talking of suing everyone and everything that he thinks has wronged him,
i always found it strange that Biden never sued Trump for some of the stuff he said against Biden in the elections
crooked Joe Biden etc, surely suggesting Biden was a crook was slanderous?
anyone know the answer?
The Democrats, and others for that matter, know if they get randy Andy who likes eye candy under oath on the stand⌠It becomes open season on anyone he rubbed shoulders with on Fantasy Island
I actually think this is dangerous for the BBC, since the scandal is quite factual.
It is irrelevant that Trump himself is the Master of Fake News. BBC aired a doctored program, which is very problematic. I donât know how this is legally , but the the damage to reputation is devastating and unfortunately aids Trumpâs false political narrative a hell of a lot.
Because he WAS involved, indirectly, with the storming of the Congress and much more. But this is going to be used as the propaganda gold it is, and here the BBC is to blame for itâs abhorrent failure to have a proper standard of integrity, for itâs Panorama program.
I cannot see any way on earth that those files are going to be released. No matter what any court orders or what any vote in the House demands.They are kryptonite for him and he would do just about anything to prevent it happening. Imagine if they were just all âaccidentallyâ deleted ?
So, 54-year-old âKidâ wonât be gracing the Big Apple with his presenceâŚ
ShameâŚ
I hear you, and so far he has very much been Teflon Don. Things that would have sunk any other President, multiple times over, have not been able to stick to him, or anything that did stick, sort of, did not come with the expected penalty.
Given the history itâs a fair bet that he will suppress it all, or at least, he will suppress it enough that it wonât hit him as it should.
I still have some hope. Could be blind about that, but I donât want to live in a world where that orange buffoon snuffs out my hope. I see MAGA struggling to stick together, and this is the one issue where there are those in the Republican MAGA orbit who oppose Trump and want to see the truth come out.
We will see if more than the likes of MTG have a moral compass on this one. Hopefully some momentum will build.
I perceive his actions, domestically and abroad, as an attempt, at least in part, to deflect the news cycle away from the one story he fears will sink him.
No Kid Rock? O No!
New York City will now have no other entertainment options for its people to enjoy. 
And itâs all the fault of those damn Commies
Considering how political he is and how redneck he is these days; I think he has mostly lost his fan base outside âhowdy, pardnerâ-land.
Of course, he would still probably draw a crowd in NY. There are many thousand MAGA people also in New York after all.
Iâm almost more worried about the people whoâd buy a ticket because of the music
Trumpâs biggest problem is always over playing his hand and pushing the line so far that eventually people react. Regarding Epstein there is an increased interest in the implications of how unusually well Maxwell is now being treated and growing concern that he is getting ready to commute her sentence.
The mass pardoning of the Jan 6th coconspirators went relatively under the radar because so much work has been in the main stream press to rehabilitate those people and pretend that it was not a full blown coup attempt. But Epstein hasnt benefited from the same revisionism. You will lose a lot of money if you bet on the GOP doing the right thing, but I do think this is a line that people would react if he crossed.
I hope they have more balls than their colleagues in the SenateâŚ
This whole thing is obviously a shit show and show of incredible government dysfunction, but its fascinating from the sense that both sides started with an awful hand, have played it poorly, and the only thing that could save them is the other side having an even worse hand/playing it worse.
Dems found themselves in a shut down most didnt want to be in and had no real plan for how to navigate out of it with any win. Republicans found themselves in one they needed to be in to keep the Epstein stuff locked down but were getting battered for it and working for a Principle (trump) who had no interest in helping them navigate around their problems. The thing the Dems were demanding (extension of ACA subsidies) was not the reason they refused to participate (lawlessness of the administration) and would have actually been a political own goal had they got their way (saved the GOP from owning the pain of massively increased costs). The âDemsâ (a group of 6 consisting of a couple of retiring Dems, an Independent, and a Fox regular with brain damage) have now predictably caved while ahead and without getting what they wanted, and so now are getting battered for having snatched defeat from the jaws of victory, but have still probably won given now the ACA costs are going to sky rocket and the blame will be on the Trump admin and Republicans in congress.
The whole thing is fucking stupid
Doesnât matter. What they donât have is the votes to stop it. Senate filibuster rule meant that the GOP needed a 60 vote majority, or to set aside the filibuster rule. There is no corresponding requirement in the House, the GOP just need a 50%+1, their caucus gives them +6.
The entire concept of a government shutdown is 3d world stuff, imo. It is amazing that a post industrial state plays politics with something like that, and, that it is indeed possible in the system.
Most other states have a state budget, if itâs not approved, negotiate and trade horses until approved. Then the state functions. Only in America (what other state, even third world state, has such a terrible system, I cannot from the top of my head think of any) does people seem to think this is acceptable political behaviour.
A government shutdown is clearly lose-lose and damages political credibility and legitimacy of all parties involved. It directly affects peopleâs lives. It just shouldnât be technically possible.
Frankly, the entire concept disgusts me. Backwards anti social stuff that belongs to the political Dark Ages, everyone involved should be dying of shame in both parties. Itâs a breach of the Social contract.
Story by Nicole Charky-Chami
The Department of Justice is setting up President Donald Trump-appointed U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon to hear Trump revenge cases, according to a former U.S. attorney.
The Southern District of Florida U.S. Attorneyâs office is reportedly ramping up the revenge prosecutions in a âmass investigationâ and targeting Trump enemies, even eyeing cases against former President Barack Obama and former CIA Director John Brennan, MSNBC reported Tuesday.
The move has prompted several resignations, including two prosecutors, who stepped down from their jobs following an impromptu meeting Monday where they were ordered âto take part in a vast âconspiracyâ investigation into former intelligence and law enforcement officials.â
âAt least one of them was asked to do something that was outside of their realm of comfortability and they believed would violate their ethical responsibilities,â MSNBC senior White House reporter Vaughn Hillyard reported.
More than 30 subpoenas were issued on Friday by the DOJ, which reportedly âbypassed what multiple legal experts told MSNBC is standard protocol for its issuance of subpoenas, turning to a member of leadership to sign off on some of them, instead of a line prosecutor assigned to investigate the case.â
But there is another uncommon move.
âTypically, you would expect the line prosecutors who are handling the case to be the people who would sign subpoenas,â legal analyst and former U.S. attorney Barbara McQuade told MSNBC.
âIt sounds, though, like this is some sort of special project that theyâre putting together, some sort of special unit. Executive U.S. attorneys sometimes have in their portfolio special projects. So it sounds to me like this executive U.S. attorney is going to be leading whatever this effort is into this conspiracy investigation. But I do think itâs noteworthy that this is not being handled the way a routine case would be handled for a violation of the law. Instead, it is being handled as a special case with a high-level executive member of the team handling this,â she added.
The location of the case is also raising questions and concerns.
âThe other thing that I thought was noteworthy about the reporting is that the grand jury to be impaneled is going to be in Fort Pierce, Florida. That, of course, is the district that the portion of the district, the southern district of Florida, that has one and only one judge, and that judge is Aileen Cannon. I donât know that we should be suspicious of everything Judge Aileen Cannondoes, but we do know that her track record in the Mar-a-Lago case with the documents was first to impose some really extraordinary hoops for the prosecutors to go through at the time of the search,â McQuade said.
âAnd then, of course, the dismissal of the case, finding the special counsel regulations to be unconstitutional, contrary to every other court thatâs looked at it. So I think there is reason to be very concerned about the irregularities that are occurring in this office,â she said.
Story by Earnest Daniel Nicolas
It is the latest, high-stakes battle in a legal war that has already cost a former US President $5 million and resulted in a stunning judicial defeat. Donald Trump is now attempting to persuade the US Supreme Court to completely dismantle the unanimous jury verdict awarded to writer E. Jean Carroll.
In a fiery new petition filed on Monday, Trumpâs legal team launched a direct assault on the core of Carrollâs claims, labelling the allegations of sexual assault and subsequent injury as âimplausibleâ.
The move marks the furthest and most serious effort yet by the former president to wipe away the May 2025 finding that he was liable for sexual abuse and defamation. The filing arrives amidst the ongoing legal chaos surrounding Trump, demanding that the highest court in the land review the highly publicised case, even as he faces a separate, yet related, defamation lawsuit from Carroll.
The petition does not simply ask for a reduction in damages; it argues that the entire legal proceeding was so fundamentally flawed that the initial finding of liability must be overturned, claiming the $5 million judgment is both âdraconianâ and âexcessiveâ.
The core of the legal manoeuvre hinges on the premise that the trial court made a critical error by preventing the jury from properly considering Carrollâs conduct. According to the petition, Carrollâs allegation of injury is âimplausibleâ because she failed to go to the police or tell anyone about the alleged incident for 20 years.
Trumpâs lawyers contend that this delay in reportingâa fact that was central to his defenceâwas wrongly sidelined by the presiding judge, thereby skewing the trialâs outcome and depriving the former President of a fair legal defence.
The verdict itself was a significant blow to Trump, as the jury found him liable for both battery (for sexual abuse) and defamation (for comments he made after leaving the presidency). The $5 million total judgment was carefully divided: $2 million was awarded for the battery claim as compensatory damages, and $3 million was allocated for defamation in a combination of compensatory and punitive damages. This financial breakdown forms a key part of the defence teamâs argument that the total figure is unfairly inflated.
The petition outlines two main constitutional challenges that Trumpâs lawyers believe justify the Supreme Courtâs intervention. Firstly, they contend that the trial courtâs exclusion of evidence regarding the plaintiffâs two-decade delay in reporting the alleged assault violated Trumpâs Fifth Amendment rights, which guarantee due process. The lawyers stressed that the jury should have been allowed to hear and weigh this âimplausibleâ element of the story in full.
Secondly, the filing challenges the sheer size of the financial award. The legal team has consistently argued that the $5 million total is âexcessiveâ, particularly given the nature of the claim, which was only possible because New York State passed the Adult Survivors Act in 2022. This law temporarily allowed victims to sue over old sexual abuse claims. This procedural element, they argue, coupled with the magnitude of the award, raises serious constitutional questions about the fairness of the overall judgment in the Trump Carroll $5M Verdict .
The former President continues to deny Carrollâs allegations entirely, maintaining his stance that the claims are politically motivated and false. However, the legal reality is that the initial verdict has already had cascading effects on his subsequent legal challenges. In the second defamation case, concerning remarks made by Trump calling Carroll a âwhack jobâ and other highly derogatory terms, a judge has already ruled that Trumpâs comments were defamatory as a matter of law because the first jury had already established that he sexually abused her and defamed her.
Carrollâs lawyer, Roberta Kaplan, remained defiant following the latest legal filing. She dismissed Trumpâs petition as âgroundlessâ and expressed confidence that the unanimous jury verdict will stand. Legal experts suggest the Supreme Court is not obligated to hear the case, and historically, it takes on only a small fraction of the petitions it receives.
Nevertheless, the filing guarantees that the contentious legal sagaâand the underlying issues of sexual abuse liability and political rhetoricâwill remain a highly publicised issue in the coming months, regardless of the Courtâs ultimate decision. This ongoing litigation continues to be a defining feature of the former Presidentâs post-White House political and legal landscape.
For those who like to know the sources of the articles they are reading:
Couldnât agree more,the whole farce is terminally bizarre,a lot of people are going to pay for it down the track and the deadhead behind it continues to govern for himself and his mates,and stuff everyone else.
More proof the whole system is unfit for purpose,Cannon is likely one of the last who should hear this case.
