https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/trump-false-claims-new-hampshire_n_6536e24fe4b011a9cf7ab60f

Trump is losing his mind.

The most newsworthy quote probably came prior to the rally, when a reporter asked Trump if his recent perplexing claim that Sidney Powell was never his attorney (although he’s previously said she was) meant that his interactions with her wouldn’t be covered by attorney-client privilege.

Trump, who has been indicted four times, responded by making the completely false statement that he was “never indicted.”

“We did nothing wrong,” Trump said. “This is all Biden’s stuff … I was never indicted. You practically never heard the word.”

...

“You don’t have to vote, don’t worry about voting. The voting, we got plenty of votes,” he said.

...

Trump also remarked that “U.S.” and “us” are spelled the same and noted that he’d “just picked that up.”

“Has anyone ever thought of that before?” he asked the crowd. “Couple of days, I’m reading, and it said ‘us.’ and I said, you know, when you think about it, us equals U.S. Now if we say something genius, they will never say it.”

...

Trump also promised to keep immigrants who “don’t like our religion” from entering the United States. Of course, the First Amendment establishes that there is no state religion in America.

...

He also justified challenging the 2020 election results by saying he doesn’t mind “being Nelson Mandela because I’m doing it for a reason.”

You can't disparage a prosecutor in the United States of America, I guess. — NOS4A2

A party to the case can’t if such a gag order has been issued.

Judge Chutkan issues limited gag order for Trump in D.C. Jan. 6 case

U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan said Monday she will impose a limited gag order on former president Donald Trump in advance of his election interference trial, as requested by prosecutors.

The gag order, she said in a ruling issued from the bench after a hearing, will prohibit all parties from statements “publicly targeting” special counsel Jack Smith, his staff, her staff or “any other court personnel.” Statements about the families of those individuals are “absolutely prohibited as well.”

Even before the order was issued, Trump’s lawyer John Lauro said they would appeal any such order, as it would affect important free speech principles, particularly for a leading candidate for president.

Trump “can argue that this prosecution is politically motivated,” the judge said, but he cannot disparage the prosecutor by calling him a thug or “vilify and implicitly encourage violence against public servants who are simply doing their jobs.”

She is also barring Trump and all parties from making statements about witnesses in the case.

So how long before he defies it?

Looking into it further, it does say:

But the fact is that the great majority of the allegations in the indictment—including allegations of the defendants’ conduct, knowledge, and intent—turn on evidence contained in the unclassified discovery, not the much smaller set of classified discovery.

And the indictment in several places says:

did corruptly conceal a record, document, and other object, and attempted to do so, with the intent to impair the object's integrity and availability for use in an official proceeding...

... with that "official proceeding" being the grand jury. So it may be that this new court filing is referring to Trump's intent to obstruct and not his intent in taking and keeping the documents in the first place.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653.173.0_1.pdf

That the classified materials at issue in this case were taken from the White House and retained at Mar-a-Lago is not in dispute; what is in dispute is how that occurred, why it occurred, what Trump knew, and what Trump intended in retaining them—all issues that the Government will prove at trial primarily with unclassified evidence.

Interesting.

https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/oct/06/donald-trump-backs-jim-jordan-house-speaker

“Jordan is one of Trump’s biggest champions in Washington DC and has been leading spurious investigations into prosecutors who have charged the former president. He was also part of a group of Republicans who worked with Trump to overturn his defeat, ahead of January 6.”

Trump allegedly discussed US nuclear subs with foreign national after leaving White House

Months after leaving the White House, former President Donald Trump allegedly discussed potentially sensitive information about U.S. nuclear submarines with a member of his Mar-a-Lago Club -- an Australian billionaire who then allegedly shared the information with scores of others, including more than a dozen foreign officials, several of his own employees, and a handful of journalists, according to sources familiar with the matter.

...

Prosecutors and FBI agents have at least twice this year interviewed the Mar-a-Lago member, Anthony Pratt, who runs U.S.-based Pratt Industries, one of the world's largest packaging companies.

...

According to Pratt's account, as described by the sources, Pratt told Trump he believed Australia should start buying its submarines from the United States, to which an excited Trump -- "leaning" toward Pratt as if to be discreet -- then told Pratt two pieces of information about U.S. submarines: the supposed exact number of nuclear warheads they routinely carry, and exactly how close they supposedly can get to a Russian submarine without being detected.

What else has he talked about and to who?

Why does Trump call the AG a “peekaboo”? What does that even mean? I know it in the context of hiding and showing yourself to a baby?

I don't know what the solution to the immigration issue is, but I'm not sure it's a border wall. — GRWelsh

https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/rapid-proliferation-number-border-walls

Yet the claim that walls have been nearly universally “successful” could not be further from the truth. Research from around the world indicates that both the direct and indirect costs of building border walls exceed the benefits. Tunnels, drones, ladders, ramps, document forgery, and corruption—the strategies for circumventing the walls end up multiplying. Walls do not achieve the objectives for which they are said to be erected; they have limited effects in stemming insurgencies and do not block unwanted flows, but rather lead to a re-routing of migrants to other paths. As migrants take other routes, circumventing the obstacles and therefore becoming more difficult to monitor, they rely more on smugglers and as a result pay greater costs. This is a process that many studies have shown, for instance along the U.S.-Mexico border and between Israel and the West Bank. As border enforcement increases, so do smugglers’ profits and the presence of organized crime.

https://www.cato.org/blog/border-wall-didnt-work

After a temporary lull in migration during the early part of the pandemic, that very month (October 2020) saw a significant jump in both known successful entries (what the Border Patrol calls “gotaways”), as well as arrests to levels as high as before the pandemic, and the numbers kept rising. Even before Biden assumed office, the Border Patrol was making more arrests and witnessing far more successful crossings after the wall went up than most months before the Trump wall.

...

The Trump border wall failed for all the predictable reasons. Immigrants used cheap ladders to climb over it, or they free climb it. They used cheap power tools to cut through it. They cut through small pieces and squeezed through, and they cut through big sections and drove through. In one small section in 2020, they sawed through at least 18 times that Border Patrol knew about in a month. They also made tunnels. Some tunnels were long, including the longest one ever discovered, but some were short enough just to get past the barrier.

While it was always obvious why the wall would never stop crossings, the border wall may actually have been counterproductive. The New York Times reported the roads created to build the wall “now serve as easy access points for smugglers and others seeking to enter the once‐​remote areas along the border.”

But most importantly, many, if not most, crossers never tried to evade capture. They just walked up to the fence (which is mostly in the United States) and asked to be arrested, so they can try to obtain asylum.

Cue the anger and protests? No — NOS4A2

Biden criticized for waiving 26 laws in Texas to allow border wall construction

Joe Biden faced intense criticism from environmental advocates, political opponents and his fellow Democrats after the president’s administration waived 26 federal laws to allow border wall construction in south Texas, its first use of a sweeping executive power that was often employed under Donald Trump.

Also, Biden argues his hands were tied with border wall funds

“The money was appropriated for the border wall. I tried to get them to reappropriate, to redirect that money. They didn’t. They wouldn’t,” he said. “In the meantime, there’s nothing under the law other than they have to use the money for what it was appropriated for. I can’t stop that.”

Biden was asked whether he thought the border wall was effective and responded “no.”

…

Biden aides Thursday repeatedly sought to highlight that the funding being used to build several miles of additional wall was allocated before Biden took office.

“Fact: Congress is forcing us to do this under a 2019 law. Fact: We called on Congress to cancel these funds. They didn’t. We follow the rule of law,” deputy press secretary Andrew Bates wrote on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter. “Congress needs to stop delaying the effective border solutions @POTUS proposed.”

Don't worry, Republicans Already Barred Trump From Being Speaker of the House:

Rule 26 of the GOP Conference states, "A member of the Republican Leadership shall step aside if indicted for a felony for which a sentence of two or more years imprisonment may be imposed."

People are saying they were the best bombs ever. They came to me with tears in their eyes, real tears, people who have never cried before, they said Mr President, the bombs were so beautiful, just so big and beautiful like you wouldn't believe.

Dude's getting more and more senile by the minute.

You’re right, I’m wrong. I apologize. I will ignore the statute, its genesis, and the precedent. — NOS4A2

Regarding its genesis, see the Sarbanes–Oxley Act

SEC. 1102. TAMPERING WITH A RECORD OR OTHERWISE IMPEDING
AN OFFICIAL PROCEEDING.

Section 1512 of title 18, United States Code, is amended—
(1) by redesignating subsections (c) through (i) as subsections (d) through (j), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following new subsection:
‘‘(c) Whoever corruptly—
‘‘(1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an
official proceeding; or
‘‘(2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.’’.

Well, I’m sorry for reading the title of the statute. — NOS4A2

You need to read more than just the title. He's been charged under subsections (c)(2) and (k):

(c) Whoever corruptly —

(2) obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

...

(k) Whoever conspires to commit any offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties as those prescribed for the offense the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.

You think the crime Trump is being charged with is Witness Tampering? — flannel jesus

It appears to be so. Ridiculous, isn’t it? — NOS4A2

Regarding the Jan 6 case, the charges are:

18 U.S. Code § 371 - Conspiracy to defraud the United States
18 U.S. Code § 1512(k) Conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding
18 U.S. Code § 1512(c)(2) Obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding
18 U.S. Code § 241 - Conspiracy against rights

There is no such thing as a moral fact, even in the case that they do exist, which is simultaneously a fundamental obligation; that is, the core principle which commits oneself to the moral facts, in the case that they exist, is necessarily a moral non-fact. This is readily seen by asking the simple and obvious question: “why is one obliged to the moral facts?”. — Bob Ross

If something is wrong iff one ought not do it then by definition if something is wrong then one ought not do it.

accidentally pulling a fire alarm — Mikie

This doesn't look like an accident. Unless either he's an idiot or it doesn't say it's a fire alarm.

The full quote is:

“Fraud is a crime but prosecutors refused to pursue the case. I wonder why? “Liable” is becoming the common theme because guilt escapes you. New York is a banana republic. See what SCOTUS says. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯“

Any reasonable person can infer from this that you are suggesting that James lacks the evidence to prove guilt and so didn’t pursue a criminal case, resorting only to a civil case where the standard of proof is lower.

However, if your “I wonder why?” wasn’t rhetorical and if the subsequent sentence was not you answering your own question then I answered your question for you: she doesn’t have authority to pursue a criminal case, only a civil case, which is why she didn’t pursue a criminal case, only a civil case, instead referring allegations of criminal wrongdoing to the relevant authorities.

I didn't say she chose not to bring a criminal case. — NOS4A2

I didn’t say you said it. I said you suggested it. Much like with Trump there’s much implicit in what you say.

Explaining that the AG doesn’t have authority to bring a criminal case in this matter but referred it to those who do is propaganda? I don’t think so.

But you trying to suggest that she does but chose not to because she lacks sufficient evidence certainly is propaganda.

No need to scurry around and gather disparate quotes and authors, which I never read in any case. — NOS4A2

Yeah, I've known for a while that you don't discuss these matters in good faith. My replies to you are never really replies to you. I'm providing a public service as a fact-checker for others who read your posts.

Fraud is a crime but prosecutors refused to pursue the case. I wonder why? — NOS4A2

https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-could-letitia-james-civil-lawsuit-against-trump-turn-criminal-1745479

"The Attorney General of New York does not have the authority to bring a criminal case against these defendants for this conduct in New York, not does she have the authority to bring a federal criminal case.

"It is not uncommon for a state official working on a civil case to make a referral to the relevant state and federal criminal authorities when the official's investigation uncovers evidence of a crime.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/trump-sued-by-new-york-attorney-general-fraud-2022-09-21/

The lawsuit was civil, meaning it did not involve criminal charges. But James said she was referring allegations of criminal wrongdoing to federal prosecutors in Manhattan and the Internal Revenue Service for investigation.

So she has authority to bring a civil case but not a criminal case but referred the case to those who do have the authority.

“Liable” is becoming the common theme because guilt escapes you. — NOS4A2

The term "liable" was used because it's a civil case, not a criminal case.

See what SCOTUS says. — NOS4A2

I don't think SCOTUS has jurisdiction over this. I believe the New York Court of Appeals would be the last resort.

Judge rules Donald Trump defrauded banks, insurers while building real estate empire

A judge ruled Tuesday that Donald Trump committed fraud for years while building the real estate empire that catapulted him to fame and the White House.

Judge Arthur Engoron, ruling in a civil lawsuit brought by New York’s attorney general, found that the former president and his company deceived banks, insurers and others by massively overvaluing his assets and exaggerating his net worth on paperwork used in making deals and securing financing.

Engoron ordered that some of Trump’s business licenses be rescinded as punishment, making it difficult or impossible for them to do business in New York, and said he would continue to have an independent monitor oversee the Trump Organization’s operations.

Sorry, but judges aren’t the commander in chief of the armed forces. — NOS4A2

They are the ones who interpret the meaning of the words in the constitution.

You’re just quoting disparate paragraphs from all over the internet. You’re not pointing out much. — NOS4A2

I'm pointing out that there's every reason to believe that he followed standard procedure. He's not guilty of treason and certainly not deserving of the death penalty.

Clearly I was speaking about the unnamed official, not the named one. — NOS4A2

You were being facetious, implying that we shouldn't trust the reporting because the official was unnamed. I'm pointing out that the Defense Secretary corroborated the anonymous official's claims.

We heard it here first. Lawyers get to determine what an “enemy” is. — NOS4A2

Judges get to.

Thanks, unnamed official. — NOS4A2

In an interview Wednesday, Miller told POLITICO that Milley almost certainly told him he was going to call his Chinese counterpart

He gave aid and comfort to the enemy behind the back of the president. — NOS4A2

https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F.Cas/0026.f.cas/0026.f.cas.0018.2.pdf

The term “enemies,” as used in the constitutional clause defining treason (Const, art. 3, § 3), applies only to subjects of a foreign power in a state of open hostility with us

Milley, broken with a moral panic, went around the back of duly elected president and informed the CCP about Trump in order to cool tensions. — NOS4A2

Claims that Milley made ‘secret’ calls to Chinese leaders exaggerated, sources say

A defense official familiar with the calls said that description is “grossly mischaracterized.”

The official said the calls were not out of the ordinary, and the chairman was not frantically trying to reassure his counterpart.

The people also said that Milley did not go rogue in placing the call, as the book suggests. In fact, Milley asked permission from acting Defense Secretary Chris Miller before making the call, said one former senior defense official, who was in the room for the meeting. Milley also briefed the secretary’s office after the call, the former official said.

“We discussed beforehand and after his call with his Chinese counterpart,” the person said, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive topic.

In an interview Wednesday, Miller told POLITICO that Milley almost certainly told him he was going to call his Chinese counterpart, but he didn’t recall getting a detailed readout of the call after.

“Looking back, I imagine there was a perfunctory exchange between us and our staffs about coordinating phone calls and messages for the day,” he said. “I don’t recall the specifics and it certainly wasn’t in a detailed or more formal way. It was more perfunctory/routine.”

A Joint Staff spokesperson said all of Milley’s calls with his counterparts, including those with Chinese leaders, “are staffed, coordinated and communicated with the Department of Defense and the interagency.”

“His calls with the Chinese and others in October and January were in keeping with these duties and responsibilities conveying reassurance in order to maintain strategic stability,” said Col. Dave Butler.

He violated his oath, ran contrary to the will of the people, and arguably committed treason. — NOS4A2

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

I really hope you're not suggesting that making a phone call warrants the death penality.

Also Trump Goes Full Deranged, Suggests Charging People He Doesn’t Like With Treason

Bet he'd love to be a dictator.

Yeah, I think that's the ruling that Hunter Biden's lawyers are using in their defence.

From the next section of the article you linked to:

The GCA at 18 U.S.C. § 922(n) also makes it unlawful for any person under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year to ship, transport, or receive firearms or ammunition.

Further, the GCA at 18 U.S.C. § 922(d) makes it unlawful to sell or otherwise dispose of firearms or ammunition to any person who is prohibited from shipping, transporting, receiving, or possessing firearms or ammunition.

As the news article says:

That law is why anyone buying a gun from a licensed dealer must fill out what's called an ATF Form 4473, which asks: “Are you under indictment or information in any court for a felony, or any other crime for which the judge could imprison you for more than one year, or are you a current member of the military who has been charged with violation(s) of the Uniform Code of Military?”

Answer “yes,” and no gun shop can legally sell you a gun. Trump, who is facing criminal charges across the eastern seaboard, would have to answer in the affirmative.

Trump would have had to lie on the form (much like Hunter Biden lied on his) to buy a gun.

Of course, perhaps this is all moot and Trump never bought a gun. Perhaps his spokesman was lying. This was probably just propaganda to appease the gun nuts.

Indicted Trump Asks to Buy a Glock at Campaign Stop—Which Would Be Illegal

In a PR stunt gone terribly wrong, former President Donald Trump went gun shopping on Monday with Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene and asked to buy a Glock pistol on camera—which would have brazenly violated the very same law that recently landed Hunter Biden criminal charges.

Federal law prohibits anyone under indictment from attempting to buy a firearm. Trump has been criminally indicted four times in as many jurisdictions—Atlanta, Miami, New York, and Washington—facing dozens of felony charges that could land him in prison for decades.

“I wanna buy one,” Trump said while taking a tour of Palmetto State Armory, a federally licensed gun dealer in South Carolina that's widely revered by firearm enthusiasts.

“Sir, if you want one, this one’s yours,” a person on the tour said, seeming to divert the president away from making an actual purchase.

“No, I wanna buy one,” Trump insisted.

It only added to the fiasco when those present pulled South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson into the photo op—as well as his brother, Julian Wilson, an executive at the private equity company that owns the gun dealer. They are both Republican Congressman Joe Wilson’s sons.

The disaster started when Trump's campaign spokesperson, Steven Cheung, tweeted that his boss actually went through with the sale.

"President Trump purchases a @GLOCKInc in South Carolina!" he posted Monday afternoon.

But the campaign went into damage control mode as soon as firearms journalist Stephen Gutowski and others pointed out that the entire transaction would be blatantly illegal.

“Did he actually go through with the purchase?” Gutowski asked openly in tweet.

Cheung later claimed to CNN that Trump never actually went through with the purchase—and deleted his original statement. The Daily Beast could not immediately independently confirm whether Trump finalized the deal.

:lol:

I heard it becomes more true the more you repeat their spin. — NOS4A2

You heard wrong.

to set favorable voting conditions — NOS4A2

Making it easier for people to vote isn't a bad thing.

pressures social media to suppress unfavorable information — NOS4A2

Removing disinformation isn't a bad thing.

and opposes one candidate’s efforts at every single step — NOS4A2

Ensuring that legitimate votes are counted and preventing an unlawful attempt to overturn the legitimate results of the election isn't a bad thing.

Unless you're going to argue, with evidence, that there was widespread voter fraud in favour of Biden, or that legitimate votes for Trump weren't counted, then you have no leg to stand on. You're just engaging in sophistry.

Biden was the legitimate winner of the election.

Of course, it all favored one candidate. — NOS4A2

If making it easier for people to vote favours one candidate then that candidate just has more popular support.

The notion that we should allow voter suppression and disinformation so that the less favoured candidate has a better chance at winning is absurd.

Joe Biden's Impeachment Falls Apart

Republican efforts to impeach President Joe Biden suffered a blow after fresh evidence emerged showing his bid to remove Ukrainian Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin in 2015 represented U.S. government policy.

Then-Vice President Biden met Petro Poroshenko, the Ukrainian president at the time, in December 2015, after which he claimed he'd threatened to withhold $1 billion in U.S. aid to Kyiv, unless Shokin was removed from his post, which he subsequently was.

Some conservatives have suggested Biden was attempting to protect Ukrainian energy company Burisma, the board of which his son, Hunter Biden, had joined in 2014, by moving against Shokin. However a pre-meeting memo prepared for Biden by the State Department, dated November 25, 2015, made it clear that removing Shokin was the Obama administration's policy.

https://justthenews.com/sites/default/files/2023-08/VPBidenTPUkraineMeetingShokin.pdf

You should recommend that he give a state of the nation speech to the Rada in which he reenergizes that effort and rolls out new proposed reforms. There is wide agreement that anti-corruption must be at the top of this list, and that reforms must include an overhaul of the Prosecutor General’s Office including removal of Prosecutor General Shokin, who is widely regarded as an obstacle to fighting corruption, if not a source of the problem.

He fired them because they were not willing to do their job. — javi2541997

Their job is to advise him on legal matters, and they were advising him that he had no legal basis to challenge the results of the election.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-whistleblower-ukraine-buris-idUSKBN1WC1LV

A Ukrainian investigation of gas company Burisma is focused solely on activity that took place before Hunter Biden, son of former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden, was hired to sit on its board, Ukraine’s anti-corruption investigation agency said.

...

The National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) said an investigation was ongoing into permits granted by officials at the Ministry of Ecology for the use of natural resources to a string of companies managed by Burisma.

But it said the period under investigation was 2010-2012, and noted that this was before the company hired Hunter Biden.

...

The NABU’s investigation related to the 2010-2012 period is not particularly active, Kholodnytsky added.

“At the moment, this case is up in the air, so to speak. Up in the air means that there is no active investigative work ongoing. At the moment, detectives and prosecutors do not understand what they are supposed to be investigating,” Kholodnytsky said.

https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IG/IG00/CPRT-116-IG00-D009.pdf

THE CHAIRMAN: So let me ask you a little bit more again about this false narrative since recanted. Just to be absolutely clear about this, when the Vice President was asked to make the case, or help make the case for Shokin's firing, this was the policy of the State Department, and the State Department was asking the Vice President to assist with the execution of that Policy?

MR. KENT: That would be a correct assessment, yes.

THE CHAIRMAN: And it was the policy of other international organizations as well that recognized that Shokin was corrupt?

MR. KENT: Correct. He was not allowing for reform of the prosecutor general Service, and in contrast, he actually was actively undermining reform of the prosecutor general service and our assistance.

What if it is not merely not the case, but is also physically impossible that we could be brains in a vat? — Janus

They might be physically impossible, but if we are brains in a vat then we cannot trust our experience to show us what is physically possible, and so to use what we experience as evidence that brains in a vat are impossible is to beg the question and assume that we are not brains in a vat and so can trust what we experience.