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)

Surprise surprise!

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/08/us/supreme-court-voting-rights-act-alabama.html

In case it's behind a paywall and bolding is mine

"The Supreme Court, in a surprise decision, ruled that Alabama had diluted the power of Black voters by drawing a congressional voting map with a single district in which they made up a majority.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote the majority opinion in the 5-to-4 ruling. He was joined by Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh and the court’s three liberal members, Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Voting rights advocates had feared the decision would undermine the Voting Rights Act, which instead appeared to emerge unscathed.

The chief justice wrote that there were legitimate concerns that the law “may impermissibly elevate race in the allocation of political power within the states.” He added: “Our opinion today does not diminish or disregard these concerns. It simply holds that a faithful application of our precedents and a fair reading of the record before us do not bear them out here.”"

Rushing out, but briefly, in the US the burden lies with the plaintiff to prove they were defamed, libelled or slandered. In the UK the burden lies with the journalist to prove that the plaintiff wasn't.

Additionally, people here can take out either an injunction or a super injunction. An injunction protects them against having a story reported, a super injunction protects them from having the existence of the injunction reported. Most often used to cover up affairs, and probably a lot of crap around the royals, but with a wrongly sympathetic judge, they can be used as a pretty suppressive tool.

But back to the Independent article - I'd guess that they have a source they feel is unimpeachable, but other outlets were unable to either get that source or get anyone to verify, so they're exercising due caution.

A very quick read on the major differences between countries
https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/03/21/394273902/on-libel-and-the-law-u-s-and-u-k-go-separate-ways

Yes, and Steve Vladeck, who is usually pretty measured, says this

Oh dear oh dear...

(I like a bit of Viscous Stollen at Christmas!)

that's almost poetic

Sadly, it's a parody account. Not that it would be possible to tell the difference without knowing since the current incarnation of Republicans are so ridiculous as to be parodies of themselves.

@Wallaw

Thank you for that link!

As I posted it, I sort of realised it was, but with no delete button on here... oh well...

Honestly Trump's real account is practically a parody itself

At one time Twitter had an active account called 'Unfollow Trump' where they'd repost his Twitter rantings to read so no one had to go to his Twitter and give him clicks.

I kinda wish they'd 'reactivate' and post his TruthSocial rantings. But I suppose it best not to disseminate his insanity, even if it's for laughs.

Per CNN flash

Trump has been indicted, 7 counts in the 'docs case'. To appear in Miami court on Tuesday 3pm.

That's all I've seen no far. No details on the counts

Info dripping in:
All different counts, so far mentioned are:

obstruction
conspiracy to obstruct
willful retention of documents
making false statements

Roll on Tuesday

Headline news on BBC. When I see him talking now, I just laugh, I can't believe the world had 4 years of him.

Witch hunt!!!! Unfair!!! Totally innocent!!

I heard it on the radio this morning.

From Palmer Report

For those keeping score at home, "willful retention of documents" is the Espionage Act. Much of the media is inaccurately downplaying it and avoiding the word "espionage" for whatever bizarre reason the media does anything. But Trump has been charged with espionage.
^^
twitter.com/PalmerReport/status/1666971794677600259?s=20

Finally, will someone throw the book at him...
Followed by the entire bookcase

I did momentarily think about cracking open a bottle of champagne at 7am. I've been waiting for this moment in some form since Nov. 8 2016. Can't believe we slept through it!

Roll on DC and Georgia.

LOCK HIM UP!!

Adding: Unfortunately none of this is going to undo the damage this two-bit mobster crook moron real estate developer has done to the country. Sigh.

Am I right in thinking that a conviction under the espionage act actually prevents him from holding office? I seem to think it’s one of the few convictions that would.

I seem to remember I asked Across this... what would it take to not be able to run POTUS and I think that might be right.

@Roussette @Igotjelly

If charged and convicted under this specific statute, yes. And I believe it also carries a potential 20 year sentence.

www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2071

Oops, looks like a three year sentence. I'll settle for a conviction and a bar to office.

As would I! And thanks for confirming 😊

This is per GOB's atty according to CNN:

"Trump is facing a charge under the Espionage Act, his attorney Jim Trusty said on CNN Thursday, as well as charges of obstruction of justice, destruction or falsification of records, conspiracy and false statements."

So, this mentions 5 possible charges, there are supposedly 7 total and they're all 'separate charges' from what is being said. I can only assume that there must be multiple charges under one or more of the mentioned crimes. But since the atty mentions A charge under Espionage, it must not be that one. Of course, this all according to his atty, so grain of salt time I suppose. I started listening to the interview, lasted about 30 seconds then had to change the channel to avoid throwing a heavy object at the TV. I'm so tired of hearing 'witch hunt'. It's like a broken record, can't they at least come up with a new dog whistle? I suggest a Daily Mail sad face and the phrase 'they're picking on me'.

BTW, the 'conspiracy' charge means that there is at least one other person involved. Conspiracy by legal definition is 'two or more people'. I know that Mark Meadows either wants or has done a 'deal' with DoJ, so I wouldn't be surprised if that 'other person' is him. From what's being said, he has LOTS of beans to spill.

PS I think the name of 'Trusty' for GOB's atty is guffaw-worthy. As if anyone connected with that piece of shit should be considered as 'trusty'.