Trump CONVICTED - NO new Trump threads part III

Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 11 Mar 24 - 05:50 PM

What did you intend to share? That was a commercial for an ambulance company.

Meanwhile, Ex-chief of staff criticizes Trump for Hitler talk.

Retired Gen. John Kelly, who served as White House chief of staff in the Trump administration, recounted several conversations where former President Trump spoke favorably about Adolf Hitler, saying the Nazi leader had done “some good things” and had inspired loyalty within his military.

Kelly spoke about the conversations in an interview with CNN anchor and chief national security analyst Jim Sciutto, who is publishing them as part of a new book, “The Rise of Great Powers.”

Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III
From: Donuel
Date: 11 Mar 24 - 05:15 PM

If you want to know who is really behind the anti democratic forces in America, you are in for a treat: Noam Chomsky

Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 08 Mar 24 - 12:35 AM

Intel agencies eye brief for Trump, amid fears he could spill secrets
It’s standard practice to share classified information with presidential nominees, but the decision to brief Trump if he becomes the GOP nominee this year is loaded with political and potentially legal risks.

The briefings, which are managed by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and approved by the White House, normally take place after the national conventions in late summer.

It’s unclear when Trump’s trial will take place or whether the case will be decided before the election.

Several current and former intelligence and national security officials who spoke with POLITICO said the normally humdrum decision was fraught with unusual risk this year due to the pending court case and Trump’s historically cavalier attitude toward national security information.

Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III
From: Donuel
Date: 07 Mar 24 - 05:33 PM

If you are not political now and Trump seizes power, every aspect of your life will be political just to keep your lights on.
Businesses like utilities nationalized under Trump loyalty is a typical tool of authoritarianism.

Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III
From: Donuel
Date: 06 Mar 24 - 05:55 PM

I mentioned how the House can perform a legal Constitutional coup.
In conjunction with that is the Republican disqualification laws that allow a private citizen to send a postcard demanding a reply or be eliminated at the polls since the postcard not being returned is considered proof of nonresidency.

It worked on me so I could not vote against W the second time.
Its an old trick but is now appearing in most States.

Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III
From: Donuel
Date: 06 Mar 24 - 04:21 PM

There are many fools
who say what is expedient
walks it back the next day
and wants it both ways
as long as their lies
preserve white rule.


To correct Nikki;
there was slavery here
book burning is bad in any form
voting for Trump is not a foregone conclusion
Culture war and identity politics are totally toxic

Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III
From: skarpi
Date: 06 Mar 24 - 02:04 PM

Nikki is out, so god help us.
Nikki Haley was the only person
Who should be President.

Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III
From: Helen
Date: 06 Mar 24 - 01:31 PM

Although Haley would not get my vote if I lived in the U.S., I think that she has achieved one of her goals of showing the voters that there is an alternative to Trump. I don't think that she said everything she would have liked to say about him, and I suspect she was trying not to get his supporters offside while chasing votes. I think she is setting herself up as a possible candidate if Trump gets convicted on some of his serious charges or for the next election. I'm basing my opinions on the comments and opinions expressed in the Oz TV show Planet America, on the (Oz) ABC News coverage and on the Washington Week with the Atlantic TV show.

I also think that her chances of success were reduced because she is a woman and I suspect a lot of male and some female voters cannot conceive of a woman being President.

Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 06 Mar 24 - 10:52 AM

Not as bad as Tr*mp, but plenty bad enough.

Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 06 Mar 24 - 10:36 AM

Trump won all but Washington, D.C. and the Vermont primaries so far, and this morning Haley "suspended" her campaign. The commentators on MSNBC were talking about her approach to saying in essence that Trump has to earn her vote, and also that (having read her book before this campaign) her role model is Margaret Thatcher. So that pretty much tells you what we'd get if she were to be elected.

Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III
From: Donuel
Date: 05 Mar 24 - 04:48 PM

Congressmen and Senators hold a legislative federal office. The way the decision was written sort of updos part of the intent of the post-Civil War amendment.

North Carolina has a lieutenant governor running for governor who is a leader of the KKK. States can be as nutty as they want. I want to see better protection for federalism.

Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III
From: Lighter
Date: 05 Mar 24 - 08:01 AM

As I understand it, state's can still disqualify "oath-breaking insurrectionists" from state and local ballots.

The court's opinion regards national candidates only.

Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III
From: Donuel
Date: 05 Mar 24 - 06:34 AM

The Court has ruled that a State may now legally send an insurrectionist to Congress.

They took the front tooth out of the 14th amendment.
Now Congress would have to make a law to keep an insurrectionist from holding federal office. The Court looks like Alfred E Newman to me.

Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III
From: Helen
Date: 05 Mar 24 - 03:23 AM

That article also mentions other musicians or groups - or their estates - who have tried to prevent Trump from using their songs in his campaign events, including REM vocalist Michael Stipe and REM bassist Mike Mills, Rihanna, Linkin Park, John Fogerty, Neil Young, Leonard Cohen, and George Harrison.

My first thought when I read the headline about Sinéad O'Connor was that her moral views would be totally opposite to Donald Trump's and this quote confirmed that for me:

"...lived by a fierce moral code defined by honesty, kindness, fairness and decency towards her fellow human beings".

Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III
From: Helen
Date: 05 Mar 24 - 01:03 AM

Sinéad O'Connor's estate joins a long list of artists demanding Donald Trump stop using their music

"In between a myriad of court appearances, US presidential hopeful Donald Trump has been holding political rallies and campaign events, sound-tracked by popular songs.

"One of those songs is Sinéad O'Connor's trademark hit Nothing Compares 2 U, and the late musician's estate is not happy about it.

"In a joint statement, O'Connor's estate and her record label, Chrysalis, demanded the Republican 'desist from using her music immediately'.

"It said the Irish singer, who died last year aged 56, 'lived by a fierce moral code defined by honesty, kindness, fairness and decency towards her fellow human beings'.

"'It was with outrage therefore that we learned that Donald Trump has been using her iconic performance of Nothing Compares 2 U at his political rallies,' the statement said.

"'It is no exaggeration to say that Sinéad would have been disgusted, hurt and insulted to have her work misrepresented in this way by someone who she herself referred to as a biblical devil.'"

Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III
From: Lighter
Date: 04 Mar 24 - 05:15 PM

A "dissenting opinion" is a dissent. A "concurring opinion" concurs but questions some of the details.

The decision was indeed unanimous, 9-0. The issue addressed in the opinion by the liberals is why Congress alone (and not a federal judge) can declare a national candidate disqualified.

I can think of a reason, but I'm not a lawyer, so I'll keep it to myself.

Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 04 Mar 24 - 03:05 PM

The three liberal justices wrote a dissent that was still lumped as a concurrence with the others. The Court has said the Congress has to legislate to solve this problem, but the Constitution doesn't say that. The end result is that states can't kick federal candidates off of the ballot. For now.

Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III
From: Helen
Date: 04 Mar 24 - 12:55 PM

Super Tuesday! Let's see what this day brings! Maybe Hayley's Washington DC win could influence other Republican primaries.

Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 04 Mar 24 - 12:28 PM

In his second term Biden is going to have to pack the court to neutralize the trio that Trump and McConnell foisted upon the nation. It's the kind of thing you don't do in your first term. It would also help if the house and senate are Democratic with more than a razor thin majority.

Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III
From: Helen
Date: 04 Mar 24 - 12:02 PM

Yep, thanks Doug. I had that thought as soon as I hit the submit button, but...I didn't go back and add it to my post. Sorry.

"the first woman to win a Republican primary"

Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III
From: Lighter
Date: 04 Mar 24 - 10:14 AM

SCOTUS's unanimous decision:

Without a Congressional resolution, Trump stays on all ballots.

They did not rule on whether he engaged insurrection.

Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 04 Mar 24 - 06:06 AM

One of the news articles also said she is the first woman to win a primary.

..... the first woman to win a Republican primary. Hilary Clinton won enough to secure the Democratic nomination.

DC

Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III
From: Helen
Date: 04 Mar 24 - 05:32 AM

Nikki Haley won 63% against Trump's 33% in the Washington DC Primary. One of the news articles also said she is the first woman to win a primary.

Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III
From: Helen
Date: 03 Mar 24 - 12:43 PM

About polling, I have heard commentaries that some voters see supposed polling information indicating that their preferred candidate is not doing well and then are discouraged from voting, thinking their vote will not make a difference and not change the outcome. Every vote counts.

Doug, in Oz the voting statistics usually show very low informal vote, and slightly more donkey votes. The statistical tables show mostly less than 5% of all votes on both categories combined.

Definition: Informal vote

"The figures show that nearly half of all informal votes were the result of some kind of incorrect numbering. This suggests that these informal votes were accidental. Similarly, another quarter of all informal votes contained ticks and crosses, suggesting confusion about the voting system.

"Blank ballots and those with writing on them made up 26% of informal votes. These are most likely to have been deliberate."

"Definition: A donkey vote occurs when an elector simply numbers the ballot paper from top to bottom (or bottom to top) without regard to the logic of the preference allocation.

"A donkey vote is counted as a valid vote because it contains a number “1” and has numbered every square in sequential order."

Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 03 Mar 24 - 11:21 AM

The trouble with all of the pressure by "Democrats" saying that Biden is too old (yet only a couple of years older than Trump) is that this is the pressure from Trump's troops pretending to poll as Democrats and from Russia making these claims on behalf of unnamed Democrats. It turns up as a result in polls of Democrats, but at this point there is no other candidate who can stand up to him and so what? We will set another record for oldest president this time around.

Getting people off of that Trump-funded anti-Biden mantra and onto the crap that Trump has pulled and says he will pull is the only way to get out in front of the AI and misinformation. This is when people have to step back and take a look at the big picture.

Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III
From: Donuel
Date: 03 Mar 24 - 08:11 AM

Lighter we came damn close to getting rid of the electoral college many moons ago but it could still happen in our future.

Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III
From: Lighter
Date: 03 Mar 24 - 07:50 AM

It would take a Constitutional amendment to eliminate the electoral college.

Not impossible, but the process takes some years. It would be more likely to pass, however, than any Constitutional tweaks to the Second Amendment.

I was surprised to learn that the United States is now the only democracy to retain an electoral college.

Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 03 Mar 24 - 07:10 AM

> nutjob minor parties

We have rather too many of those in the UK; worse, one of them's firmly embedded in the Tories. But that sub-discussion belongs elsewhere.

Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Mar 24 - 05:29 AM

I liked the MRLP's policy on defence.

They would paint all de fences white so no-one could sit on them

Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 03 Mar 24 - 05:21 AM

If voting is compulsory then there should be a "none of the above" option as a protest vote to express dissatisfaction at what is on offer. Otherwise, the only other ways would be to turn up and spoil the ballot paper or vote for a ridiculous candidate, if available, who has no chance of getting in.

In the UK, we have the Monster Raving Loony Party who stand against major players in the main parties for the publicity. With the current state of UK politics, if voting was compulsory, there would be a danger of the MRLP being asked to form the next government.

In 1973, the Progress Party became the second largest party in the Danish parliament. They proposed to replace the entire Ministry of Defence by an answering machine with the recorded message "We surrender" in Russian.

DC

Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III
From: Helen
Date: 02 Mar 24 - 05:31 PM

Thanks Lighter.

One of the pitfalls I have noticed with non-compulsory voting is that a lot of people need to be motivated to go to the polls and make a choice but are dissuaded by either negative media coverage or social media campaigns, or by the difficulty of voting mid week for people who are not able to lose time at work (i.e. read between the lines, people who have lower incomes and less power in their workplaces). Our voting is on Saturdays and we have had postal pre-voting in place for decades.

In Oz, we always have one or the other of the two major parties in power, but the minor parties who have members elected tend to have a chance to keep the major parties a bit more honest and on track. That works especially well when the party in power is teetering on the brink, with a very small majority. They need the negotiating power of collaborating with minor parties then. (Although, having said that, we do have a couple of nutjob minor parties and most major parties would rather jump off a cliff than negotiate with them, IMHO.)

"..electoral college, its flaws are becoming ever more obvious. I doubt much will be done about it in the so-called "foreseeable" future.."

I'm guessing it's in the same "too-hard basket" as firearm reforms. :-D

Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III
From: Lighter
Date: 02 Mar 24 - 04:31 PM

Helen, the two-party system wasn't legislated, it simply evolved. Third parties occasionally run candidates but usually lose. There were four parties/candidates running for president in 1860. Lincoln won, but almost two-thirds of voters voted against him. For many practical reasons, third party presidential candidates rarely generate much interest, though they can certainly influence the outcome of an election by drawing off voters from one (or both) of the others, sometimes predictably - which makes them dangerous if cynically financed by mega-donors to one of the other parties.

It would be nice if the federal government gave each candidate an equal sum of money to run on, while forbidding any other funds to be used. But Congress would never approve such a plan, because each party thinks it will gain a decisive edge by raising more money.

The 2010 Supreme Court decision "Citizens United v. FEC" now allows corporations and "political action committees" to donate unlimited funds to the candidates of their choice. Their reasoning was that campaign contributions are a form of free speech. The result, of course, is that mega-donors now influence the parties and candidates as never before, often giving huge amounts to both sides, so that no matter who wins, they'll still have plenty of influence. Nor must the parties reveal the specific sources of many such contributions.

Power in the U.S. isn't invested in one person (yet), though it's easy to think so, since the president gets credit and blame for everything that happens.

As for the electoral college, its flaws are becoming ever more obvious. I doubt much will be done about it in the so-called "foreseeable" future, however.

Compulsory voting doesn't appeal to me. It makes every fool who doesn't care and who would prefer to stay home is made cast a vote almost at random. There are enough fools voting already.

Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III
From: Helen
Date: 02 Mar 24 - 01:31 PM

I'll say this diplomatically, but I prefer our compulsory voting with one vote for one person system here in Oz, and that we have more than two political parties, and that we do not invest power in one person as president, and that election of that one person doesn't depend on how much campaign money that person has to spend. Every federal electorate votes for the person who appears to be able to do the best for that area and who has to reside in that area to be eligible to run for office.

There, I've said it, sorry, but I promise I won't go on about it. :-)

Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III
From: Donuel
Date: 02 Mar 24 - 01:23 PM

You could have just said Lara is stupidly in charge.

Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 02 Mar 24 - 12:31 PM

That's it in a nutshell.

Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III
From: Helen
Date: 02 Mar 24 - 02:56 AM

SRS, the reason I am confused is that "Trump plans [or seeks] to install at the RNC" certain people who are loyal to him, so planning to or seeking to do it implies it is not done yet, but the implication seems to be that it will happen, or that it has already happened,i.e. it is already a fait accompli.

Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 01 Mar 24 - 08:31 PM

Helen that second article describes the status of the party leadership right now, an meeting in Houston, TX early this month is where it will be hammered out.

Tonight on Washington Week with the Atlantic they speculated on how Trump will go back and forth from the courtroom to the campaign trail. He'll be very busy.

Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III
From: Lighter
Date: 01 Mar 24 - 07:48 PM

Speaking of Aussie PMs, Malcolm Turnbull was on US TV yesterdsay observing that Trump's deference to Putin is "creepy" and like some kind of weird hero worship. Trump is "in awe" of Vlad.

Turnbull also reported that all the leaders of allied nations he's met are highly concerned that America will soon be a "third great autocracy" after Russia and China.

Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III
From: Helen
Date: 01 Mar 24 - 06:01 PM

Thanks for the info, SRS. I'm a bit confused. Is Trump still just proposing Lara Trump for the RNC or is she already there?

Another interesting thing on the Oz TV show was a brief, tantalising comment which implied that Trump could try to sell some of his NY assets to pay his legal obligations but then he's kind of caught between a rock and a hard place, presumably because the sale prices probably won't match the inflated prices he has been found guilty of creating. Damned if he does and damned if he doesn't, I suspect.

Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 01 Mar 24 - 05:32 PM

He's already done it - he's proposing putting his daughter-in-law in the co-chair position. She knows nothing about fundraising or political strategy, and the committee is supposed to support all Republican candidate races that meet a certain threshold. That will go by the wayside.

Inside the GOP Fight Over Trump’s Mounting Legal Costs

Drafted by Henry Barbour, an RNC member from Mississippi, the measure comes as Trump marches closer to solidifying the Republican presidential nomination and seeks to install new loyalists to lead the organization. That includes his daughter-in-law, Lara Trump, who has previously said she was willing to funnel some of the group’s funds toward Trump’s multi-million-dollar stack of legal fees.

But after Barbour released his resolution over the weekend, both Lara Trump and the Trump campaign adamantly denied any such plans. The Republican National Committee, they say, will remain narrowly focused on Trump’s election and helping GOP candidates win up and down the ballot.

But the only "down-ballot" folks to see anything from the RNC will be the ones Trump approves.

Nikki Haley calls for RNC vote on resolution barring payment of Trump's legal fees
The former U.N. ambassador has been focusing in on Trump, his legal trouble and the potential general election consequences.

Trump co-campaign manager Chris LaCivita — whom Trump plans to install at the RNC along with other loyalists, including his daughter-in-law, following the resignation of longtime chair Ronna McDaniel — previously told reporters that the RNC would not be paying for Trump's legal fees, but Haley campaign officials have not trusted the statement.

Haley went on to question if the RNC would end up shifting support from down-ballot Republicans to a “legal slush fund.” . . . . RNC members will meet in Houston in early March to select a new chair and potentially vote on resolutions including two put forward by a Mississippi committee member, Henry Barbour. One focuses on slowing the RNC from coordinating with a presidential candidate until the candidate meets the delegate threshold to win the nomination. The other one would prohibit the committee from paying any candidate's legal fees.

RNC at 'high risk' of breaking the law by paying Trump's legal bills: expert

With the imminent departure of chair Ronna McDaniel and plans by the former president to load the leadership up with MAGA loyalists like his daughter-in-law Lara Trump, concerns have been raised by Republicans that the RNC would become another cash cow for the embattled ex-president while ignoring GOP officeholders going into the November election.

According to a report from Politico's Erica Orden, election finance experts are serving notice to the RNC to tread carefully when it comes to paying Trump's bills.

Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III
From: Helen
Date: 01 Mar 24 - 05:11 PM

Is the RNC likely to let him walk all over them? And Brand Trump was also explained in that episode.

Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 01 Mar 24 - 04:59 PM

That's why he's trying to take over the RNC - so their dollars can pay his legal bills. They can't pay the penalty, but anything he can fob off on someone else is a win as far as the Donald is concerned. Brand Trump.

Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III
From: Helen
Date: 01 Mar 24 - 03:24 PM

I watched an episode on Oz ABC TV last night called If You're Listening : Is Donald Trump Running Out Of Money?

That link is for the audio podcast but the If You're Listening - video page version could get uploaded soon. It's only a 15 minute show.

A couple of interesting points for me were that a graph shows that Biden's campaign funds are on the up and Trump's are way way down, and also that on top of his legally imposed penalties amounting to about half a billion dollars Trump's legal fees were approx $US50 million in 2023.

Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 01 Mar 24 - 01:44 PM

The State of Georgia hearing on the leadership of Fulton County DA Fani Willis is on right now - and the Trump folks stood there and repeated the same lies as if none of it (all of it!) had been debunked. That's what they've been talking about in relation to how Hitler came into power - tell a Big Lie and make it so bold and say it so often that people will start to believe it. It has also come up this week in interviews with Barbara McQuade in advance of the release of her book Attack From Within: How Disinformation Is Sabotaging America

Trump's folks are trying to change the rules that the state set - what has to be proved to remove a prosecutor, instead suggesting that a hint of impropriety, without evidence, is enough to remove her. Trump will use this move every step of every trial if he gets away with it here.

From MSNBC: The Fani Willis courtroom drama was a distraction from the real crime
Defense attorneys failed to prove their claims of prosecutorial misconduct as they sought to help their clients avoid accountability.

Don’t be fooled. The drama televised from a Georgia courtroom into the homes of millions of Americans over the past few weeks is not a serious attempt to clear Donald Trump’s name. Instead, you should see it for what it is: another act of deflection by Trump and his enablers. . . . Under Georgia law, there are two ways a prosecuting attorney can be disqualified from a case: 1) a conflict of interest, or 2) forensic misconduct. The latter has not been alleged and Team Trump has done a terrible job of proving the former even exists. So why are we even here? Because Trump, his former chief of staff, a number of his attorneys and local officials attempted to undo his 2020 election loss in Georgia.

Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Mar 24 - 10:49 AM

Illinois courts have also ruled that he was engaged in insurrection, pending appeal. Just 47 more stares to go

Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 01 Mar 24 - 10:32 AM

Showing up on AP today (their links don't usually load more than a few days):

Texts show prosecutor’s ex-law partner gave info for effort to remove Fani Willis from election case

ATLANTA (AP) — Attorneys for Donald Trump and other defendants in the Georgia election interference case hoped that lawyer Terrence Bradley would provide key testimony in support of their effort to remove Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis — and they had good reason for their optimism.

Over several months, Bradley had been in touch with Ashleigh Merchant, a lawyer for Trump co-defendant Michael Roman, according to hundreds of text messages produced by Merchant as evidence and obtained by The Associated Press on Thursday.

Through the texts, Bradley fed Merchant information and made suggestions to help her prove that Willis had dated Nathan Wade, a special prosecutor hired for the election case. As Wade’s former law partner and onetime divorce attorney, Bradley was well positioned to know things, and the texts seem to back that up.

But when he took the stand to testify under oath in mid-February, Bradley initially refused to answer most questions, asserting attorney-client privilege. On Tuesday, when the judge compelled him to testify after determining some of his communications with Wade weren’t privileged, he repeatedly said he didn’t know or couldn’t remember crucial details. CNN reported on the text messages Wednesday.

Merchant filed a motion Jan. 8 seeking to remove Willis and Wade and their offices from the election case and to toss out the indictment against Trump and 14 others. She alleged that the prosecutors had been romantically involved before Wade was hired in November 2021, and she said Willis paid Wade large sums, then improperly benefited from his earnings when he took her on vacations.

“I am nervous,” Merchant texted Bradley the day she filed her motion, adding, “This is huge.”

He responded with a string of encouraging messages: “You are huge,” “You will be fine,” “You are one of the best lawyers I know,” “Go be great.”

And later in the article:

The texts show Bradley confirming information for Merchant and suggesting records she should request or people she should subpoena. Though he sometimes seemed to want to make sure certain information couldn’t be traced to him, he said he was “ok with” being subpoenaed to testify.

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

I heard that story yesterday, moving the cash businesses to Florida. He is dealing with a Federal judge so that move may not stick. If Trump declares bankruptcy Florida protects more assets than most states, but probably not the businesses themselves. Trump Tower is at this point the red herring.

Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III
From: Donuel
Date: 01 Mar 24 - 05:29 AM

While Trump gets the S.C. to take his B.S. claim that he is immune which is as absurd as declaring he is a banana, he has quietly moved his two main cash businesses out of N.Y. State and has hidden them in FL. to avoid payment to Jean Carroll and the fraud case. However, he couldn't move Trump Tower.

Moving and hiding his assets is against the judge's orders but I guess he thinks he is immune.

Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III
From: Donuel
Date: 28 Feb 24 - 06:44 PM

The Supreme Court heard the Bush V Gore in a week.
They heard the Colorado ballot case in 30 days.
They have now taken 130 days to hear the Trump immunity case which should be enough to delay a trial or stop a trial before the election.

Trump wins no matter how the Court decides as late as the end of June.

Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 28 Feb 24 - 05:55 PM

The Supreme Court is going to wade into this. They didn't accept the well-reasoned and well-written decision from the appellate court. The shit is getting deeper. This comes up on the same day that Trump's folks tried to get the court to accept about 15 cents on the dollar of his settlement costs. At least that judge told him "NO." Trump must come up with the full bond amount to cover the $454 million civil fraud trial judgment, appeals court judge rules

Associate Justice Anil Singh, however, lifted a ban on Trump’s ability to obtain loans from a New York bank, which could allow him to access the equity in his assets to back the full bond amount.

Singh denied Trump’s request to delay his obligation to post $454 million until a full appellate panel hears his motion to stay enforcement of that judgment until his appeals of the civil fraud ruling are over.