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)

Thing is, "Trump's Supreme Court" has members who were appointed for life. Nothing and nobody can now touch them, even if they are provably corrupt, as we are seeing. So they have no need to do anything for Trump: he can't touch them if they decide not to help him, after all. Nor can his toadies.

Now, they might agree that they don't want him and his gang in prison; but they equally might feel that them being imprisoned would be the best thing for stuff that they do care about, and also show them to be impartial upholders of the law. (Well, apart from Alito and Clarence, anyway.) I think him relying on them to bail him out might prove to be a false hope.

I think you've made good points. So far Doofus's appointees have proven a bit of a disappointment to him when it comes to things that might affect him personally.

Less positive article.
Not sure if this link will work without a subscription/account
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/09/08/reminder-how-one-juror-could-save-trump/

This link may do
https://ground.news/article/analysis-a-reminder-of-how-one-juror-could-save-trump

@AskingQuestionsAllTheTime i hope so, but worry that certain members will want to bail Trump out, not because they support him but because he is the means for them to achieve their conservative goals

@CatsonPollock

DH and I often think about this. It's both a blessing and a bane to our justice system. Depending on what side of the case you're on, of course.

You can bet that any cult member who happens to get a summons in any of these cases is going to be doing their damndest to be selected with the sole purpose of hanging the jury. But a hung jury is not an acquittal and the judge can always order a new trial in that situation, and I'm pretty sure they would.

The trial for New York AG Letitia James' $250 million civil fraud case against Donald Trump, his family, and his company is scheduled to begin on October 2, 2023 and to end by December 22, 2023, the presiding judge has announced.

Don't you think Trump is using Meadows to go through the process, so Trump can either prepare better, or at least make a slightly informed decision, as to whether to try it himself?

I use Trump as shorthand for his legal team and advisers, such as they are.

I hadn't thought of that. But it would be just like him. He's very into the plausible deniability "Who will rid me of this troublesome priest" method of avoiding liability so I can see him absolutely doing this.

If he is, then Meadows is even stupider than I thought.

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/09/26/politics/trump-organization-business-fraud/index.html

bear shits in wood...

but good to have it finally acknowledeged in court.
but what about the banks? did they fail their due diligence?

And will anything come of it, or will they just deflect attention back to Biden and Trump's lies and misdemeanours (not to mention treason) just fade away again?

I particularly liked this from the judge:

The state supreme court judge likened the Trumps’ legal defense of his fraudulent financial statements to a Chico Marx line in the comedy “Duck Soup”: “Well, who ya gonna believe, me or your own eyes?”

I was finally able to watch the Cassidy Hutchinson interview on Rachel Maddow (Mon 25 Sept). If you can watch it somehow it bears watching for sure.

I LOL'd when the judge's decision came out that Doofus et all are 'liable' for fraudulent practices. I bet Doofus is just shitting plaid rabbits at finally being held accountable for a least one incident he's pulled. May it be the first of many.

I must admit that, as an English person, the way the legal system works in the US seems particularly baffling at the moment

CNN is a very good channel though. And over here, CNN broadcasts very short, very well designed, informative snippets, though I wonder if across the pond, so to speak, you see adverts instead?

I think there is a 'core' of the GOP that feels the party could still be 'corrected' back to the pre-Trump era. I obviously disagree with most of the 'pre-Trump' party platform anyway, but I would say that back then the vast majority of GOP members were decent human beings as individuals but who were simply misguided with regards to the need to safeguard and care for all members of society. To find any 'socially-minded' GOP members, you'd have to go back to before the 'Tea Party' era, shoot, probably as far back as the Civil Rights Era of the 1960s.

The other reason may be that the 'power base' and (previous) reputation of the GOP is something that core still wants or needs to hold onto so they don't want to form a new party. Sort of a 'name brand recognition thing' as opposed to starting a brand new party and having to build their 'brand'.

I think that Cassidy Hutchinson has a great political future in front of her if she wants it. What remains to be seen is if the Trump-GOP will allow it.

CNN is a commercial network so there are adverts. It basically runs constant news and breaking stories 24/7/365 with occasional news documentaries/public interest shows in the evening. It's my first 'go to' in the event of a big news event. I'd place it as a teeny bit left of center, politically speaking, since the Trump Era started. Prior to that it was pretty 'neutral'.

For political 'up to the minute' news and breaking stories I go to MSNBC. I place it as definitely left. MSNBC is to Democrats/Liberals what Fox is to Republicans/Conservatives. Although MSNBC at least will fairly report a conservative angle to a story when warranted.

@AcrossthePond55
I get my TV via Sky, so it is beamed to a satellite dish in the little flat complex where I live, and comes out of the wall from a socket.

CNN seems to be the only option for US news from the US available to me. CNBC and Bloomberg are options, but they are all about money...

CNN is much better at news than the BBC is nowadays, though it pains me to admit how poor I think BBC news reporting is at present. I trust (British TV) ITV News much more than the BBC these days. CNN has a wealth of educated erudite women in business and the judiciary who contribute by talking real good sense. I even saw 3 women being interviewed by another woman, who explained the minutia of the lastest Trump development. You wouldn't get that many women together on TV with no men present, unless you tune in to a Special Programme called Loose Women

I am particularly furious with BBC News at present, because of the way they reported the death of David McCallum. He was the centre of my world from age 13-15, along with John (Lennon). And the BBC said he had played a KGB spy in the 1960s!!! They clearly hadn't even bothered to look up Wikipedia!!!!

I suspect, @AcrossthePond55 , you will understand just why I am about this. So I am asking you the same question all adolescent girls at the time asked each other.

Napoleon Solo or Illya Kuryakin?

@TheSilveryPussycat

Illya, without a doubt!!! Napoleon gave me the ick, he was just too, IDK, 'rico suave' for my taste. Illya was the guy you'd want to bring home to meet the parents. Now you tell me, how many times did you scribble 'Mrs Illya Kuryakin' followed by multiple ❤️s on the margins of your class notes, lol. Oh, and Ringo forever.

David's death made me so sad, but I was astonished to see that he was 90!! In my mind's eye he was eternally, what, early 30s? The reporting here wasn't 'much'. I mean it was 'noted' but not to the calibre of the death of an 'A list' star of, say, the Harrison Ford ilk.

Now I'm not sure if it showed in the UK, but Davy, Micky, Mike, or Peter?

Davy. Also, Illya.

Mike! They were a great band, some talented people. They did very well at being part of the cool scene in real life, while portraying squeaky clean. Actually, much like John, Paul, George and Ringo at the start of their rise to fame.

We didn't do signatures, and marriage was not on our minds. Only fanciableness. But we did do a sort of divining
david mccallum
tilly knight
You write it so it's like a division sum
Then you cancel out the letters, a bit like algebra
This leaves
davd mccaum
ty knight
Then you go along like plum stones and tinker, tailor, soldier, sailor
only it's love, like, hate, adore
So in my example above, you get the following:
David McCallum likes Tilly Knight
Tilly Knight adores David McCallum
The more logical and scientifice among you may notice that this method seems to be skewed towards positive outcomes

@AcrossthePond55 I didn't want to bring him home to meet the parents! I didn't know what I wanted to do with him - not sex, which was not something I was looking forward to at the time But my pubescent body knew there was something to want, even if my conscious mind didn't know what it was it wanted. Happy days!

Only one of my friends fancied Napoleon. 90% of UK teenage girls fancied Illya.

I hate to admit it, but I preferred the Girl from U.N.C.L.E.'s sidekick Mark Slate to either Illya or Napoleon. I didn't want sex with any of them: I wanted to fight evil on their side.

As far as I was concerned Micky was the funniest Monkee, and Mike the nicest. Davy was a bit wet really.

I remember, way back when the Beatles had only just become Famous, one of my little chums asking me which of them I liked best. Being a truthful child, I answered "Ringo". She looked at me in horror: "You can't!" she squeaked. "He's married!" Disappointingly, though I did later meet John Lennon (drinking instant coffee at one of my mum's friends house) I never met Ringo. I liked Mick Jagger more than I liked John: he was more interesting to talk with, or maybe just more prepared to treat a nine-year-old like a human being.

@TheSilveryPussycat @AskingQuestionsAllTheTime

Our 'divining' was done with a 'cootie catcher'. It was paper folded into sort of a 3 dimensional thing that you could open and close 2 ways. The 4 choices were love, hate, marry, date. So, yeah, you had a 75% chance of a positive outcome.

I hear you with the 'yearn-y' thing. You didn't know what you wanted, but you wanted 'something'!

All my friends were 'Illya', too. I think it was because he had the longer 'Beatle-ish' hair and the cool turtlenecks. Napoleon had the Brylcreem 'looks like my dad' hair and wore suits. He just seemed too old compared to Illya's 'hip look'.

'My' Monkee was Peter. IDK why, maybe because he seemed so goofy/innocent. I liked Davy until I realized that he was 1 inch shorter than me! Gasp, horror!

My brother (a musician) met and worked with Mike post-Monkees. Said he was a helluva nice guy and really a musical genius but he (my brother) felt that his 'Monkee past' had held him back in the 'music scene'.

Mike's mum invented WiteOut/LiquidPaper. So he was never hurting for money, which allowed him to follow his passion after the Monkees were done.

Boy, has this little conversation brought back some memories!!!

My room-mate at University, who became my best friend, has an older sister who went to Liverpool College of Art at the same time as John Lennon did. Her description of him (he wasn't a friend or anything) at that time was not flattering, but I fear it was accurate, as it was around then he met Cynthia, a fellow student, and then had to marry her, as they put it in those days. Julian was on the way! His marriage and child were kept secret for as long as Brian Epstein could manage...

You are clearly a little younger than me
Ringo wasn't married when The Beatles first came to my notice, very early on. But there were always a few people who had Ringo as their favourite.

As time has gone on, I have come to the conclusion that Ringo is and was the coolest Beatle