If Trump Loses In November, What Do You Think Happens Next

[Edward64]

Up to 20 years.

Too bad it wasn't treason. Wouldn't mind a public hanging (might need to get some experts flown in from Singapore).

§2384. Seditious conspiracy
If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Does the GOP really not grasp their biggest issue is candidate quality? When they trot out someone halfway normal (younkin, Vance) they win.

I think they know that. A lot of people in the GOP did not want Walker, Masters, or Oz. They were Trump picks.

Walker did have things going for him in the primary. He's a big football star and Trump had supported him for a long time. And the wife beating charges are bad to many, but probably seen as a positive among that voting demographic.

[RainMaker]

Ginni was taking bribes too.

Exclusive: Conservative judicial activist Leonard Leo arranged for the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to be paid tens of thousands of dollars for consulting work nearly a decade ago, specifying that her name be left off billing paperwork. https://t.co/CKc8KwbEoh pic.twitter.com/mrKkHpGpDk

— The Washington Post (@washingtonpost) May 4, 2023

[JPhillips]

The worst part of this is that Leonard Leo instructed his people to make sure the payments weren't in her name.

[Flasch186]

Nothing will happen


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[PilotMan]

Freedumb!

[flere-imsaho]

Even if something crazy happened an Thomas resigned over this (as he should*), the Democrats wouldn't be able to confirm a replacement since Feinstein is still indefinitely out ill.

*let's be clear, any of us engaging in this type of activity at work would be fired. It is straight up bribery.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Lathum

I said halfway and when you compare him to Walker, Oz, mastriano, lake, masters, etc. he certainly qualifies as halfway normal.

Yeah, it's important to remember that we now live in a world where Liz Cheney is considered a moderate because she spoke out against all the criming, and former nutballs like Cruz, Rubio, & McCarthy are now elder statesmen of the GOP.

If Paul Ryan or Scott Walker decided to re-enter politics, they'd have to do what Charlie Crist and others have done, which is to run as Democrats.

I mean, we live in a world where MTG is basically dictating what business the HoR can and can not consider.

[Lathum]

We were already in free fall but once they started calling McConnell a RINO it was game over.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I mean, we live in a world where MTG is basically dictating what business the HoR can and can not consider.

It's amazing someone that isn't even very popular with her own party has accumulated so much power in a short amount of time.

I don't what the deal is between her and McCarthy but she's essentially speaker without having to deal with the bullshit.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Nothing will happen


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I guess we can blame the founders. Legitimately, there is only one course in removing a Supreme Court Justice, and that is Impeachment. It has only been used once in history versus a Justice, and he was acquitted by the Senate. I wonder if it were a smart thing to make it so hard to remove a Justice or a President since it would have probably been used way more than it has for purely ideological reasons.
It does seem like the court itself should have some power to deal with justices, but then that too would open up a can of worms. Can you imagine the Right wing majority not kicking off every liberal judge once Republicans had the WH and Senate?

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Atocep

It's amazing someone that isn't even very popular with her own party has accumulated so much power in a short amount of time.

I don't what the deal is between her and McCarthy but she's essentially speaker without having to deal with the bullshit.

Its Trump. I have no idea why Trump has coronated her Queen of the House, but that is the source.

[CrimsonFox]

'It is a dangerous time in America!!!': Trump has overnight meltdown over Jack Smith investigations

[NobodyHere]

"It's a Dangerous Time in America!!!" sounds like a title to a hard rock anthem.

[CrimsonFox]

oops wrong source...this is actually a Dewey Bunnell quote

[Thomkal]

So the judge in the Carroll Rape Trial heard about Trump flying back from Ireland so he could "confront his accuser" and gave him one last chance to testify. Respond in writing to the court by 5 pm today that you wish to testify and I will consider it. And shockingly there was no reply. So closing arguments begin tomorrow.

[NobodyHere]

So I haven't really been following the Trump Trial. Has there been any more evidence than "He said/she said?"

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

So I haven't really been following the Trump Trial. Has there been any more evidence than "He said/she said?"

yes. He's fucked.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Lathum

yes. He's fucked.

Well it sounds like he did the fucking if he's fucked.

What evidence is there?

[GrantDawg]

Her statements to her friends immediately after along with other woman relating the exact same thing happening to them. As well as him basically bragging about doing that to women on the Access Hollywood tape. Then there is the fact he was hanging his defense on the "she is not my type" defense, but confused her with his ex-wife Marla Maples in a picture.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Her statements to her friends immediately after along with other woman relating the exact same thing happening to them. As well as him basically bragging about doing that to women on the Access Hollywood tape. Then there is the fact he was hanging his defense on the "she is not my type" defense, but confused her with his ex-wife Marla Maples in a picture.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

Is it actually proven that the statements to her friends were made at the time of the rape?

ETA: I'm just pretending to be an impartial juror here. I think the standard for convicting someone even in a civil trial should be more than "she allegedly told her friends at the time".

[Flasch186]

I actually agree and I hate trump

I think the Georgia case is my slam dunk

This one not so much from what I can tell


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Lathum]

Her friends testified under oath, so take that FWIW. The thing that will hurt him is his deposition where he basically said powerful men have been sexually assaulting women since the dawn of time.

You have to remember, a civil trial doesn't carry the same burden of proof as a criminal trial. I really think he;s fucked with this yet it will not matter one bit to his minions.

[GrantDawg]

There was a large part of the testimony devoted to how these things are validated. Between corroborating witnesses and a pattern with others with a similar experience without any way of collaboration. That, along with how bad his disposition was, left the defense fairly confident. And again, he literally admitted that he assaulted women in the Access Hollywood tape, which he further defended in his deposition.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

I actually agree and I hate trump

I think the Georgia case is my slam dunk

This one not so much from what I can tell


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In a normal world the Georgia case and documents case should both be slam dunks, but we live in an altrnate reality

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Her friends testified under oath, so take that FWIW. The thing that will hurt him is his deposition where he basically said powerful men have been sexually assaulting women since the dawn of time.

You have to remember, a civil trial doesn't carry the same burden of proof as a criminal trial. I really think he;s fucked with this yet it will not matter one bit to his minions.

Well if I were a juror I wouldn't favor the plaintiff based on hearsay. If there was something written down or recorded afterwards then that might move the needle. And his Access Hollywood tapes just proves he's a jack ass.

I've said a lot of crap in my life (a lot of it recorded on this board) but I don't think it should be held against me. I used to have a very dark sense of humor. I extend that standard to other people.

[GrantDawg]

Again, you are thinking like this a criminal trial. Yeah, this would not be enough in a criminal trial.
That said, when you hear the defenses' closing, it does seem like there might be enough there to cause doubt. The defense obviously feels they shot enough holes in the prosecution, which is why they offered no defense testimony at all. It is hard to tell how true that is considering the slant of the people covering the trial.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

[Lathum]

I think what will hurt him is him saying she isn’t his type then looking at a picture of her and thinking it’s his wife.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Well if I were a juror I wouldn't favor the plaintiff based on hearsay. If there was something written down or recorded afterwards then that might move the needle. And his Access Hollywood tapes just proves he's a jack ass.

I'm with you. I don't think there is enough here.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Lathum

I think what will hurt him is him saying she isn’t his type then looking at a picture of her and thinking it’s his wife.

That was among the biggest "gotcha"s for sure. I think his deposition in general was negative for him. I think the thing that might save him is the "conspire" text she sent to her friend. Without concrete context, it does sound like she was plotting to do anything she could to bring Trump down. Then the text from her friend basically suggesting Carroll made it up. Again, context is everything and maybe there is a way to explain those away, but I am not sure where the jury is with that.

[Lathum]

Unless there is a different one the word she used was scheme, but the point stays the same.

The burden of proof isn't nearly as high in a civil case so I think they may get him.

[GrantDawg]

I waa going off my poor memory.
The other factor that is hard to get just from text relays of the court room is how well the lawyers did in presentation. There has been a lot of praise for how well Trump's lawyer comes off in arguments.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

[Edward64]

FOX stock price is actually higher today than on Jan 1 but has lost about 15% from its mid-Feb high.

I didn't see a definite date on Smartmatic trial but a Fox spokesperson said sometime in 2025, so after the election.

Fox swings to a loss after its Dominion settlement | CNN Business

Fox Corp. posted a loss in the most recent quarter after it paid a $787.5 million settlement to Dominion Voting Systems.

The company had posted a profit in the same quarter a year ago.

The company took a $719 million charge including the cost of the Dominion settlements and other legal costs, including attorney fees, which was partly offset by equity earnings of it affiliates and a change in the market value of some of its investments. But the hit left Fox with a $50 million net loss, compared to $290 million in profit a year earlier.

[Ksyrup]

I believe this guy's name is actually "asshat." The fact that someone gets paid to produce this kind of drivel is ridiculous.

Trump in office will be a second-term lame duck who never wanted to run a WH; whatever de facto powers Pence enjoyed, even a semi-competent second term VP will be able to accrue many more.

— Ross Douthat (@DouthatNYT) May 9, 2023

[JPhillips]

I do think the VP pick is interesting, but not for this reason. Whoever is chosen will immediately be running for election in 2028. How will Trump allow that to happen? Will he cut them off at the knees just so they don't steal the spotlight?

And who is willing to gamble on either being the 2028 nominee or being forever humiliated and lucky to get a late-morning CPAC slot?

[Ksyrup]

It is interesting. Can they convince him to not double down on the crazy and pick someone like Kari Lake, and to your point, is there someone more mainstream who is willing to live the grifter life post-Trump when the inevitable happens?

[Lathum]

if Trump is elected POTUS in between his revenge tour and loyalty tests I think he will be searching nonstop (not him of course, but his people) for a way to remove term limits from the president.

Even if he doesn't I put it at a 50/50 chance following 4 more years of a Trump presidency a successor wont matter because we would be too far gone at that point.

[miked]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

It is interesting. Can they convince him to not double down on the crazy and pick someone like Kari Lake, and to your point, is there someone more mainstream who is willing to live the grifter life post-Trump when the inevitable happens?

She was just a few thousand votes from winning. Herschel Walker nearly got 50% of the vote. There is nobody he could choose that would turn off people who are already going to vote for him.

[Lathum]

Could you imagine being one hamberder stuck in the windpipe away from a Kari Lake presidency?

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by miked

She was just a few thousand votes from winning. Herschel Walker nearly got 50% of the vote. There is nobody he could choose that would turn off people who are already going to vote for him.

I'm not talking about his voters, but the general public.

Although, as comforting as the public polls are about how much the average American is tired/afraid of Trump, it still comes down to about 6-8 states and a few counties as to whether he's going to be President again - no matter what.

[Lathum]

Jury just went to deliberations in the rape/defamation case.

[Ksyrup]

In a just world, word of him being found liable would hit about an hour before his CNN town hall. But I'd take this afternoon as a consolation prize (although I feel like he's going to escape).

[Atocep]

Iowa passed their child labor bill. 14 year olds can now work in meat coolers and they upped the hours kids 14-16 can work during the school year to 6. They also removed the limit on hours 16 and 17 year olds can work during the school year.

[Ksyrup]

Saw an article about how Bret Baier's reputation has taken a hit since the text message release and it reminded me that I was pretty sure I saw him at the Derby. Did a bit of Googling and sure enough, he was there. Of all the celebs that were there, he's the best I could do?

[Lathum]

Verdict is in.

[Lathum]

No one rape. Yes on sexual abuse. Yes on he injured her. Yes on reckless disregard. Yes on defamatory. Yes on actual malice.

Basically guilty on everything except rape. You can already see the headlines depending on the news outlet.

[Thomkal]

I'm sure he thinks he got away with it because of the no on the rape verdict. But CNN should now press his feet to the fire about this tomorrow.



When the no came back on the rape charge, I really thought they were going to go all the way no, but I can understand why they did so. Every time he's announced it should not be as former President, but sexual assaulter Donald Trump.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Saw an article about how Bret Baier's reputation has taken a hit since the text message release and it reminded me that I was pretty sure I saw him at the Derby. Did a bit of Googling and sure enough, he was there. Of all the celebs that were there, he's the best I could do?

Reputation in the Fox realm or reputation as a newsperson? I mean, he's been with Fox since 1998; I'd assume you'd need some other experience to build any credible reputation. (Brit Hume at least was with ABC for 23 years, which at least lasted for a little while before it rubbed off.)

[Thomkal]

And he replies:


https://twitter.com/AntiToxicPeople/...19051074949127

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Lathum

No one rape. Yes on sexual abuse. Yes on he injured her. Yes on reckless disregard. Yes on defamatory. Yes on actual malice.

Basically guilty on everything except rape. You can already see the headlines depending on the news outlet.

I couldn't come with a "why?" here. They think she lied on rape and not everything else? But then i read an article about New York law on rape. She would have to prove he it was intercourse for rape, and even in her testimony she wasn't sure if he penetrated her with his penis.