Donald I, emperor of the world.

[CXRAndy]

View: https://x.com/nicksortor/status/1973151128142618726?t=IPQk9zE7ECWXZhlzpLFnkg&s=19


👊

 

[Pinno718]

To blackmail something they have to have done something bad eg "I'm going to publish proof you purchased a bag of apples and a plain yoghurt in Tesco last week" doesn't really threaten the blackmailed person much.

Lutnick said what he said. I didn't write the headline. If what Lutnick meant was that Epstein had compromising material on all these people, then the potential was there.

If the potential was there and Epstein used that to keep people's silence, then surely that constitutes as blackmail?
Is Lutnick distancing himself from Epstein or Trump?

 

[Psamathe]

Lutnick said what he said. I didn't write the headline. If what Lutnick meant was that Epstein had compromising material on all these people, then the potential was there.

If the potential was there and Epstein used that to keep people's silence, then surely that constitutes as blackmail?
Is Lutnick distancing himself from Epstein or Trump?

It does.
My point being that people now declaring "I was blackmailed" - they have Skeletons in their closet that are presumably still hidden from public view.

 

[CXRAndy]

Isn't that T Walz city?

View: https://x.com/WallStreetApes/status/1973239265434935416?t=raxe60Ll18nUW9-_wrWGQA&s=19

 

[Pinno718]

Because of this "the ruling is the long-awaited result of a lawsuit brought by university professors who say the Trump administration is illegally chilling free speech by targeting prominent pro-Palestinian campus activists". He seems to have ruled in their favour not thrown it out or has he thrown out a challenge from Trump to that decision? All the judges comments appear to agree with what the university professors were claiming.

Please read the following neatly summarised comments from the judge of the 161 page document. From another news outlet.

...what sets the ruling apart is its mix of unapologetic evisceration of Trump and admiration for the rights he has trampled on. That it is no ordinary ruling is apparent from the first words of the 161-page decision.

Young, who is 85 years old and was appointed to the bench four decades ago, begins by quoting a postcard he received on June 19 that reads: “TRUMP HAS PARDONS AND TANKS …. WHAT DO YOU HAVE?” Young replies in the ruling:

Dear Mr. or Ms. Anonymous,

Alone, I have nothing but my sense of duty. Together, We the People of the United States—you and me—have our magnificent Constitution. Here’s how that works out in a specific case—

The judge goes on to write that the case he is deciding is “perhaps the most important ever to fall within the jurisdiction of this district court.” He concludes that there was not an “ideological deportation policy” targeting pro-Palestine speech. Instead, there was something more sinister:

[T]he intent of the Secretaries was more invidious—to target a few for speaking out and then use the full rigor of the Immigration and Nationality Act (in ways it had never been used before) to have them publicly deported with the goal of tamping down pro-Palestinian student protests and terrorizing similarly situated non-citizen (and other) pro-Palestinians into silence because their views were unwelcome.

By defending that policy, Young writes, the president has violated his “sacred oath” to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” That Trump is “for all practical purposes, totally immune from any consequences for this conduct,” Young adds, citing the Supreme Court’s 2024 immunity decision, “does not relieve this Court of its duty to find the facts.”

The Reagan appointee is similarly disdainful of Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s conduct under Trump. As he puts it:

Despite the meaningless but effective “worst of the worst” rhetoric, however, ICE has nothing whatever to do with criminal law enforcement and seeks to avoid the actual criminal courts at all costs. It is carrying a civil law mandate passed by our Congress and pressed to its furthest reach by the President. Even so, it drapes itself in the public’s understanding of the criminal law though its “warrants” are but unreviewed orders from an ICE superior and its “immigration courts” are not true courts at all but hearings before officers who cannot challenge the legal interpretations they are given. Under the unitary President theory they must speak with his voice. The People’s presence as jurors is unthinkable.

Young is particularly disturbed by ICE agents’ use of masks while detaining Öztürk and others—calling the government’s defense of the practice “disingenuous, squalid and dishonorable.” He explains:

ICE goes masked for a single reason—to terrorize Americans into quiescence. Small wonder ICE often seems to need our respected military to guard them as they go about implementing our immigration laws. It should be noted that our troops do not ordinarily wear masks. Can you imagine a masked marine? It is a matter of honor—and honor still matters. To us, masks are associated with cowardly desperados and the despised Ku Klux Klan. In all our history we have never tolerated an armed masked secret police.

Elsewhere in the decision, Young quotes an almost surreal defense mounted by the government at trial. While cross-examining Bernhard Nickel—a German citizen and Harvard philosophy professor who censored himself and abandoned a trip to visit a terminally ill brother abroad following Öztürk’s arrest—a government lawyer seemed to imply that Nickel was simply imagining things. Specifically, the lawyer quoted the Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard’s maxim that “anxiety is the dizziness of freedom.” As Young notes dryly, “It is an odd kind of freedom that compels one to leave writing unpublished, leadership positions unpursued, and terminally ill relatives unvisited.”

It is apparent throughout the decision that Young’s horror is born out of patriotism. He laments that the blatant First Amendment violations so carefully catalogued in the case are unlikely to inspire all that much outrage, but calls for a return to what he considers America’s ideals:

The United States is a great nation, not because any of us say so. It is great because we still practice our frontier tradition of selflessness for the good of us all. Strangers go out of their way to help strangers when they see a need. In times of fire, flood, and national disaster, everyone pitches in to help people we’ve never met and first responders selflessly risk their lives for others. Hundreds of firefighters rushed into the Twin Towers on 9/11 without hesitation desperate to find and save survivors. That’s who we are. And on distant battlefields our military “fought and died for the men [they] marched among.”

The final pages of the decision are as unorthodox as its first. They begin with a quote about how “[Trump] seems to be winning. He ignores everything and keeps bullying ahead.” The line, Young explains, comes from a “very wise woman.” Specifically, his wife.

Young then dissects its meaning and its consequences: “The Constitution, our civil laws, regulations, mores, customs, practices, courtesies—all of it; the President simply ignores it all when he takes it into his head to act.”

Young wraps up by quoting Reagan’s lines about how freedom is a “fragile thing” that is “never more than one generation away from extinction,” and that, as a result, it must be “fought for and defended constantly.”

Pulling out all the stops, the veteran judge writes:

I’ve read and re-read the record in this case, listened widely, and reflected extensively, I’ve come to believe that President Trump truly understands and appreciates the full import of President Reagan’s inspiring message—yet I fear he has drawn from it a darker, more cynical message. I fear President Trump believes the American people are so divided that today they will not stand up, fight for, and defend our most precious constitutional values so long as they are lulled into thinking their own personal interests are not affected.

 

[Pinno718]

It does.
My point being that people now declaring "I was blackmailed" - they have Skeletons in their closet that are presumably still hidden from public view.

Indeed. I think that the unknown perpetrators (because they are not in the public eye) aren't going to come out and say 'it wasnae me' are they? But the one's in the public eye feel compelled to distance themselves from Epstein.

 

[Pross]

Please read the following neatly summarised comments from the judge of the 161 page document. From another news outlet.

...what sets the ruling apart is its mix of unapologetic evisceration of Trump and admiration for the rights he has trampled on. That it is no ordinary ruling is apparent from the first words of the 161-page decision.

Young, who is 85 years old and was appointed to the bench four decades ago, begins by quoting a postcard he received on June 19 that reads: “TRUMP HAS PARDONS AND TANKS …. WHAT DO YOU HAVE?” Young replies in the ruling:



The judge goes on to write that the case he is deciding is “perhaps the most important ever to fall within the jurisdiction of this district court.” He concludes that there was not an “ideological deportation policy” targeting pro-Palestine speech. Instead, there was something more sinister:



By defending that policy, Young writes, the president has violated his “sacred oath” to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” That Trump is “for all practical purposes, totally immune from any consequences for this conduct,” Young adds, citing the Supreme Court’s 2024 immunity decision, “does not relieve this Court of its duty to find the facts.”

The Reagan appointee is similarly disdainful of Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s conduct under Trump. As he puts it:



Young is particularly disturbed by ICE agents’ use of masks while detaining Öztürk and others—calling the government’s defense of the practice “disingenuous, squalid and dishonorable.” He explains:



Elsewhere in the decision, Young quotes an almost surreal defense mounted by the government at trial. While cross-examining Bernhard Nickel—a German citizen and Harvard philosophy professor who censored himself and abandoned a trip to visit a terminally ill brother abroad following Öztürk’s arrest—a government lawyer seemed to imply that Nickel was simply imagining things. Specifically, the lawyer quoted the Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard’s maxim that “anxiety is the dizziness of freedom.” As Young notes dryly, “It is an odd kind of freedom that compels one to leave writing unpublished, leadership positions unpursued, and terminally ill relatives unvisited.”

It is apparent throughout the decision that Young’s horror is born out of patriotism. He laments that the blatant First Amendment violations so carefully catalogued in the case are unlikely to inspire all that much outrage, but calls for a return to what he considers America’s ideals:



The final pages of the decision are as unorthodox as its first. They begin with a quote about how “[Trump] seems to be winning. He ignores everything and keeps bullying ahead.” The line, Young explains, comes from a “very wise woman.” Specifically, his wife.

Young then dissects its meaning and its consequences: “The Constitution, our civil laws, regulations, mores, customs, practices, courtesies—all of it; the President simply ignores it all when he takes it into his head to act.”

Young wraps up by quoting Reagan’s lines about how freedom is a “fragile thing” that is “never more than one generation away from extinction,” and that, as a result, it must be “fought for and defended constantly.”

Pulling out all the stops, the veteran judge writes:

I watched the video. I'm not sure why you've posted all this in response to the bit I'm confused about though. My confusion is only in regard to the previous comments that the judge dismissed the case when his decision is agreeing with the case brought by the university professors. I can see he is righty critical of the Government stance. From reading various other sites I think the comment that he "dismissed the case" was incorrect - he made a ruling Rubio and Noem violated the First Amendment. This makes far more sense.

 

[Pblakeney]

Trump displaying his usual business acumen.

“The US government shutdown enters its second day with President Trump posting online that Republicans should use it to "clear out dead wood".”

No Donnie. When a place of work goes to pot the good employees find alternative employment and the business is left with the deadwood.

 

[BoldonLad]

Then the Google result should provide counter balance. Google 'does Donald Trump have dementia?' and see the results for yourself.

I will pass on that, thank you, whatever he has, my looking up Googles facts/opinion will not change it 😂

I did say that in my opinion, he has some mental impairment(s).

 

[CXRAndy]

Good God we need Hegseth in the UK


View: https://x.com/stillgray/status/1973496979998064959?t=F-3gVFWRw5Y0cY7Xn0eFlg&s=19

 

[CXRAndy]

View: https://x.com/EricLDaugh/status/1973515804919345641?t=-WK9rCoVaQU1mnWzq9Q5ow&s=19

 

[Pinno718]

Worth watching -
Mike Johnson not denying Trump is deranged.
AOC and sanders talking about the potential collapse of healthcare where premiums are also going to double and an estimated 50,000 Americans will die per year as a result.
The US bailing out Argentina with $29bn to... err try and preserve their healthcare system after 2 years of austerity which 'face planted'.
Newsom trolling Queen Trump - you can't have healthcare but I can have a ballroom.
Pro Zionist influencers being paid $7k a post.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNIB33bu6X0

 

[Pinno718]

Pritzker(governor of Illinois): "Trump has dementia and should be removed under the 25th amendment".

 

[CXRAndy]

Pritzker(governor of Illinois): "Trump has dementia and should be removed under the 25th amendment".

Well they have tried assassin's, Lawfare, now it's dementia

What a dickhead

 

[Pinno718]

Whilst I do think Trump has some mental impairment, personally, I don’t think he has dementia, unless it is very early stages. I admit, I have limited experience.

Fair enough. Do you think he has sufficient mental capacity to be POTUS?