User Controls
THE MAGA PARTY!,,, the GOP is dead, republicans are going down with the dems,, get ready for THE MAGA PARTY lefty's
-
2021-07-28 at 2:29 PM UTCI got banned from 50 American audit chats on telegram for being a freedom fighting patriot and promoting the only plan that has hard evidence that it getting results, and the american audit chat doesnt even have a solid plan they are willing to tell the people joining to help,, its a big misinformation scam on the people to waste their time so we don't get audits
-
2021-07-28 at 4:07 PM UTCBusiness Insider
Retired US general says the Trump White House 'was complicit in the planning' of January 6 insurrection
insider@insider.com (John Haltiwanger)
Ret. Lt. Gen. Russel Honoré told MSNBC the Trump White House was "complicit in planning" the Capitol riot.
Honoré also suggested Trump's White House was behind the delayed federal response that day.
He conducted a review of the US Capitol's security after the attack.
Retired Lt. Gen. Russel Honoré, who was tasked by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi with conducting a review of the US Capitol's security after January 6, on Tuesday said President Donald Trump's White House was "complicit" in orchestrating the insurrection.
"It's my personal opinion that the executive branch was complicit in the planning and the delayed response that occurred in bringing in more federal assistance to the Capitol that day," Honoré said during an MSNBC appearance, underscoring that this conclusion was not reached as a result of the security review he spearheaded.
"That's my own perception, based on what I've seen and what I've heard, and by the fact the former president is continuing to tell people, 'This was not a riot, it meant no harm, it was like a picnic,'" Honoré added. "The last I heard from him, he told people to go to the Capitol and raise hell."
During an incendiary speech near the White House shortly before fatal violence at the Capitol began, Trump peppered his supporters with lies about the 2020 election and called on them to "fight like hell."
Trump was impeached for provoking the insurrection, but was acquitted in the Senate with the help of his Republican allies - including GOP lawmakers that said he bore responsibility for the deadly riot.
There are open questions about why law enforcement was unprepared for that day, given prior warnings and what caused the delayed fedral response. A Capitol Police intelligence assessment from three days before the insurrection raised alarm about the potential for violence from Trump supporters on January 6. "Congress itself is the target" on the 6th, the threat assessment said, per a 104-page report from the Capitol Police inspector general.
Federal investigators are continuing to look into the insurrection, and the House has opened up an investigation on the origins of the riot as well as security failures surrounding it.
In the weeks leading up to the Capitol attack, Trump engaged in an unprecedented effort to overturn the 2020 election results. As Trump spread baseless allegations of mass voter fraud, the president and his allies put forward dozens of legal challenges against the results - and all of them failed.
Trump repeatedly urged his supporters to attend a "stop the steal" rally in Washington, DC, on January 6 - when congressional lawmakers gathered to certify President Joe Biden's Electoral College victory. "Big protest in D.C. on January 6th," Trump tweeted on December 19. "Be there, will be wild!"
During his speech, Trump pushed his supporters to march on the Capitol. "You'll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong," Trump said at the time. "We fight like hell, and if you don't fight like hell you're not going to have a country anymore."
What happened next was among the most shocking events in US history, and the most significant or large-scale breach of the US Capitol since the War of 1812.
As the deadly violence was ongoing, Trump effectively sat by and watched. It took hours for him to call on his supporters to disperse, releasing a video in which he repeated lies about the election that sparked the riot and referred to the insurrectionists as "very special."
In testimony before the House select committee investigating the January 6 insurrection, four police officers who were subjected to brutal violence that day excoriated Trump and his Republican defenders. One of the officers referred to the insurrectionists as "terrorists," while another denounced the Capitol attack as an "attempted coup." -
2021-07-28 at 4:08 PM UTC
Originally posted by POLECAT I got banned from 50 American audit chats on telegram for being a freedom fighting patriot and promoting the only plan that has hard evidence that it getting results, and the american audit chat doesnt even have a solid plan they are willing to tell the people joining to help,, its a big misinformation scam on the people to waste their time so we don't get audits
But you do get to leave come AUGUST, MOTHERFUCKER! -
2021-07-28 at 4:19 PM UTCMaking
America
Get to the truth, the whole truth
And nothing but the truth
The Hill
Capitol insurrection hearing exposes Trumpworld delusions
Kris Kolesnik, opinion contributor
If there were any doubt about which political party has the upper hand in the investigation into the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, it was erased during the first hearing of the House select committee established to investigate the attack. Republicans are squarely behind the eight ball - with few options for leveling the field.
If I were in former President Donald Trump's employ, I would fear coming within his throwing distance.
Tuesday's hearing, the table-setter for the committee's efforts, was a textbook display, filled with credible, heroic victims giving gut-wrenching, first-hand accounts of their violent ordeal on that day. Each gave his own riveting account of the physical and emotional hardships they endured while protecting the Capitol, its occupants and our democracy. Their testimony was punctuated with ample, violent video footage.
The four witnesses, all Capitol Hill or Washington, D.C., police officers, came across as bright, courageous, praiseworthy. No one, in my view, who heard their testimony or saw that video could conclude anything but that there was a violent insurrection attempt that day.
The witnesses begged members of Congress to get to the truth.
Every member on the committee pledged to do so.
Committee members showed sympathy, respect and empathy. Every viewer at home had to be tearing up and nodding in approval. I was. In terms of messaging and narrative, the committee hit a home run.
Meanwhile, though the panel is bipartisan with the inclusion of Republican Trump critics Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) and Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.), the hearing was free of stunts, with none of the usual Trump provocateurs. In other words, instead of the usual circus-like environment at House oversight hearings, it was sober and mature for a change.
Cut now to a scene across town in front of the Department of Justice, where right-wing Trump Republicans attempted to hold a press conference implying mistreatment of the rioters being held to account for Jan. 6, whom they called "political prisoners." These Republicans have led the attempt to rebrand the rioters - whom the hearing successfully exposed as hostile goons - as "peaceful patriots."
Ask any rational politician - from either party - which image they would want to be associated with. It's a good bet they would aspire to the former.
Trump Republicans are in deep trouble.
Not only do they not have a seat at the table (by their own choice) nor Trump access to Twitter or Facebook, their Trumpworld alt-message - after the police officers' testimony - seems Kafkaesque.
It's not just calling the rioters "patriots." Trump and his Republican allies have tried to turn the assault into hugs and kisses - no armed protest here, folks, just a typical tourist day. One witness at Tuesday's hearing, in a display of dark humor, said he's still trying to recover from those hugs and kisses.
Republicans have also - inexplicably - made their big issue the claim that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is responsible for it all because she's responsible for security of the Capitol. Not only does that argument concede the riot wasn't all hugs and kisses, it's irrelevant - Pelosi is as responsible for the Capitol riot as Rudy Giuliani was for the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center. The Republican message is nonsensical and devoid of credibility.
Those who worship at Trump's altar - craving his ability to raise money and votes - are hamstrung. Once they buy into his delusions, there are few credible options for them to get out of the corner they backed themselves into.
As a party, the Republicans can't handle the truth.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) both said they did not watch the hearing. The hearing was so powerful that - had they done so - they would have had a Southwest Airlines commercial moment - "Wanna get away?" That's how bad a position they're in.
Pelosi often recounts the words of Benjamin Franklin who, when asked outside the Constitutional Convention in 1787 what kind of government we have, said: "A republic, if you can keep it." Similarly, the select committee now enjoys a decisive advantage over Trump Republicans - if they can keep it. Maintaining the advantage will be tricky.
This first hearing was easy, a no-brainer: Credible and moving testimony from law enforcement hero-victims is priceless for a hearing. The choreography for future hearings may be more challenging. It helps to not have the pro-Trump peanut gallery in play. Trump being banned from Twitter and Facebook is also helpful. Most helpful, though, are the Republican struggles with messaging and credibility.
The takeaway moment - for me - came at the end of the hearing when the police officers were asked how they view the committee's task. One of the officers used an analogy: He said when a hit man kills someone, you send the hit man to jail - but you also go after whoever hired the hit man. He said of the people who stormed the Capitol, "a hit man sent them... I want you to get to the bottom of that."
The committee needs to tread carefully but steadfastly to meet the mission.
It cannot lose the advantage it has gained.
This hearing was a good step toward getting to the truth. The committee shows - so far - they are ready for the battle. -
2021-07-28 at 4:23 PM UTCdo you even read the articles you paste
-
2021-07-28 at 4:29 PM UTCThe Hill
AP Fact Check rates GOP claim Pelosi blocked National Guard on Jan. 6 'false'
Dominick Mastrangelo
A recent fact check by The Associated Press found that an assertion being made by members of the House Republican Caucus that Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was responsible for the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol due to security reasons is not true.
"As Speaker of the House, Pelosi does not direct the National Guard," the AP reported in its fact check. "Further, as the Capitol came under attack, she and the Senate Majority leader called for military assistance, including the National Guard."
As a House panel investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection questioned four members of law enforcement who responded to the attack on Tuesday, several members of the House GOP during media interviews attempted to pin the violence that broke out on Pelosi, saying the Capitol Complex was not properly secured.
"On Jan. 6 these brave officers were put into a vulnerable and impossible position because the leadership at the top failed," said House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.).
Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), whose appointment by McCarthy to the special committee was rejected by Pelosi, said GOPers are looking to launch their own investigation into the police response in the days leading up to and during the attack.
Pelosi did not want Jordan on the committee because she knew he would question her response to the attack, the Republican from Ohio said.
"Why don't they want to answer the fundamental question, which is why wasn't there a better security posture on that day?" Jordan said.
Rep. Jim Banks (Ind.), another Republican who Pelosi rejected from the panel, suggested over the weekend Pelosi was responsible for the "breakdown of security" at the Capitol on Jan. 6.
"Due to the rules of the United States Capitol, the power structure of the Capitol, Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, has more control and authority and responsibility over the leadership of the Capitol Police than anyone else in the United States Capitol," Banks said.
Drew Hammill, a spokesperson for Pelosi, told the AP, "On January 6th, the Speaker, a target of an assassination attempt that day, was no more in charge of Capitol security than Mitch McConnell was. This is a clear attempt to whitewash what happened on January 6th and divert blame."
Hammill said after the insurrection that Pelosi was never informed of a request from the House Sergeant at Arms not to call the guard before the attack, as her GOP critics have claimed.
"Republicans have falsely laid the blame on Pelosi without mentioning that GOP Leader McConnell had similar authority over the security officials that day," the AP wrote in its fact check. "But there is no evidence that either was involved in any effort to block the National Guard before or during the insurrection." -
2021-07-28 at 4:35 PM UTC
Originally posted by aldra do you even read the articles you paste
Yes, I do. I even choose which ones I post. I then copy, paste and edit out the garbage ads, photo descriptions, etc. for easy reading although I realize that most of you will ignore or tl/dr me. The truth needs to be told regardless of Trump's fantasies and inability to comprehend that the majority of Americans do not want him as president.
Why would you even asK?
Do you like my MAGA headings? The republicans just want to
Make it
All
Go
Away -
2021-07-28 at 4:43 PM UTCMaking
Another
Grift
Again
The Daily Beast
DC Attorney General Moves Ahead With Trump Inauguration Suit
Jose Pagliery
The Attorney General for the District of Columbia will continue investigating whether Donald Trump’s 2017 Inauguration Committee misspent more than $1 million, after discussions to resolve the matter out of court stalled earlier this month.
The AG’s office currently has a civil lawsuit against the Inaugural Committee and the Trump Organization. And earlier this month, the case was forced into mediation, a deal-making session in which a neutral negotiator tries to get different sides to come to an agreement.
While lawyers met on July 14 to discuss resolving the case out of court, the meeting went nowhere.
According to court records, the closed-door meeting resulted in “no agreement reached.” The reason: Investigators are dead set on seeing this case through to the very end, a source with knowledge of the case told The Daily Beast.
That means the case will proceed, as all sides wait to see whether D.C. Superior Court Judge José M. López rules that the local law enforcement agency has already proven its case before trial. The office of the local Attorney General, Karl A. Racine, has a pending motion for summary judgement arguing that the evidence already presented weighs that heavily in his favor.
The local Attorney General claims the Trump Organization and Trump International Hotel Washington, D.C. were “unjustly enriched” by overbilling the nonprofit inauguration committee. The office wants the judge to force the return of $1.08 million in “misspent charitable funds.” (The AG’s office wants to award that money to another civic-minded nonprofit of its choosing.)
Racine’s office is seeking a similar outcome to the victory that New York’s Attorney General had in 2018 over the Trump Foundation, forcing it to disband and hand over money to other charities.
The D.C. Attorney General’s office did not respond to questions. And the Inaugural Committee’s lawyers—K. Lee Blalack II and David J. Leviss—declined an interview through a spokesman who cited “the confidentiality obligations that the Court required of all parties not to disclose any information about the mediation.”
The ongoing probe is examining how Trump’s company and his own family members enriched themselves with the 58th Presidential Inauguration, a weeklong string of events that are supposed to be a national celebration of the country’s transfer of power.
Every incoming presidential administration puts together a committee for the event planning. In this case, the District Attorney’s lawyers are looking into the way Trump’s own children blurred the lines between the family business and what’s supposed to be a nonprofit. Investigators suspect that Donald Trump Jr., Ivanka Trump, and others bilked the inaugural celebration by funneling events to the Trump International Hotel in Washington—where the nonprofit committee was allegedly overbilled on services by the incoming president’s own company.
Investigators suspect that Donald Trump Jr., Ivanka Trump, and others bilked the inaugural celebration by funneling events to the Trump International Hotel in Washington.
Although this court case is civil in nature—and must remain so to stay within the D.C. Attorney General’s jurisdiction—Racine’s investigators could still refer any evidence of criminal behavior to other law enforcement agencies.
If the D.C. Attorney General doesn’t score a summary judgment win, it intends to continue pursuing additional testimony from key witnesses.
As The Daily Beast reported last month, the D.C. Attorney General’s office wants to question under oath longtime Trump family confidants who may have important information about recent discoveries in the case. At the top of the list is the Trump Organization’s chief financial officer, Allen Weisselberg, who acted outside his company role and reviewed the independent committee’s finances. Weisselberg is already in the hot seat—he was arrested last month for criminal tax fraud in New York City, as part of a separate investigation.
Government lawyers also want to interview Texas financier Gentry Beach, who was Don Jr.’s friend in college and served on the inaugural group’s finance committee.
According to investigators, Beach was behind the Trump Organization’s plan to reserve a block of hotel rooms at the Madison Washington D.C.—an arrangement that’s now under scrutiny because the Trump Organization never paid the tab. When the hotel sent it to a collections agency, then-Trump campaign official Rick Gates directed the bill collectors to change the name on the invoice to the Inauguration Committee. The nonprofit ended up paying $49,358.
As part of their probe of that hotel deal, investigators also want to interview Kara Hanley, who court documents identify as “a former executive assistant” at the Trump Organization.
Judge López has yet to rule on whether he will grant special permission to conduct these depositions, now that the deadline to conduct these kinds of interviews has passed.
Adding another dynamic entirely to this case is the fact that a central figure in the probe, Tom Barrack, who led the Inaugural Committee as its chairman, was arrested on a separate matter last week. Barrack, a wealthy investor and personal friend of Donald Trump, appeared in Brooklyn federal court on Monday to plead not guilty to charges that he used his access to the incoming president to secretly lobby for the United Arab Emirates.
When Barrack was deposed in November 2020 by Leonor Miranda, an assistant attorney general with the office’s public advocacy division, he claimed that he wasn’t involved in the Trump family’s initial selection of venues—and that he didn’t know about the block of hotel rooms that were eventually paid by his committee.
This D.C. case is one of several investigations into Trump and his company that were initiated by local prosecutors and have heated up since his departure from the White House. The most advanced probe seems to be the criminal tax fraud case in New York against the Trump Organization. Another is taking place in Fulton County, Georgia, where Trump and his political associates are accused of meddling with the state’s tabulation of 2020 election results. -
2021-07-28 at 4:44 PM UTC
-
2021-07-28 at 4:48 PM UTC
Originally posted by stl1 Yes, I do. I even choose which ones I post. I then copy, paste and edit out the garbage ads, photo descriptions, etc. for easy reading although I realize that most of you will ignore or tl/dr me. The truth needs to be told regardless of Trump's fantasies and inability to comprehend that the majority of Americans do not want him as president.
Why would you even asK?
Do you like my MAGA headings? The republicans just want to
Make it
All
Go
Away
yes but do you *understand* what you copy-pasted.
that is the real question. -
2021-07-28 at 4:55 PM UTC
-
2021-07-28 at 4:57 PM UTC
-
2021-07-28 at 5:17 PM UTCRepublicans just want to refuse to even watch the evidence and hope they can just
Make it
All
Go
Away
Business Insider
GOP lawmaker who downplayed the Capitol riot as 'a normal tourist visit' doubled-down on the remark after police testified about the violence they faced
insider@insider.com (John L. Dorman)
Reps. Andrew Clyde and Jamie Raskin had a heated exchange over comments made about January 6.
Raskin pressed Clyde about whether he listened to the officers who served during the Capitol riot.
Clyde stood by his past statements comparing the insurrection to "a normal tourist visit."
GOP Rep. Andrew Clyde of Georgia, who previously compared the Capitol riot to "a normal tourist visit," stood by his comments in an explosive Tuesday night exchange with Democratic Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland.
During a House Rules Committee hearing, Raskin, who is a member of the panel investigating the January 6 attack and served as the lead impeachment manager for former President Donald Trump's trial, asked Clyde if he watched the searing testimony from officers who fought back against the insurrectionists who breached the Capitol.
Clyde described Raskin's line of questioning as "absolutely irrelevant."
Raskin pressed Clyde for not disclosing whether he heard the officers speak.
"He refuses to say whether or not he heard the Capitol officers who risked their lives and have experienced traumatic medical injuries," he said. "That's his prerogative."
He then asked: "Do you stand by your statement that they were tourists?"
Clyde refused to answer the question and told Raskin that he should read his "exact statement" and not an "interpretation" of his statement.
Raskin proceeded to read Clyde's statement that was made in May.
"Watching the TV footage of those who entered the Capitol and walked through Statuary Hall showed people in an orderly fashion staying between the stanchions and ropes, taking videos and pictures. You know, if you didn't know the TV footage was a video from January the 6th, you would actually think it was a normal tourist visit," Raskin said, quoting Clyde.
He added: "Those are your words."
Clyde responded: "I stand by that exact statement as I said it."
The GOP congressman later expressed that he did not state that those who breached the Capitol were "tourists."
"That is not my statement!" Clyde said, becoming increasingly rankled by the tenor of the questioning.
"You want to make this another January 6th hearing, and this is not! This is the Rules Committee!" he added.
Democratic Rep. Jim McGovern of Massachusetts, the chair of the Rules Committee, chimed in and asked for the men to "lower the decibel."
During Tuesday's hearing of a House select committee that's probing the January 6 riot, panel members heard from Metropolitan DC Police Officers Michael Fanone and Daniel Hodges, US Capitol Police Sgt. Aquilino Gonell, and Capitol Police Officer Harry A. Dunn, who all testified about the atrocities from that day, detailing the sheer violence and emotional scars that were borne that day by rioters upset over the certification of now-President Joe Biden's electoral victory.
The Democratic-led panel also featured GOP Reps. Liz Cheney of Wyoming and Adam Kinzinger of Illinois, both conservatives who have been highly critical of Trump and many in the GOP who have sought to downplay the attack.
Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy of California has fermented GOP opposition to the January 6 panel, yanking off other Republicans after Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California rejected Reps. Jim Banks of Indiana and Jim Jordan of Ohio from serving on the House committee. -
2021-07-28 at 5:19 PM UTCMaybe they're just saving their enthusiasm for the investigation into the massive freaking race riots that destroyed so many cities last year.
-
2021-07-28 at 5:23 PM UTCMSNBC
Justice Department allows lawsuit against Rep. Mo Brooks for January 6 remarks to proceed
The Department of Justice has decided that Rep. Mo Brooks was not acting in his official capacity as he delivered remarks at a rally with former President Trump on January 6. This means he is not shielded for a lawsuit brought against him by Rep. Eric Swalwell for allegedly inciting the Capitol riot. -
2021-07-28 at 5:35 PM UTCMake
All the
Grifts shine out under
A light of day
Law & Crime
Trump Family Loses Big Appeals Court Fight to Force Fraud and Deceptive Practices Lawsuit into Secret Arbitration
Colin Kalmbacher
Former president Donald Trump, his prized family business, the Trump Organization, and three of his adult children, Donald Trump Jr., Ivanka Trump, and Eric Trump, all suffered a significant legal setback in a federal appeals court opinion issued Wednesday morning.
For years the Trump family and its namesake entity have fought to keep a potentially ugly pyramid scheme lawsuit from being litigated in the public sphere. The 45th first family’s weapon of choice to keep those details under wraps was private and compelled arbitration clauses.
In a 43-page opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied the Trump family’s request to settle the numerous complaints against them behind the veil, and with the help, of arbitrators.
“The truth or falsity of the plaintiffs’ allegations is not before us,” Circuit Judge Robert D. Sack wrote. “We neither express nor imply any views with respect to them. The only question before us is whether this case should be resolved before the district court or an arbitrator.”
An attorney for the plaintiffs praised the court’s decision via Twitter.
“We look forward to resuming discovery in this case about a fraud on hard-working Americans perpetrated by Donald Trump and three of his adult children,” Roberta Kaplan tweeted. “We’re eager to receive the documents etc. requested from ACN, MGM and the parties so that we can begin taking depositions ASAP.”
Procedural in nature, the ruling is still a solid victory for the plaintiffs. And, though the court insisted the merits were not at stake, the alleged facts and details of the case loom large in the panel’s decision here.
Asserting myriad claims including “racketeering,” conspiracy and fraud, several class action plaintiffs originally sued the Trumps in October 2018 alleging the defendants – by way of “videos, print and online media” – promoted and endorsed a sure-fire loser of a multi-level marketing, or pyramid, scheme known as ACN Opportunity, LLC.
Those endorsements came, the anonymous plaintiffs allege, even though the various Trumps at issue failed to conduct due diligence about the likelihood of economic losses and the slim probability of commercial success from such schemes. And, as it turns out, each of the plaintiffs produced evidence to show that the vast majority of people who were convinced to become “Independent Business Owners” for ACN went on to suffer losses or earned minimal profits.
Instead, the plaintiffs claim, the Trump family simply parroted ACN’s allegedly untrue claims because they were being paid millions of dollars. And those pay-for-play payments to the Trumps were not publicly disclosed at the time their endorsements were made.
From the court’s opinion:
The four pseudonymous plaintiffs are persons of modest financial means who maintain that they fell victim to the defendants’ allegedly fraudulent scheme to induce consumers to invest in ACN by making false and misleading promotional statements about ACN’s business. The defendants allegedly concealed the fact that they were paid handsomely by ACN for what purported to be unsolicited endorsements.
More specifically, the plaintiffs allege that in exchange for millions of dollars in secret payments from ACN to the defendants between 2005 and 2015, the defendants fraudulently promoted and endorsed ACN as offering legitimate business opportunities that were likely to afford IBOs success. The defendants allegedly misled consumers, including the plaintiffs, to believe that: (1) IBOs would have a reasonable likelihood of commercial success if they invested in ACN; (2) the defendant Donald J. Trump was independently promoting and endorsing the ACN business opportunity because he thought that it offered a reasonable probability of commercial success for investors; and (3) Mr. Trump’s endorsement was predicated on the defendants’ due diligence, familiarity with ACN and its business, and personal experience with ACN. The defendants conveyed this message in various forums, including at ACN events, in ACN recruiting publications and videos, and on two episodes of “The Celebrity Apprentice” television show, where contestants seeking a job at the Trump Organization promoted ACN. The defendants’ message was critical, the plaintiffs assert, in convincing consumers – including them – to invest in ACN as IBOs.
“This message, however, was allegedly materially false,” Sack’s opinion goes on. “Contrary to the defendants’ representations that ACN’s business opportunity was a low-risk entrepreneurial venture that offered investors a viable source of income, investigations by regulatory agencies allegedly have demonstrated that ACN’s business was high-risk and that investors had a minimal likelihood of commercial success.”
The alleged facts are only cited by the court as relevant background to explain the basis of the legal claims. And, again, the merits (or lack thereof) viz. those allegations are not really what the court relied on here. This is, at the present stage, a procedural battle. But those facts are important to note because of the case’s procedural history.
At first, the Trumps litigated the lawsuits in the court system and successfully batted away a few of the causes of action–including the headline-generating racketeering claim. After winning those victories, however, and failing to secure a motion to dismiss, the Trumps moved to have the remaining claims settled by secretive arbitration.
Last April, a district court in New York City declined to allow the arbitrators newfound purview over the matter.
“These wins and benefits on the defense side represent defeats and prejudice on the Plaintiffs’ side,” Judge Lorna G. Schofield noted. “Now that Defendants have extracted what they can from the judicial proceedings, they seek to move to a different forum. This conduct is both substantively prejudicial towards Plaintiffs and seeks to use the [Federal Arbitration Act (FAA)] as a vehicle to manipulate the rules of procedure to Defendants’ benefit and Plaintiffs’ harm.”
The next month, a judge on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York refused to stay the decision pending appeal. So, the lawsuit moved forward.
On appeal, the Trump family and business and ACN moved to have the arbitration clauses enforced based on the theory of equitable estoppel. ACN also claimed the district court lacked jurisdiction. The appeals court rejected those claims for both sets of defendants.
“[W]e conclude that the defendants are not entitled to have the district court enforce the arbitration agreement under equitable estoppel principles or otherwise and that the district court lacked an independent jurisdictional basis over ACN’s motion to compel,” the opinion notes. “We therefore affirm the district court’s orders denying the defendants’ and ACN’s motions to compel arbitration.” -
2021-07-28 at 5:42 PM UTC
Originally posted by stl1 MSNBC
Justice Department allows lawsuit against Rep. Mo Brooks for January 6 remarks to proceed
The Department of Justice has decided that Rep. Mo Brooks was not acting in his official capacity as he delivered remarks at a rally with former President Trump on January 6. This means he is not shielded for a lawsuit brought against him by Rep. Eric Swalwell for allegedly inciting the Capitol riot.
Infinite money for these lawfare lawsuits, huh. Where does it all come from? -
2021-07-28 at 5:46 PM UTCIt's all just a massive distraction, hoping against hope that what's going to happen won't happen, but it will.
-
2021-07-28 at 7 PM UTCSTL is a disinformation Campaign to defuse the movement of conservatives taking back our country.
he clutters up the thread making others not even come here or take part in the biggest movement in history in the last 240 years
this is what is making history in our country right now that will be talked about for 100's of years to come unless the deep state blows this mother fucker the fuck up once and for all
https://youtu.be/NQRVJqejtKI
https://youtu.be/zKFSzZPvwSg
https://youtu.be/UFFFwFTncaw
https://youtu.be/DlAVmJIFP6I
https://youtu.be/DlAVmJIFP6I
https://youtu.be/KdiArUgNQx8
https://youtu.be/HenrvqRy3ZY
https://youtu.be/mjfabeiF3k4
https://youtu.be/4Kca3zMpSpE
https://youtu.be/vSWBauMU5T8
https://youtu.be/lH5vUOXQatA
https://youtu.be/bj15iz70K80
https://youtu.be/DuUkWbgzCAQ
https://youtu.be/VdCYWXdiAo0 -
2021-07-28 at 8:06 PM UTC
Originally posted by POLECAT STL is a disinformation Campaign to defuse the movement of conservatives taking back our country.
he clutters up the thread making others not even come here or take part in the biggest movement in history in the last 240 years
DAMN, I'M GOOD ! ! !
I'll go down in history as the person to defeat the almighty NIS Skunk and have him slither away under the cover of darkness come AUGUST, MOTHERFUCKER!
