Is it time to watch the mud stick with TFG? Watch this space!

[Roussette]

www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/4396017-Big-Bird-may-be-innocent-but-who-can-vouch-for-Elmo?page=40&reply=120171921

Previous thread!

This thread is now full, here is the link to the new thread www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/4912378-trump-gets-gagged-mccarthy-gets-booted-whats-next-in-trumpworld? (added my MNHQ)

However, there is hope. I know this is Raw Story, who are pretty biased, but I don't think they have invented the tape: https://www.rawstory.com/absolutely-blockbuster-evidence-experts-stunned-over-trump-espionage-act-bombshell-that-pressures-doj-to-indict/

I very much like the comment from George Conway: "It would actually be perfect for the most colossally nihilistic moron the world has ever seen to go to prison for doing something so brazenly illegal, yet at the same time so unimaginably pointless and stupid."

He always thought he was untouchable didn't he...

I can't imagine this is a made up story. Treasonous at the least

With Doofus supposedly 'caught on tape' I think I'm going to upgrade my 'guilty verdict' outlook from "Never gonna happen, he's Teflon" to "Extremely cautiously optimistic, but not counting my chickens".

My jury is still out on whether or not he'll serve any actual jail time. But if we end up with a (God Forbid!) Repug POTUS, regardless of who that person is, he will get a pardon 'for the good of the Country' just like Ford rationalized Nixon's.

Fingers crossed 👀

https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1665762038281322496?s=20
Lawyers got the bad news. Roll out the indictment. Hide the ketchup.

will believe it once the trial live streamed on cnn is ongoing.

Me too. The lines from the refrain of the Who song keeps going through my head "Then I'll get on my knees and pray, we don't get fooled again". So many of us feel like we've come 'thisclose' time and again only for nothing to happen.

As much as I'd love to see the trial televised, I just don't see it happening. If it were a Congressional hearing, maybe. But not a criminal trial. They're going to have to treat him just like 'Joe Citizen' to avoid any potential allegations of 'unequal treatment'. But I'm sure there will be those 'live update' threads from reporters in the courtroom that CNN is so good at doing.

Ominously, that song ends with "Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss..."

😱 OMG, I didn't even remember that part!

His posts on Truth Social are becoming increasingly unhinged. Yet people want to give this madman the nuclear codes

I thought Musk allowed him back on Twitter? I am on there and don't see any posts from him thank god.

He does sound completely unhinged

I think he said he was in such a narcissistic rage over having been de-platformed in the first place, he did a thanks-but-no-thanks flounce. If/when he gets the nomination, I'm guessing he'll back back.

Trying not to get my hopes up, yet again, that he's going down, but it's hard to stay cynical at the moment. If they're doing it, they'd better get moving.

On a side note, I've been listening to Nicolle Wallace's show as a podcast and am really liking it - enough that I've almost forgiven her for Bush, McCain, Palin.

Really love Nicolle Wallace. I sort of look at her as someone who 'saw the light' and is making up for the error of her ways. She has some good insight to the right wing mindset from her 'bad old days.🤣

I figure Doofus is staying on (not)Truth (un)Social because clicks and members make him money. Twitter doesn't.

"Get your programme here! Can't tell the players without a scorecard!"

Here's the 2024 POTUS field so far;

https://ballotpedia.org/Presidential_candidates,_2024

As far as the Dem candidates, Biden is the only truly 'serious' contender. Kennedy and Williamson are outliers.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-indictment-espionage-prosecution-charges-b2353397.html

This is what's on CNN 'breaking news'
"The Justice Department recently informed Donald Trump's legal team that he is a target in a federal investigation into the possible mishandling of classified documents, sources familiar with the matter told CNN, a sign that prosecutors may be moving closer to indicting the former president. This is a developing story"

You know, we've often found that British newspapers report more specific information on US matters than our own US media reports at least as far as breaking stories go. In this case, the Independent is saying a LOT more than CNN. And the fact that the Great Orange Baby (aka the GOB) was throwing tantrums on his media platform seems to bear out the Independent's story.

That is interesting. Why is the UK press reporting more? Is it because they don't want to give Trumpy oxygen for his witch hunt nonsense?

Espionage is a big word...

MAJOR BREAKING—

Andrew Feinberg reports that Mark Meadows has agreed to PLEAD GUILTY to several lesser federal crimes in exchange for his testimony under a limited grant of immunity.

Prosecutors reportedly are ready to ask grand jurors to vote on a Trump indictment as early as TOMORROW on charges of Obstruction of Justice and Espionage Act violations.

I suspect it's about the law, libel clauses, injunctions would not apply in the uk.
ianal

will be interesting to hear the lawfare take on it all.

Actually, it's the opposite. Injunctions don't exist in the US as they do here, and UK libel/defamation laws are much stricter and can be used to muzzle the press (i.e. Carole Cadwalladr) in ways they can't in the US.

I don't know, I took that report with a grain of salt as the Independent was the only outlet reporting it. It might be that they have a unique source and it will turn out to be true but I'd approach with caution. Been burned too many times by wanting to believe something when it comes to The Criminal 😅

@Roussette

I don't know the reasons, but I do agree with PPs that it's most likely something 'legal' (libel, etc) and also that they just don't want to 'get it wrong'. If a UK paper reports something incorrect about a US story I assume it wouldn't be that big a deal as long as they issued a correction whereas here it would be a huge to-do, even with a correction. Probably 'proximity related'. I'd assume it would be the same vice versa.

@Wallaw

It 'finally' hit CNN and MSNBC broadcast last night around 8pm EDT. I think I'm 'cautiously optimistic' as far as indictments go, but that that's about it. As with all things GOB (my new nickname for The Criminal; Great Orange Baby), the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. Or as Yogi Berra said "It ain't over 'til it's over". And it ain't over til he's either in an orange jumpsuit or barred from federal office.

Clarification: whereas here it would be a huge to-do IF A US SOURCE DOES IT, even with a correction.

the proof of the pudding will be in the eating.

Across it's so long since I heard this saying quoted correctly. It seems to have morphed into "the proof is in the pudding" in spoken British English; I am a grumpy old woman and shout at the telly when it happens. Luckily I live alone!

Is there somewhere in particular where I can see Trump's social media rants, or shall I just google?

Interestingly, people specifically try to find standing in the UK to bring foreign journalists to court here over foreign articles because the UK libel laws are designed to have a chilling effect. See Soriano vs. Steadman for an example - it's used to not only deter but to financially ruin the defendant as the plaintiffs tend to have deep pockets (Cadwalladr again as an example) and, unlike in the US, whichever party loses is liable for the other side's legal expenses.

If Trump was really motivated, he could probably find standing to sue the Independent and/or the journalist based on reputational damage/business losses in Scotland. He probably doesn't want the finances of that golf course dug into any more than necessary, but still...

I think most of them are on his TruthSocial platform. I don't know if you have to join to see. I won't go there cuz I don't want to give him 'clicks'. Mostly I just see them on the news or reposted on Twitter for the laughs.

Do you think so? I'm not super familiar with UK libel laws, but as I'm sure you know (and IANAL) in the US you have to be able to prove 3 things; 1-the story was false, 2-had malicious intent, 3-caused damage to the plaintiff. I think #1 is what's kept GOB from filing lawsuits against many media outlets because the stories aren't false. That and the fact that he knows that other dirt might be dug up during the discovery phase.

Does the UK have the same three requirements?