Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
Why would anyone vote for New Jersey and Virginia Gubernatorial Candidates, Mikie Sherrill and Abigail Spanberger, when they want transgender for everybody, men playing in women’s sports, High Crime, and the most expensive Energy prices almost anywhere in the World? VOTE REPUBLICAN for massive Energy Cost reductions, large scale Tax Cuts, and basic Common Sense! Under President Trump, ME, Gasoline will come down to approximately $2 a Gallon, very soon! With the Democrats, you’ll be paying $4, $5, and $6 a Gallon, and your Electric and other Energy costs will, likewise, SOAR. VOTE REPUBLICAN FOR A GREAT AND VERY AFFORDABLE LIFE. All you’ll get from voting Democrat is unrelentingly High Crime, Energy prices through the roof, men playing in women’s sports, and HEARTACHE!
OFFICIAL LRC President Donald Trump SECOND TERM Thread
-
04
-
Next week’s Case on Tariffs is one of the most important in the History of the Country. If a President is not allowed to use Tariffs, we will be at a major disadvantage against all other Countries throughout the World, especially the “Majors.” In a true sense, we would be defenseless! Tariffs have brought us Great Wealth and National Security in the nine months that I have had the Honor to serve as President. The Stock Market has hit All Time Highs many times during my short time in Office, with virtually No Inflation, and National Security that is second to none. Our recent successful negotiation with China, and many others, put us in a strong position only because we had Tariffs with which to negotiate fair and sustainable Deals. If a President was not able to quickly and nimbly use the power of Tariffs, we would be defenseless, leading perhaps even to the ruination of our Nation. The only people fighting us are Foreign Countries who for years have taken advantage of us, those who hate our Country and, the Democrats, because our numbers are insurmountably good. I will not be going to the Court on Wednesday in that I do not want to distract from the importance of this Decision. It will be, in my opinion, one of the most important and consequential Decisions ever made by the United States Supreme Court. If we win, we will be the Richest, Most Secure Country anywhere in the World, BY FAR. If we lose, our Country could be reduced to almost Third World status — Pray to God that that doesn’t happen!
04 -
El Runkin wrote:
El Runkin wrote:
Loutecia James actually filed a motion on Hallorans' drunken texting with the journalist (Bower). James wants an order from the judge requiring Hallorans to comply with, among other things, her own DOJ rule book on public disclosures. Haha! I think they filed it just to embarrass the ding-a-ling (ding dong).
That's why an attorney should never day drink on the job. They end up doing embarrassing stuff like this:
Judge Walker issued a quick order on the motion by Luticia. The Judge very diplomatically told both sides to behave and follow the rules regarding public disclosures, which are obviously more restrictive on the prosecution than a criminal defendant (we learned that in Trump's hooker payoff case).
The only thing of consequence I can see from this is that the government is required to log and preserve all communications with the media. That part of the order was directed to Hanrihan and her claim that her text messages with Bower were off-the-record because "It’s obvious the whole convo is off record. There’s disappearing messages and it’s on signal." That was a very inexperienced and stupid presumption of Hanrihan's and now the prosecution is on notice that it can't rely on apps like Signal that auto-delete texts after a period of time. They will have to preserve the texts somehow (like Bower did) even if Signal doesn't.
Runkie, I fhink you missed something. You linked the exhibit (exhibit B) to James' attorney's motion for miscellaneous relief, basically a gag order, but failed to link the motion. So here it is:
You did link the proposed order, but I wanted to explain that such an order is just a formality that makes it easier on the judge to grant to the motion (rule in favor of the action requested) if the judge agrees that the action is appropriate. The judge did not sign the order.
Instead, he wrote his own order denying the motion:
District Judge Jamar K. Walker wrote:
The defendant's request that the government be required to keep a communication log is DENIED. To the extent the government asks the Court to limit the defendant's own speech, that request is DENIED.So, the judge did not rule that the Harrihan must log all communications. Also, Harrihan already knows enough not to disclose details of the case to the media. The "drunk" texting exchange (or rookie mistake that anyone rooting against Trump should absolutely be ecstatic about) contains something every prosecutor, inept or not, already knows, the line: "I can't disclose details of the case." The exchange is Harrihan lashing out at the reporter for writing information that she feels is inaccurate and biased.
The government did not ask that James' speech be limited in any way (again James' attorney and not Harrihan filed the motion), but the judge made it clear that he doesn't feel James needs a gag order. James can speak freely, has done so, and it an idiot for doing so, as nothing she says can help her case. It can bias potential jurors at some point, and if that point is reached in the judge's opinion, a gag order will likely be issued.
Now, you appear to have a hard time taking a compliment, but I am still very grateful for your linking primary sources. I disagree with your take on them, and perhaps I am correcting where I see errors in way that is indelicate. But I think those sources contain a better account of what is going on than your low opinion of Harrihan (and mine of James, to be fair) when it comes to the potential outcomes. James filed this motion to embarass Harrihan, and the secondary source that is our media is having a field day with it.
And to correct the record, I do not hate or have an obsession with the New York Times. I think they are biased (as does Harrihan), but my real problem is that grand jury testimony, which is supposed to remain confidential, has been leaked ro the Times. My obsession is therefore with leaks, not where they are printed. I think they are wrong because...grand jury testimony is supposed to be private.
Another thing I hate is political prosecution, which the James and Comey cases are a prime example of. I think we agree on the second part of that statement. But I didn't care for them when Trump was the target, either. Could you explain your position on the casss against Trump?
13 -
JustMe22 wrote:
Could you explain your position on the casss against Trump?
Learn to get to the point before wasting your time on a multi-page essay.
12 -
you must be God wrote:
*'trump2028 wrote:
The Epstein files are a whole nothingburger.
And you know this how?
Because if there were anything to them, Biden would have released them a year ago.
03 -
JustMe22 wrote:
El Runkin wrote:
Judge Walker issued a quick order on the motion by Luticia. The Judge very diplomatically told both sides to behave and follow the rules regarding public disclosures, which are obviously more restrictive on the prosecution than a criminal defendant (we learned that in Trump's hooker payoff case).
The only thing of consequence I can see from this is that the government is required to log and preserve all communications with the media. That part of the order was directed to Hanrihan and her claim that her text messages with Bower were off-the-record because "It’s obvious the whole convo is off record. There’s disappearing messages and it’s on signal." That was a very inexperienced and stupid presumption of Hanrihan's and now the prosecution is on notice that it can't rely on apps like Signal that auto-delete texts after a period of time. They will have to preserve the texts somehow (like Bower did) even if Signal doesn't.
Runkie, I fhink you missed something. You linked the exhibit (exhibit B) to James' attorney's motion for miscellaneous relief, basically a gag order, but failed to link the motion. So here it is:
You did link the proposed order, but I wanted to explain that such an order is just a formality that makes it easier on the judge to grant to the motion (rule in favor of the action requested) if the judge agrees that the action is appropriate. The judge did not sign the order.
You are correct. I mistakenly linked the proposed order instead of the Louecia’s motion. You have posted the correct link.
Instead, he wrote his own order denying the motion:
District Judge Jamar K. Walker wrote:
The defendant's request that the government be required to keep a communication log is DENIED. To the extent the government asks the Court to limit the defendant's own speech, that request is DENIED.
So, the judge did not rule that the Harrihan must log all communications. Also, Harrihan already knows enough not to disclose details of the case to the media. The "drunk" texting exchange (or rookie mistake that anyone rooting against Trump should absolutely be ecstatic about) contains something every prosecutor, inept or not, already knows, the line: "I can't disclose details of the case." The exchange is Harrihan lashing out at the reporter for writing information that she feels is inaccurate and biased.The Judge ordered: “The government shall preserve any records or communications
having to do with the investigation or prosecution of this case.” So they have to preserve all media communications, which is logging them in my mind, but you are correct, they don’t have to produce any media communications log to the defendant. Just preserve them in the event they are an issue later.Now, you appear to have a hard time taking a compliment, but I am still very grateful for your linking primary sources. I disagree with your take on them, and perhaps I am correcting where I see errors in way that is indelicate. But I think those sources contain a better account of what is going on than your low opinion of Harrihan (and mine of James, to be fair) when it comes to the potential outcomes. James filed this motion to embarass Harrihan, and the secondary source that is our media is having a field day with it.Other than your corrections above, what takes of mine are you disagreeing with?
Also, I’m not sure I’d call court filings “primary sources.” It doesn’t make sense, for example, to call the Constitution a "primary source" on the Constitution. It is what it is, and court filings are what they are. And it’s axiomatic that they contain a better account than anyone's opinion of what they say. But I think I’m doing a decent job of accurately discussing them (subject to mistaken links and misquotes above, etc.). What are you disputing or disagreeing with?
Another thing I hate is political prosecution, which the James and Comey cases are a prime example of. I think we agree on the second part of that statement. But I didn't care for them when Trump was the target, either. Could you explain your position on the casss against Trump?Bathroom Secrets case. Fake Electors case. You're referring to those? Do you want me to repeat what I’ve posted many times before? What’s your knowledge of them before I do?
00
