War (crimes) and Peace (prizes) - Trump Thread #151

[Spandauer]

Don Snoreleone trying to stay awake long enough to bring all his racist dreams to fruition. So when can we bring about his personal "civilisational erasure”?

Previous thread:
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/5436537-cobwebs-in-congress-bigly-ballrooms-tariff-tantrums-dementia-denials-trump-thread-150

The orange stain is letting his lemmings know that it pleases him if his detractors are harmed or killed.

Despite all the condemnation of his earlier remarks re Reiner, Trump has doubled down and repeated them.

And he's gone ahead and sued the BBC.
Does a suit filed in the US have any power to sue a foreign (British) company? I don't know how he can claim any damage to his reputation since he was already well known as a lying POS

I know, right? I still can’t understand how this vile, narcissistic, piece of excrement was ever elected even once, let alone twice. He has reached a new low in the “how not to be Presidential” handbook, which has been the only thing he consulted for both his terms.
I despair.
That’s all right, US Customs and Border Protection peeps, I have absolutely no intention of visiting your third world country until you are well rid of the demented lunatic at the top.

He also blamed Brown university for the shooting and said 'it happens'

Sueing the BBC is so stupid, especially as he claims he didn't say what he said.

I see a tiny glimmer of hope here, I am copy-pasting from Occupy Democrats on FB 8 hours ago, though I often find them overly optimistic:

BREAKING: Pulitzer Board turns the tables on Trump in defamation lawsuit — demands discovery of ALL his finances and medical records in explosive legal fight.
Donald Trump thought he could bully and intimidate the Pulitzer Prize Board into submission. Instead, the Board just hit back — hard.
According to a new report from Law & Crime, members of the Pulitzer Prize Board are fighting Trump’s lawsuit with sweeping discovery demands that could pry open one of his most closely guarded secrets: his finances. After Trump sued the Board for standing by Pulitzer-winning reporting on his links to Russia — reporting that he despises — the Board is now insisting that if Trump wants to litigate, he’s going to have to play by the rules — and answer uncomfortable questions under oath.
Trump’s lawsuit claims the Board defamed him by refusing to retract awards given to journalists whose reporting detailed his ties to Russia. But the Board isn’t backing down. Instead, its lawyers are demanding broad discovery, including documents and testimony that go directly to Trump’s wealth, business interests, medical history, and credibility — areas that have long proven hazardous terrain for the president.
In court filings, the Board argues that Trump himself made his finances relevant by repeatedly injecting claims about his success, reputation, and damages into the case. In other words: if Trump says the reporting hurt his standing, then the truth about his money matters — a lot.
Legal experts say this is a classic “be careful what you wish for” moment. Trump has spent years attacking journalists, institutions, and independent watchdogs, assuming intimidation would be enough. But discovery cuts both ways. If this case proceeds, Trump could be forced to turn over records he has spent decades concealing and sit for depositions that can’t be spun away with late-night rants on social media.
The Pulitzer Board’s message is unmistakable: they’re not afraid of Trump, and they’re not rewriting history because he doesn’t like it. The awards were granted, the reporting stands, and now Trump may have to answer — in a courtroom, not on Truth Social.
This legal counterpunch also exposes the deeper irony of Trump’s crusade. A man who claims to champion “free speech” is trying to punish journalists for doing their jobs — while crying victim when those journalists, and the institutions that defend them, refuse to cave.
If Trump thought this lawsuit would intimidate the press, it may end up doing the opposite. By opening the door to discovery into his finances and credibility, he’s handed his critics exactly what they’ve been asking for: accountability.
And this time, it won’t be decided by a rally crowd or a rage post — it’ll be decided under oath.

ETA: Link to the report in Law & Crime: https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/pulitzer-prize-board-members-fight-back-with-wide-ranging-discovery-demands-including-about-trump-finances/

And when you compare all this to the fuss he made about that Kirk man. Honestly. It also reminds me about when a MAGA supporter (?) deliberately plunged a car into a crowd in Charlottesville at the beginning of his first term. He didn’t care at all, I remember being so shocked then by his response (or lack of it) then. Who knew how bad it could get.

Didn't people lose their jobs for remarks like that when Kirk was shot? The MAGA faithful were reporting people in droves as I recall.

Wouldn't it be interesting to see some of those comments side by side with Trumps for direct comparison.

Exactly, @Littledrummergirl. I think people even lost their jobs for saying he was an unpleasant man, not even that it served him right or worse, which is more or less what T has said about Rob Reiner.

@Jaichangecentfoisdenom thank you for your delicious post about the Pulitzer board. Here's hoping 😁🤞🤞🤞
(I will try not to get my hopes up too much though. Every time you think he's jumped the shark, it turns out that was just another minnow🤦🏼‍♀️)

Agreed, @MOON, he is more Teflon than Teflon itself.

Susie Wiles interview

https://bsky.app/profile/nikkimcr.bsky.social/post/3ma4ahs4kq22z

good morning holy shit

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/16/us/politics/trump-susie-wiles.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share

Is she committing hara-kiri, or what? "Extraordinarily unguarded”, indeed.

I’m not sure if this latest (a repeat, I think) from Randy Rainbow helps much today..

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/16bcgi9vXA/

I may be procrastinating as am leaving tomorrow and nothing is packed.

Susie Wiles bad ass. She's not long for this political world.

I've just seen Nuremberg (film Russell Crow, Rami Malek). It was very good and in the courtroom the Prosecutor was talking about the lead up to WWII, it was so much of what America is going through at the moment. Step by step. Pitting people against each other, muzzling of critical press etc (and much more)

Keep fighting everyone.

I am less enthused about Randy Rainbow than I used to be; it seems as if half of every broadcast that he does is an advertisement for his sponsor, and I get bored sitting through it.

I think this, about Susan Wiles, is probably true.

Totally agree Jai

But to have ANY kickback is so welcome. She'll be off soon no doubt.

She’s issued the usual MAGA statement. Fake news, president is the best blah blah. I think it’s all part of the plan to distance herself from this shitshow but try to leave on good terms (so she doesn’t get death threats.) Remember Elon’s leaving party? All through gritted teeth.

Speaking of whom

https://www.theregister.com/2025/12/15/us_government_tech_force/

The Wiles Files. You heard it here first

For some reason my mind goes to Wile. E. Coyote,

Susie Wile's 'opinions' about some of the Trump suck ups had me laughing. Then I started the lift off countdown to 'I never said that' and 'it was taken out of context'. I think I got to 7.

Yeah, she'll be gone. She's not an attractive sycophantic bimbo so she has no real value to Trump. The 'fun' will be speculating on who he'll hire to soothe his ego replace her.

Reading the full NYT report (not seen the Vanity Fair interviews that they are quoting so it may not be the case) it seems like she has excused everything she says with some sort of caveat for the various descriptions used.

eg:
She attributes her ability to work for Mr. Trump to growing up with an alcoholic father, the sportscaster Pat Summerall. “High-functioning alcoholics or alcoholics in general, their personalities are exaggerated when they drink,” she said. “And so I’m a little bit of an expert in big personalities.” While Mr. Trump does not drink, she said he has “an alcoholic’s personality” and operates with “a view that there’s nothing he can’t do. Nothing, zero, nothing.”

But given the 🍊💩's aversion to alcohol and alcoholics, that one does seem like a risky description to use.

The awful thing is she doesn't say anything that we hadn't already worked out for ourselves and as we saw with Zohran Mamdani, Drumpf sometimes doesn't mind.

It would be interesting to hear her true opinion of Nosferatu Stephen Miller.

The full denial.