Former President Trump

[Shaker]

Reminded me of this: https://tinyurl.com/3sz96bz

[Humph Warden Bennett]

I've heard of cases where whoever it is in court who arranges these things (usher?) being decidedly sniffy with those who choose to affirm, though it's possible that that's only because they have to go and get another card or something.

I have done Jury Service, we were all asked before we went into court as to our preferences.

Glorious True story. At a certain London County Court sometime in the seventies, the Court Usher produced the bible for an oath to be taken, the book was very old & was held together with an elastic band. The contents of the covers fell onto the floor as the bible was being handed to the witness.......it was the London A-Z!

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

There was trouble anyway - you've probably heard, it was on the news every five minutes since 1948.

I place the blame squarely on the maladapted morons who call for a 'day of rage' when something happens they don't like.

Day of rage? That’s one way of describing the Israeli Defence Force’s disproportionate fire power against Palestinian civilian targets that invariably results in the mass slaughter of Palestinian children, while helping Israeli settlers flout international law and move further and further into illegally occupied Palestinian land. You’re right it has been going on since 1948. But the Israeli poaching of land and execissive force generally lasts longer than a day. You had an interesting suggestion about the best way of dealing with poachers.

This land grab reminds me of how the Native Americans lost their land to settlers so not surprised that Trump is a fan of such tactics.

ETA: Or perhaps you were referring to this secular day of rage in Israel. Seems to be the in thing to call it these days - using the term “protest” has become so passé I suppose.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/237618

[jeremyp]

I have done Jury Service, we were all asked before we went into court as to our preferences.

Glorious True story. At a certain London County Court sometime in the seventies, the Court Usher produced the bible for an oath to be taken, the book was very old & was held together with an elastic band. The contents of the covers fell onto the floor as the bible was being handed to the witness.......it was the London A-Z!

I certainly used to swear by the A-Z if not on it. Unfortunately, it is somewhat obsolete now.

[Aruntraveller]

So Trump down to a one seat majority now that Moore has been defeated. Even more interesting times.

[Harrowby Hall]

So Trump down to a one seat majority now that Moore has been defeated. Even more interesting times.

Only in the Senate.

In the House of Representatives the Republicans have a 45 seat majority.

[Aruntraveller]

Only in the Senate.

In the House of Representatives the Republicans have a 45 seat majority.

Yes - but anything that makes his life a little more difficult and uncomfortable is fine by me.

[Harrowby Hall]

Yes - but anything that makes his life a little more difficult and uncomfortable is fine by me.

I have no argument with that particular sentiment.

[jakswan]

Yes - but anything that makes his life a little more difficult and uncomfortable is fine by me.

I knew we would 100% agree on something one day.

[SusanDoris]

I am fairly sure I heard on PM Radio 4 just now the defeated Roy Moor saying 'Remember, God was with us.'
Yuk! WQhat ghastly man.

[Nearly Sane]

So Trump was right all along



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42343054

[Aruntraveller]

I knew we would 100% agree on something one day.

I'm sure we agree on a lot more than you perhaps realise.

[Anchorman]

Nice bit of commentary from USA Today: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/12/12/trump-lows-ever-hit-rock-bottom-editorials-debates/945947001/

[jeremyp]

goodness knows what it will take to stop him in his tracks short of an assassin's bullet.

Losing at the next general election in 2020 or impeachment.

[Nearly Sane]

Losing at the next general election in 2020 or impeachment.

Ain't going to be impeached.

[jeremyp]

Ain't going to be impeached.

Not before the mid term elections, but it could happen after.

[Nearly Sane]

Not before the mid term elections, but it could happen after.

Possibly but it seems to me a big risk for the Dems.  Trump could be easily disowned by the Republicans as what the people chose, a semi-Rep and the bitterness of any such procedure could cost as it will take up politics for an age. In order to do it, it cannot be about anything other than a watertight case.

[jeremyp]

Possibly but it seems to me a big risk for the Dems.  Trump could be easily disowned by the Republicans as what the people chose, a semi-Rep and the bitterness of any such procedure could cost as it will take up politics for an age. In order to do it, it cannot be about anything other than a watertight case.

If there are any reasonable grounds for bringing Trump to trial, a Democrat Congress will impeach him. Their core support will be screaming at them to do it, so not doing it will be an impossibility. The only people who'd be against it are Trump's core support and they aren't voting Democrat anyway.

A Republican congress might do it also - they do not want Trump winning a second term but for them it is obviously more risky because having Trump's core support turn against the GOP would be fatal without an open and shut case.

[Nearly Sane]

If there are any reasonable grounds for bringing Trump to trial, a Democrat Congress will impeach him. Their core support will be screaming at them to do it, so not doing it will be an impossibility. The only people who'd be against it are Trump's core support and they aren't voting Democrat anyway.

A Republican congress might do it also - they do not want Trump winning a second term but for them it is obviously more risky because having Trump's core support turn against the GOP would be fatal without an open and shut case.

I think the second is never going to happen without a desire to lose the next presidential election.


The problem for the first is that they need the same watertight case. There are currently no smoking guns.

[Nearly Sane]

It appears that it would be much easier to remove a British PM than to remove a US president.

given that a PM isn't elected directly that isn't surprising.

[Nearly Sane]

So apparently at 'ministerial level' they think sending Trump to Lewis will sine how be a suitable memorial for the Iolaire.

Fucking witless.


http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/donald-trumps-uk-visit-could-11690989

[jeremyp]

I think the second is never going to happen without a desire to lose the next presidential election.

If they think having Trump in charge is worse than a Democrat they will do it. If they think Trump will definitely lose they will do it. If they think they can win without Trump, they will do it.

All the above does require a pretty strong case that Trump has done something illegal.

The problem for the first is that they need the same watertight case. There are currently no smoking guns.

They need a strong case, it doesn't need to be completely watertight. In fact, if the Democrats have a strong case, they will have to impeach, or be accused of putting politics ahead of justice.

However, I agree that there is currently no smoking gun. Lots of Americans seem pretty optimistic about the Mueller inquiry, but I think that is wishful thinking, there is no evidence that Mueller has got a case against Trump himself at the moment.

[jeremyp]

So apparently at 'ministerial level' they think sending Trump to Lewis will sine how be a suitable memorial for the Iolaire.

Fucking witless.


http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/donald-trumps-uk-visit-could-11690989

Wouldn't that be seen as abject cowardice?

Also, I wouldn't be so confident that they could prevent significant numbers of protestors from turning up.

[Nearly Sane]

My doubt is that in the absence of anything that isn't a watertight case, no intentions work. I see no case so how can he be impeached.  No one will touch it without that.

[Nearly Sane]

Wouldn't that be seen as abject cowardice?

Also, I wouldn't be so confident that they could prevent significant numbers of protestors from turning up.

It's pretty well all nonsense but the suggestion the the centenary of the Iolaire might be used in this way is vile.