Elections Second Assassination Attempt of Trump at his Florida golf course

[Bullitt68]

nobodys reading that snowflake..

Aw, how sweet: In addition to the 10 people who reacted to it, you actually took the time to make it crystal clear that you also read it. Thanks for taking the time

The point I was making which you've yet to address is that its not hyperbole to point out Trump is a threat to democracy. He is the only sitting president I can think of who took concrete, extralegal steps to prevent the peaceful transfer of power and over turn a free and fair election. That does in fact make him a unique threat to the democratic institutions and norms of this country and pointing it out is not hysteria.

I'm going to ignore the other stuff you posted because I don't want to sling mud. You've made this point multiple times, and I've responded to it multiple times. One more time: My issue is not with what people "point out," it's how people express themselves. Ranting and raving has solved and will solve nothing. On the contrary, it's causing more problems. That was my first point and it's a point that I've reiterated repeatedly. You then jumped in and took issue with everything that I had to say as if I had attacked you personally, even though (a) I was not responding to you nor did I ever seek you out to address anything that I said to you and (b) you maintain that nothing that I have to say applies to you.

What issues remain, if any? What wires are still crossed for you, if any?

 

[terrapin]

Look at you discounting such a substantive list. You've bought every Left Cult talking point made. You're an establishment shill. You think the government the U.S. has received for the last 30 years has been decent? good? smart? You keep going with the Globalist Marxist, but I don't want to hear you bitching and moaning as it all falls apart.

Trump was no threat. Not a shot was fired... except the murder of Ashli Babbet. He told people to be, "Peaceful" under no uncertain terms. He called for 10,000 National Guardsmen prior, but Pelosi and the Democrat Mayor of D.C. turned down the request. A greater threat to democracy is having elections we cannot trust because of bias MSM coverage, drop boxes, unrequested mail in ballots, vote harvesting, votes counted that were dated after the deadline, and observers not allowed to observe. You want no more "Democracy", then make over half the people not trust the process. You just got there.

The Left Cult seems afraid to say it out loud. They are 100% good with violence if it forwards their cause. That's why almost none of them denounced the riots that were far greater than anything January 6 was drummed up to be.

I did not discount that list. Why lie about my position? Some of it sounds bad. None of it rises to what Trump has done from the bully pulpit and none of it changes what Trump is doing. You have to remember Trump is running for president. I'll be sure not to ever vote for Snoop Dogg and his ilk.... kol


But a lot of that stuff is just disingenuous exaggerations and taking things out of context and trying to falsely compare what something Obama said and make it similar to something Trump said. In your dreams, Obama was ever as divisive as Trump in your very very best dreams.

And also I've never said our government is good for the last 30 years. Why is your mind so small that that's the only thing you can think is true if I disagree with you?

. I think our government is trash, but Trump represents a new level of trash and a leap off the rails entirely into a person who I think supports fascism and is a wannabe dictator. A strong man to answer all of your problems. Trump is like if we got sick of our politicians and then elected Jerry Springer for president because we're sick of the establishment. Well, I think we're better off with the establishment than Jerry Springer or Trump.

Stop pretending you know what I think because it just makes you look unhinged or dishonest.

Now why don't you go and take people like Snoop Dogg off the list and only include statements made by presidents and former presidents.

 

[curryjunkie]

Aw, how sweet: In addition to the 10 people who reacted to it, you actually took the time to make it crystal clear that you also read it. Thanks for taking the time

 

[Bob Gray]

The core issue with that line of posts is that you took umbrage with my saying that you were giving Trump the benefit of the doubt when you assume he genuinely believed the election was stolen. Nothing about that means to imply that you love Trump, its means you're giving him the benefit of the doubt and assuming he isn't outright lying but rather engaging in motivated reasoning or something along those lines.

To go back to an earlier example I used, if I pulled a fire alarm when there is no fire but when confronted I tried to justify it by saying I can't read and I don't know what a fire alarm is, to give me the benefit of the doubt here is to take me at my word even though it necessarily implies something unflattering about me(that I'm illiterate and ignorant enough to not know what a fire alarm is).

So yes while I concede it might not be a defense of Trump in the sense of an affirmative justification of Trump's actions, it is in fact giving him the benefit of the doubt in a way that assume less malice than if one doesn't take him at his word and assume he lies.

You tagged me ITT as an example of someone who is being unfair to Trump so sorry if I take your criticisms of that general category as something that applies to me if that wasn't your intention but I don't think its unfair for me to assume that.

I think its quite representative of my posts but of course I'd say that.

You're appealing to "likes" now after you completely dodged our arguments? Nah, not convincing. Address the arguments at hand or leave it at that. I've got plenty of people liking my posts too but I wouldn't dare suggest that it adds validity to my arguments. Personally I think some of my best posts don't get very many likes because they tend to go off into the weeds on policy details but if I post a good short dunk on someone I'll get a bunch of likes for it.

The problem is that people like you who aren't plugged into politics don't follow all the nitty gritty details about things like Jan 6th so of course you don't think its that bad. And that's fine, don't expect everyone to follow politics the way I do.

But if someone like me wants to go over the facts of the matter and draw what I think are reasonable conclusions(i.e. Trump tried to prevent the peaceful transfer of power last time he was in office and this ipso facto makes him a threat to democracy) its taken as hyperbole.

Look, Im just gonna be honest. On one hand, I respect the fact that you're actually attempting to engage in discussing issues as opposed to just throw out labels and call someone maga-tard. So, if anything theres that. I do think you're trying to engage fairly.

But I just honestly think your bad habits make discussions difficult to impossible. Like I've already said, I think you straw man constantly and routinely prop up points and positions no one is actually making. Then top it off you think that people who disagree with you simply don't understand what you're saying, and that's just a big problem. I think you're lacking in self introspection and being able to judge your own positions and interpretations rationally in tandem with having knee jerk reactions to what other people are saying.

With that said, you don't seem to get bent out of shape when people are coming down on you, so you have some pretty thick skin and, like I said, I do think you're attempting to engage fairly and maybe on a million other topics we can find common ground. I don't think Trump is gonna be that issue though.

 

[Islam Imamate]

I'm going to ignore the other stuff you posted because I don't want to sling mud. You've made this point multiple times, and I've responded to it multiple times. One more time: My issue is not with what people "point out," it's how people express themselves. Ranting and raving has solved and will solve nothing. On the contrary, it's causing more problems. That was my first point and it's a point that I've reiterated repeatedly. You then jumped in and took issue with everything that I had to say as if I had attacked you personally, even though (a) I was not responding to you nor did I ever seek you out to address anything that I said to you and (b) you maintain that nothing that I have to say applies to you.

What issues remain, if any? What wires are still crossed for you, if any?

In the first post of yours I quoted I took umbrage with this part of the post.

This type of rhetoric is part of the problem. Inflating Trump into a comic book-esque villain the likes of which Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, and Genghis Khan could never have aspired to be in their most savage ambition hasn't worked even a little bit in nearly a decade now. He's not Thanos. He does, however, feed on the fire the flames of which his opponents keep stupidly fanning with their misguided virtue signaling. His detractors need to just shut up, stand back, and let him sink his own ship. Instead, his detractors have ensured that he not only stay afloat but they often actively (and of course unwittingly) help him pick up steam. The whole Trump debacle that's inexplicably lasted nearly a decade has been the left's battle to lose and they've been losing it so spectacularly that you'd think losing was and is their fucking plan.

This is the most I've talked politics in years and I'm already annoyed. This thread just caught my eye at the right moment and in the right mood, I guess.

And then you confirmed that take here. I strongly disagree that the way to deal with Trump is to just ignore him or to pretend he's not a uniquely bad and unfit candidate for the office of POTUS. You've also claimed that Trump's attempt to overturn the election is not unique and I strongly disagree with that as well

2) Trump wasn't the first candidate to challenge election results and he won't be the last.* Part of the bargain with democracy is that results of the democratic process can be challenged. If you don't like that part of democracy then you don't like democracy. That'd be fine, but only if you're honest about it. Besides which, Hillary has had no problem claiming that the 2016 election was "not on the level" - she even called Trump an "illegitimate president" who stole the election from her - and the anti-Trump crowd seems not to have a problem with that.** As I said at the start: It's not about "sides" because both sides are full of shit and full of shit people; it's about a broken system full of toxic morons that's been poisoning our country far too much for far too long.

*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contested_elections_in_American_history

**https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...195d5a-e099-11e9-b199-f638bf2c340f_story.html

Trumps fake elector scheme which culminated in the Jan 6th riot is fairly unique in American history and certainly recent American history. Again to be clear contesting the election through legal channels is not the issue, its the fact that he organized seven fraudulent slates of electors from the states he lost so that Mike Pence would either accept them over the legitimate Biden electors or use the confusion from their presence to send the matter to the state delegates of the House of Representative where the GOP had a slight majority and in theory could choose Trump as president.

That is an attempted coup and I don't think you can point to Hillary Clinton ever attempting anything of the sort.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Look, Im just gonna be honest. On one hand, I respect the fact that you're actually attempting to engage in discussing issues as opposed to just throw out labels and call someone maga-tard. So, if anything theres that. I do think you're trying to engage fairly.

But I just honestly think your bad habits make discussions difficult to impossible. Like I've already said, I think you straw man constantly and routinely prop up points and positions no one is actually making.

Its funny because for a time I tried to shift towards using questions as responses as opposed to declarative statements to tease out where the disagreement is and to avoid making these kinds of assumptions but in the end it just pissed people off way more so I stopped.

I don't think I've strawmanned anyone's position here though. The disagreement we had initially is that you took umbrage with my saying you were giving Trump the benefit of the doubt. I used a cheeky line in doing so("I hope you offer your partner that same benefit of the doubt") and that may have rightly bothered you but I think my core point stands there. To assume Trump isn't lying on any given matter is to give him the benefit of the doubt even if the obvious conclusion of that is unflattering(e.g. Trump being delusional).

Then top it off you think that people who disagree with you simply don't understand what you're saying, and that's just a big problem. I think you're lacking in self introspection and being able to judge your own positions and interpretations rationally in tandem with having knee jerk reactions to what other people are saying.

I said that to Bullitt68 because he openly said he doesn't talk politics often so I think it was fair to assume that he might be missing some details. Maybe I said it elsewhere where its unwarranted and if so please point it out to me.

I've also mentioned a few positions where I think someone supporting Trump is making a rational decision based off their starting premises(pro-life, anti-taxes, pro-gun) so I don't think its fair to say that I can't conceive of legitimate disagreement.

 

[GearSolidMetal]

What she wanted to say - "Trump will no longer be a threat after a successful assassination attempt."

 

[BFoe]

You definitely sound a lot more radical nowadays than you did just a few months ago.

Yeah, I’m not unaware of that. I don’t think my political views have shifted much honestly, but my patience with authoritarian nationalism shit is running very thin.

After the 2020 election, you’ll find posts of mine where I called for both sides to move back towards the center a bit. I thought (naively, it turns out) that we’d moved on from Trump.

But instead, the Right doubled down on Trump—even after learning the extent he went (committing multiple felonies) to have millions of lawful votes thrown out, intimidating innocent poll workers, undermining Americans’ faith in our election process for no other reason than selfishness and his own personal gain, and the like.

So basically, I’m fed up with this shit, and I think a lot of liberals feel the same. Initially it was “when they go low, we go high” and all we got in return was walked all over. I don’t know what’s going to become of the MAGA followers when Trump leaves the political scene, but I hope more than anything that he loses soundly in November, moves on to face justice in court, and the country can move on.

 

[Bullitt68]

In the first post of yours I quoted I took umbrage with this part of the post [...] I strongly disagree that the way to deal with Trump is to just ignore him or to pretend he's not a uniquely bad and unfit candidate for the office of POTUS.

Ok. I explained myself and you disagree---even though in one of your earlier posts you said that we don't disagree, which I can't imagine is the case with how often and how intensely you seem to want to disagree with me, but I'd certainly like for it to be the case.

What if anything remains for me to address?

You've also claimed that Trump's attempt to overturn the election is not unique and I strongly disagree with that as well.

It's not unique, and this isn't a point on which we can just agree to disagree. On this point, you're just plain wrong. That's why I provided a link to all the other contested elections in American political history, many of which had their own shenanigans. Here it is again for you to consult:

Contested United States presidential elections - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Now, if you want to counter my point with a charge of pedantry, that the semantics of "contesting" and "overturning" and what have you is irrelevant to the question of whether what specifically Trump did was right or wrong, legal or illegal, good for the country or bad for the country, I'm already on record saying that his actions were Nixon-esque and absolutely wrong/illegal/bad for the country. Once again, it'd appear that we're in agreement, yet you're so intent on combating me...which, I might add, proves my point about anti-Trumpers being so fanatical as to alienate those who would otherwise be allies, which is a problem of rhetoric, which was my original point to which you took such intense umbrage.

What if anything remains for me to address?

Trumps fake elector scheme which culminated in the Jan 6th riot is fairly unique in American history and certainly recent American history. Again to be clear contesting the election through legal channels is not the issue, its the fact that he organized seven fraudulent slates of electors from the states he lost so that Mike Pence would either accept them over the legitimate Biden electors or use the confusion from their presence to send the matter to the state delegates of the House of Representative where the GOP had a slight majority and in theory could choose Trump as president.

As I've said many times, and will say here for the last time: I took issue with political rhetoric, and so everything that I said was in reference to rhetoric. You brought up all the rest, which was not what I was concerned with and was not what I cared to talk about, but even so I'm on the record in here calling Trump stupid and his actions immoral at best and criminal at worst. I'll note that you've gone from "indeed unique" to "fairly unique," which I'm going to interpret as a good sign, but you tell me where we stand.

That is an attempted coup and I don't think you can point to Hillary Clinton ever attempting anything of the sort.

I never did so point to her nor am I so pointing to her now. What if anything remains for me to address?

 

[BFoe]

@Bullitt68
I won’t take take time to multi-quote everything from your post, but ill summarize.

—Yeah, we talked about the awesomeness of Fedor

—People think I come off as self-righteous too, or even arrogant. Sometimes I might do it rile someone a bit lol, but it sounds like we have the same sort of thing going on. I’m not a professor, but I’ve followed politics and studied history pretty closely since I was a kid. After 35+ years of that, I come off as self-assured because I know where I stand on all these things, and I get it can be off-putting.

—When you said I reminded you why you never post in here, I did sincerely feel bad. I’d never want to make anyone feel regretful of posting or unwelcome in any sub forum. I really am sorry about that.

But yeah, I think those of us that are WR regulars forget how it comes off. It is a bit like stepping in the ring, and when you hit Post Reply, the bell has rung. Someone might lob a jab at you, or they might just come out with haymakers, you never know
I’ve been on both sides of it.

Anyway, no hard feelings man, I don’t really take any of this stuff personally. Once the “fight” is over, it’s over.
Cheers.

 

[Sinister]

Right wing fantasy: "Trump will secure our borders against all intruders!"

Reality: Trump rally and golf course breached by gunmen

 

[nostradumbass]

Not only is Dick Cheney supporting Kamel, she wears it like a badge of honor

Dick Cheney and John Bolton both. The democrat party has turned into a magnet for every soulless warmonger, the mentally ill, perverts, looters, deadbeats and drug dealers. Every time some demoralized loser films themselves having a panic attack in their car or having some public freakout, the party bosses smile at a job well done.

 

[Barteh]

Yeah, I’m not unaware of that. I don’t think my political views have shifted much honestly, but my patience with authoritarian nationalism shit is running very thin.

After the 2020 election, you’ll find posts of mine where I called for both sides to move back towards the center a bit. I thought (naively, it turns out) that we’d moved on from Trump.

But instead, the Right doubled down on Trump—even after learning the extent he went (committing multiple felonies) to have millions of lawful votes thrown out, intimidating innocent poll workers, undermining Americans’ faith in our election process for no other reason than selfishness and his own personal gain, and the like.

So basically, I’m fed up with this shit, and I think a lot of liberals feel the same. Initially it was “when they go low, we go high” and all we got in return was walked all over. I don’t know what’s going to become of the MAGA followers when Trump leaves the political scene, but I hope more than anything that he loses soundly in November, moves on to face justice in court, and the country can move on.

The when they go low, we go high sounds nice but it's not something I remember seeing in my lifetime from any US politician.

Literally the only thing the left would've had to do is move away from all the woke crap, distance themselves from the fake news media and put forward a decent candidate who talks policy and pretty much just ignores Trump's inflammatory language.

But instead they denied Biden's decline for years until it was too late and shoehorned in the most leftist candidate in US history.

And that's where the big problem comes in. The people who are gonna be voting Trump are just as fed up with the extreme left becoming mainstream as you are fed up with Trump.

 

[HOLA]

Right wing fantasy: "Trump will secure our borders against all intruders!"

Reality: Trump rally and golf course breached by gunmen

He once had a random crazy lady pretend to be a member of the Rothschild family, and Trump and Lindsey spent the afternoon playing golf with her lmao. Forget about securing the U.S./Mexico border, he can't even secure Maro Lardo's border.

US investigates fake heiress who infiltrated Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort

A Ukrainian woman posed as a Rothschild to gain access to the Florida resort, heightening fears over security lapses

www.theguardian.com

A second foreign national is being investigated by US authorities for gaining access to Mar-a-Lago, Donald Trump’s Florida resort which is at the center of an FBI investigation over missing classified documents, heightening fears over security lapses both during and after his presidency.

According to an article from the Organized Crime & Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP), a Ukrainian woman posing as a member of the Rothschild banking dynasty is under bureau investigation after infiltrating the private members club under a false pretense.

Inna Yashchyshyn, 33, allegedly lied to members that she was a Rothschild heiress and mingled with Trump, Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and others at Mar-a-Lago functions.

OCCRP, in conjunction with the Pittsburgh Gazette, reported that Yashchyshyn had demonstrated “the ease with which someone with a fake identity and shadowy background” could bypass security at Trump’s club.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Ok. I explained myself and you disagree---even though in one of your earlier posts you said that we don't disagree, which I can't imagine is the case with how often and how intensely you seem to want to disagree with me, but I'd certainly like for it to be the case.

What if anything remains for me to address?

Where did I say that?

It's not unique, and this isn't a point on which we can just agree to disagree. On this point, you're just plain wrong. That's why I provided a link to all the other contested elections in American political history, many of which had their own shenanigans. Here it is again for you to consult:

Contested United States presidential elections - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Now, if you want to counter my point with a charge of pedantry, that the semantics of "contesting" and "overturning" and what have you is irrelevant to the question of whether what specifically Trump did was right or wrong, legal or illegal, good for the country or bad for the country, I'm already on record saying that his actions were Nixon-esque and absolutely wrong/illegal/bad for the country. Once again, it'd appear that we're in agreement, yet you're so intent on combating me...which, I might add, proves my point about anti-Trumpers being so fanatical as to alienate those who would otherwise be allies, which is a problem of rhetoric, which was my original point to which you took such intense umbrage.

What if anything remains for me to address?



As I've said many times, and will say here for the last time: I took issue with political rhetoric, and so everything that I said was in reference to rhetoric. You brought up all the rest, which was not what I was concerned with and was not what I cared to talk about, but even so I'm on the record in here calling Trump stupid and his actions immoral at best and criminal at worst. I'll note that you've gone from "indeed unique" to "fairly unique," which I'm going to interpret as a good sign, but you tell me where we stand.



I never did so point to her nor am I so pointing to her now. What if anything remains for me to address?

Evaluating Trump's rhetoric in isolation from the concrete actions he took to overturn the election strikes me as silly. Its the concrete steps that Trump took to overturn the election that were unique and make his rhetoric so insidious. If he was just claiming the election was stolen to sell a book I wouldn't care as much.

And its because of that scheme that Trump is called a unique threat to democracy. Great you agree with that but you just don't think we should talk about it I guess? Or we can talk about it but we shouldn't imply Trump is uniquely unfit for it because of it?

Even if we keep it specific to the rhetoric Trump was fairly unique. Clinton claimed that there was Russian meddling in the election but she never made legally defamatory statements that specific voting machines were submitting fraudulent votes nor did she ever call out election workers by name and put the blame on them.

Trump did though, he claimed that Dominion voting machines were submitting votes cast for him as Biden votes and claimed that Ruby Freeman, an election worker in Georgia, was complicit in the fraud by bringing in suitcases of fraudulent votes and recounting Biden votes. Both of those claims ended up leading to defamation cases, one against FOX news by Dominion which was settled out of court and one successful litigated against Rudy Giuliani by Ruby Freeman and her daughter.

So in that sense Trump's rhetoric is fairly unique in that he amplified defamatory, statements against specific targets which generated a harassment campaign against them and ultimately culminated in successful defamation suits. Did Clinton make such claims? Has she or anyone else ever been successfully sued or settled out of court for defamation for repeating her claims of Russian meddling? I could be wrong but as far as I know the answer is no and its because Clinton was far less irresponsible with her rhetoric than Trump was.

 

[Sinister]

He once had a random crazy lady pretend to be a member of the Rothschild family, and Trump and Lindsey spent the afternoon playing golf with her lmao. Forget about securing the U.S./Mexico border, he can't even secure Maro Lardo's border.

US investigates fake heiress who infiltrated Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort

A Ukrainian woman posed as a Rothschild to gain access to the Florida resort, heightening fears over security lapses

www.theguardian.com

A second foreign national is being investigated by US authorities for gaining access to Mar-a-Lago, Donald Trump’s Florida resort which is at the center of an FBI investigation over missing classified documents, heightening fears over security lapses both during and after his presidency.

According to an article from the Organized Crime & Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP), a Ukrainian woman posing as a member of the Rothschild banking dynasty is under bureau investigation after infiltrating the private members club under a false pretense.

Inna Yashchyshyn, 33, allegedly lied to members that she was a Rothschild heiress and mingled with Trump, Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and others at Mar-a-Lago functions.

OCCRP, in conjunction with the Pittsburgh Gazette, reported that Yashchyshyn had demonstrated “the ease with which someone with a fake identity and shadowy background” could bypass security at Trump’s club.

So much security!!

 

[HOLA]

Where did I say that?

Evaluating Trump's rhetoric in isolation from the concrete actions he took to overturn the election strikes me as silly. Its the concrete steps that Trump took to overturn the election that were unique and make his rhetoric so insidious. If he was just claiming the election was stolen to sell a book I wouldn't care as much.

And its because of that scheme that Trump is called a unique threat to democracy. Great you agree with that but you just don't think we should talk about it I guess? Or we can talk about it but we shouldn't imply Trump is uniquely unfit for it because of it?

Even if we keep it specific to the rhetoric Trump was fairly unique. Clinton claimed that there was Russian meddling in the election but she never made legally defamatory statements that specific voting machines were submitting fraudulent votes nor did she ever call out election workers by name and put the blame on them.

Trump did though, he claimed that Dominion voting machines were submitting votes cast for him as Biden votes and claimed that Ruby Freeman, an election worker in Georgia, was complicit in the fraud by bringing in suitcases of fraudulent votes and recounting Biden votes. Both of those claims ended up leading to defamation cases, one against FOX news by Dominion which was settled out of court and one successful litigated against Rudy Giuliani by Ruby Freeman and her daughter.

So in that sense Trump's rhetoric is fairly unique in that he amplified defamatory, statements against specific targets which generated a harassment campaign against them and ultimately culminated in successful defamation suits. Did Clinton make such claims? Has she or anyone else ever been successfully sued or settled out of court for defamation for repeating her claims of Russian meddling? I could be wrong but as far as I know the answer is no and its because Clinton was far less irresponsible with her rhetoric than Trump was.

Hillary was actually sued for her claims over Russia, by Trump. The judge fined TRUMP$1 million and sanctioned his lawyers for wasting the courts times by filing a frivolous lawsuit, because Hillary's claims about what Russia was involved in are extremely well documented.

NEW YORK (AP) — A Florida judge sanctioned former President Donald Trump and one of his attorneys, ordering them to pay nearly $1 million for filing what he said was a bogus lawsuit against Trump’s 2016 rival Hillary Clinton and others.

In a blistering filing on Thursday, U.S. District Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks accused Trump of a “pattern of abuse of the courts” for filing frivolous lawsuits for political purposes, which he said “undermines the rule of law” and “amounts to obstruction of justice.”

“Here, we are confronted with a lawsuit that should never have been filed, which was completely frivolous, both factually and legally, and which was brought in bad faith for an improper purpose,” he wrote.

Citing Trump’s recent legal action against the Pulitzer Prize board, New York’s attorney general, big tech companies and CNN, he described Trump as “a prolific and sophisticated litigant” who uses the courts “to seek revenge on political adversaries.”

“He is the mastermind of strategic abuse of the judicial process,” he wrote.

The ruling required Trump and his attorney, Alina Habba, to pay nearly $938,000 to the defendants in the case.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Hillary was actually sued for her claims over Russia, by Trump. The judge fined TRUMP$1 million and sanctioned his lawyers for wasting the courts times by filing a frivolous lawsuit, because Hillary's claims about what Russia was involved in are extremely well documented.

NEW YORK (AP) — A Florida judge sanctioned former President Donald Trump and one of his attorneys, ordering them to pay nearly $1 million for filing what he said was a bogus lawsuit against Trump’s 2016 rival Hillary Clinton and others.

In a blistering filing on Thursday, U.S. District Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks accused Trump of a “pattern of abuse of the courts” for filing frivolous lawsuits for political purposes, which he said “undermines the rule of law” and “amounts to obstruction of justice.”

“Here, we are confronted with a lawsuit that should never have been filed, which was completely frivolous, both factually and legally, and which was brought in bad faith for an improper purpose,” he wrote.

Citing Trump’s recent legal action against the Pulitzer Prize board, New York’s attorney general, big tech companies and CNN, he described Trump as “a prolific and sophisticated litigant” who uses the courts “to seek revenge on political adversaries.”

“He is the mastermind of strategic abuse of the judicial process,” he wrote.

The ruling required Trump and his attorney, Alina Habba, to pay nearly $938,000 to the defendants in the case.

Wow did not know that, you learn something new everyday. In light of that and the two defamation cases involving Dominion and Ruby Freeman I don't see how anyone can say that Trump's and Clinton's rhetoric were more or less the same. Both made or shared claims which were eventually brought to court and the courts threw out Trump's bogus lawsuit while in one case awarding Ruby Freeman a massive judgement and in the other FOX News settled out of court for ~787 million in relation to claims made by Trump and his associates.

 

[HOLA]

Wow did not know that, you learn something new everyday. In light of that and the two defamation cases involving Dominion and Ruby Freeman I don't see how anyone can say that Trump's and Clinton's rhetoric were more or less the same. Both made or shared claims which were eventually brought to court and the courts threw out Trump's bogus lawsuit while in one case awarding Ruby Freeman a massive judgement and in the other FOX News settled out of court for ~787 million in relation to claims made by Trump and his associates.

In addition, multiple of Trump's co-conspirators in the election scheme have already pled guilty and/or lost their ability to practice law.

 

[Islam Imamate]

In addition, multiple of Trump's co-conspirators in the election scheme have already pled guilty and/or lost their ability to practice law.

I know Giuliani and Eastman have been disbarred but who else?