award aside in a court-managed account. There, it would sit pending appeal, just like the $5.5 million from the first verdict.

If the judge says no — and $90 million is a lot for a court to babysit — Trump would have to secure Carroll's money through what's called an appeal bond.

The bond would cost him a lot more. Follow the link for that discussion.

Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III
From: Donuel
Date: 07 Feb 24 - 02:24 PM

Today there is a rare audio streaming from the Supreme Court regarding the 14th amendment on Trump's eligibility to run for PRESIDENT AGAIN.

Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III
From: Helen
Date: 07 Feb 24 - 05:40 PM

US federal appeals court rejects Donald Trump's sweeping immunity claim

"In short: A federal appeals court has ruled the former US president Donald Trump does not have blanket immunity in a case in which he has been charged with plotting to overturn his 2020 election defeat.

"The court found that any "executive immunity" provided by the presidency no longer shielded him from prosecution.

"What's next? The case will be paused until at least February 12 to give Mr Trump's team time to appeal to the US Supreme Court."

Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 07 Feb 24 - 06:32 PM

The court that issued that ruling gave him only until Monday, Feb. 12 to take it to the Supreme Court, they're not letting him drag it out. That is the important thing, that they reign in his delay tactics. If they don't do anything by then, it goes back to Chutkin and she sets a date.

Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 07 Feb 24 - 07:19 PM

Nit Pick of the Day: one reins in a bolting horse (eg Trump), esp if he wishes to reign.

Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III
From: Helen
Date: 07 Feb 24 - 09:05 PM

All right, MaJoC, very funny! You win the Pick of the Nits today.

I'd say that it's the people with power trying to "reign" him in. LOL


US attorney-general says special counsel has completed a probe into allegations President Joe Biden mishandled documents

"In short: US Attorney-General Merrick Garland has told congress an investigation into whether President Joe Biden mishandled classified documents dating to his time as vice-president was finished.

"Special Counsel Robert Hur's report will be made public soon, Mr Garland said, adding the White House needed to complete a review of the document for potential executive privilege concerns.

"Documents were found at Mr Biden's Delaware home and at a private office he used in between his service in the Obama administration and becoming president."

Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 07 Feb 24 - 10:53 PM

Gotta love autocorrect, it didn't get the syntax of the word (it was probably fixing my typo - "backspace" is the key I use most often on the keyboard).

They're talking about tomorrow's Supreme Court hearing; I don't know if I'll be able to listen live but I'm sure it will be rebroadcast ad nauseum. This to do with states taking him off of the ballot for participating in an insurrection.

(On MSNBC tonight they're also talking about Clarence Thomas and Dark Money and Leonard Leo and tax laws and the court ethics laws - it feeds into the discussion because it's about how Trump was able to appoint those three justices, supported by Leo.)

Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III
From: Helen
Date: 07 Feb 24 - 11:03 PM

SRS, I should have searched for this before but I thought it wouldn't be available outside of Australia. I've been watching this show since the Trump adventures began. It's very balanced and insightful with some excellent guest interviews.

Planet America

A lot of what you say in this thread aligns with the commentary from the presenters, John Barron and Chas Licciardello.

Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 07 Feb 24 - 11:20 PM

I find those references to ABC interesting - because we have a national ABC network here also. The squiggly logo was the give away (along with the accents when I hit play). I'll take a look at those, thanks!

Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III
From: Helen
Date: 08 Feb 24 - 12:30 AM

Yes, ABC here and ABC there! :-D

When Trump was elected I also started watching the (American) ABC News with David Muir and others. Before that I never watched those shows but I really started to worry about the state of the world with Trump in charge.

Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III
From: Donuel
Date: 08 Feb 24 - 06:28 AM

Trump has a small advantage in the Supreme Court today to stay on the Colorado ballot but the Court is damned if they do and damned if they don't.
In such cases it is better to just do the right thing. There is a possibility Trump will lose. His lawyers will go first at 7:30 AM today.

Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 08 Feb 24 - 06:41 AM

Remind me, please: In which state did Trump not appear on the ballot paper, only for the winner to be "none of the above"?

Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III
From: Helen
Date: 08 Feb 24 - 11:38 AM

MaJoC, I confess to being confused about the primary and caucus voting to choose party candidates but I did hear about this on the Planet America show I mentioned. I just found this article which explains why Haley chose not to be on the primary ballot because there was also a caucus vote. Reading the whole article helped me to get a bit more clarity about the primary and caucus voting:

Nikki Haley loses to 'none of these candidates' in the Nevada GOP primary

"Nikki Haley faced no major challenger Tuesday in Nevada’s presidential primary.

"She still lost, according to NBC News projections.

"Nevada voters in the state-run primary had a choice to reject all the candidates on the ballot, and they did just that — with more people choosing to vote for “none of these candidates” than for Haley.

"Former President Donald Trump, far and away the front-runner for the Republican nomination, wasn’t on the same ballot as Haley because he is set to compete in party-run caucuses Thursday.

"It was a stinging rebuke of Haley, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and South Carolina governor — and one that some party leaders had encouraged. The outcome in Nevada was Haley's third consecutive loss in an early-state primary contest.

"Still, Haley's campaign indicated that the results wouldn't affect how long she'd stay in the race.

"'Even Donald Trump knows that when you play penny slots, the house wins. We didn’t bother to play a game rigged for Trump. We’re full steam ahead in South Carolina and beyond,' spokesperson Olivia Perez-Cubas said."

Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 08 Feb 24 - 11:40 AM

Alito is giving the Colorado attorney a lot of grief, suggesting he isn't answering the questions. In fact it sounds like he's simply being confrontational, trying to change focus.

Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Feb 24 - 03:07 AM

I know you don't want to hear it but...

Nevada :-(

Saying it cannot happen when all evidence shows otherwise is a route to disaster

Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III
From: Donuel
Date: 09 Feb 24 - 04:36 AM

The arguments of Colorado before the Supreme Court were weak and did not highlight the Trump insurrection. I can not fault the Court if they unanimously sided with Trump.

Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III
From: Donuel
Date: 09 Feb 24 - 06:12 AM

Results of a chaotic Republican primary are no more foretelling than the holy apparitions of Trump in the skies of Nevada which by the way had two FUBAR competing Trump primaries. Some states have a Republican State Committee that is bankrupt. Remember only Republicans vote in a primary and many of them are motivated by paid attendance, fear, or conspiracy lies.

Eventually, a Republican party is inconsequential to Trump cultism.
For Trumpers the new boss is the exact same guy as the old boss.
The problem is that it is the same scenario for Democrats with Biden.

Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III
From: Donuel
Date: 09 Feb 24 - 06:43 AM

On top of a Republican decree that the Trump insurrection did not happen we now have the Trump brigade.

Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III
From: Donuel
Date: 09 Feb 24 - 07:02 AM

Here is the decree.

Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III
From: Donuel
Date: 11 Feb 24 - 09:25 AM

Billy Graham II Jr. says Trump did not create an insurrection, God chose him to create a resurrection.
The Republicans in Congress all agree to avoid prison time.

Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 11 Feb 24 - 10:23 AM

The Supreme Court has another at bat coming up soon, to do with the Chutkin trial. He was given until Monday to take that decision before the court; pundits have remarked that the Appellate decision was so tightly and well-constructed that the Supremes may say they're good with it and let it stand.

One can only hope. It would get that trial underway a lot faster.

Too bad Merrick Garland was so busy looking impartial that he didn't get the prosecution going on the Trump cases until after the House of Representatives was at bat.

Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 11 Feb 24 - 11:21 AM

‘At bat’? Say what??

Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 11 Feb 24 - 01:45 PM

I suspect it's a baseball term, though I of course thought of cricket first.

Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 11 Feb 24 - 01:57 PM

You’re probably right MaJoC, although I’ve never heard the term before. In the case of cricket, it would surely be “At the crease”.

Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III
From: Lighter
Date: 11 Feb 24 - 03:06 PM

The noun "at-bat" has been baseball lingo for as long as I can remember. The number of a player's "at-bats" is a basic stat. I mean "statistic."

Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 11 Feb 24 - 03:21 PM

Thanks Lighter - makes sense.

Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III
From: gillymor
Date: 11 Feb 24 - 03:51 PM

If you're the mighty Casey you're "at the bat".

Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III
From: Donuel
Date: 11 Feb 24 - 04:47 PM

Trump is simply batty.

Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 11 Feb 24 - 05:47 PM

It is a baseball term, an idiomatic phrase that we don't even think about. It means they heard one case this week and they get another whack at him next week with a different case. Another one used a lot is "Batting 1000," which would be a perfect record, hitting every ball perfectly every time.

Trump thought he was batting 1000 in the past court cases he's had when he could get away with the criminal behavior (in civil courts to do with housing laws and zoning laws and with bankruptcy and such) - the reason he was called "Teflon Don." Nothing touched him, until now.

Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III
From: Helen
Date: 11 Feb 24 - 07:28 PM

Regarding the Teflon Don handle, someone once told me that the bullying manager I had worked with until he lost me my job was "as slippery as duck $hit" which I understood even better a few years later when I walked through a field full of the stuff. LOL

Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 11 Feb 24 - 10:35 PM

My sympathies, Helen: I suffered from the same work problem. I've just realised that's part of why I tend to walk out of the room when Turnip is on the news.

Methinks the news programmes should do with Turnip what they used to have to do in the UK when broadcasting terrorists' voices was banned: have his words voiced by an actor. I nominate Donald Duck.

Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 11 Feb 24 - 10:52 PM

The horrible boss I worked for (and I retired before they could fire me) supported the same political party I do, but I have to wonder at the anomale; she had no interest in fair play or civil rights. She was too busy trying to run off all of the older employees to capture those wages for other uses. A real Trumpian acolyte (she moved to a new university; perhaps she has now moved to the other party).

Donald Duck would be amusing for Trump's voice. But what about a real villain, someone like Pat Carroll who played Ursula the Sea Witch. It would drive him nuts that the voice was so clear and that it was a woman. :)

Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III
From: Helen
Date: 12 Feb 24 - 12:13 AM

Ah, don't get me started on bullying bosses and toxic work cultures! Sorry for the thread creep. :-(

Did Melissa McCarthy do an impression of Trump at some stage? I seem to remember that.