Trump reportedly has told aides to refuse any payments to Giuliani

stevil

Godless and without morals
Feb 5, 2011
6,969
5,734
✟247,498.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
When it comes to Trump's court case. Assuming that charges are laid against him for inciting a violent insurrection.

The case is going to come down to whether a reasonable person could foresee that Trump's actions could lead to violent actions by his audience.

The prosecution could cite Twitter and Facebook and Youtube who have pulled some of Trump's posts, and have labelled some of his posts, leading up to the insurrection.
Why did they pull them or label them?
Answer: We were worried about the potential for these to incite violence!

Also, why did some news networks/shows pull away from some of Trump's televised announcements, especially those proclaiming that the Democrats stole the election. Show including CNN, MSNBC and Cuvoto on FoxNews.
Answer: We were worried about the potential for these to incite violence!

Why did Twitter, facebook and Youtube permanently ban Trump's account
Answer: We were worried about the potential for these to incite violence!


Trump's legal defence will either be.
1. We don't agree that a normal person could foresee that violence would result from Trump's actions and rhetoric.
OR
2. Trump isn't a normal person. He could not have foreseen what a normal person could have foreseen.

I do hope that this goes through the court system. It would be interesting to see how it goes.
A pardon would rob the world of a ruling on this and the potential to set a legal precedent to stop future presidents/leaders from attempting this.
 
Upvote 0

Pommer

CoPacEtiC SkEpTic
Sep 13, 2008
16,346
10,240
Earth
✟137,598.00
Country
United States
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Democrat
Hmm, President Trump is not allowed on Twitter to provide a response.
The President doesn’t have an entire department to disseminate Official Information?

The “Rule via Tweet” was never a good idea, now even President Trump knows this.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: cow451
Upvote 0

SimplyMe

Senior Veteran
Jul 19, 2003
9,613
9,331
the Great Basin
✟325,989.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
When it comes to Trump's court case. Assuming that charges are laid against him for inciting a violent insurrection.

The case is going to come down to whether a reasonable person could foresee that Trump's actions could lead to violent actions by his audience.

The prosecution could cite Twitter and Facebook and Youtube who have pulled some of Trump's posts, and have labelled some of his posts, leading up to the insurrection.
Why did they pull them or label them?
Answer: We were worried about the potential for these to incite violence!

Also, why did some news networks/shows pull away from some of Trump's televised announcements, especially those proclaiming that the Democrats stole the election. Show including CNN, MSNBC and Cuvoto on FoxNews.
Answer: We were worried about the potential for these to incite violence!

Why did Twitter, facebook and Youtube permanently ban Trump's account
Answer: We were worried about the potential for these to incite violence!


Trump's legal defence will either be.
1. We don't agree that a normal person could foresee that violence would result from Trump's actions and rhetoric.
OR
2. Trump isn't a normal person. He could not have foreseen what a normal person could have foreseen.

I do hope that this goes through the court system. It would be interesting to see how it goes.
A pardon would rob the world of a ruling on this and the potential to set a legal precedent to stop future presidents/leaders from attempting this.

Don't forget about Trump, rather than looking at ending the riot at the Capitol, was instead calling members of Congress trying to get them to overturn the election results. It appears -- and it would be interesting to find out in court -- that Trump may have actually blocked deployment of the National Guard at the Capitol Building, that VP Pence eventually was able to get the National Guard deployed.

I believe these actions, particularly if it can be shown Pres. Trump was blocking deployment of the guard, provides evidence that Trump did incite a riot.

Though a reminder, this is off topic to this thread. This thread is about Trump refusing to pay his lawyers, who represented him in the election cases -- and it is interesting that Trump raised millions for his legal defense but now is not giving that money to his lawyers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: stevil
Upvote 0

SimplyMe

Senior Veteran
Jul 19, 2003
9,613
9,331
the Great Basin
✟325,989.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
shouldn't those expenses be paid by Trump himself or his campaign? Why would his aids have anything to do with this?

No, typically Presidents have aides (accountants) who handle their money. In particular, political campaigns definitely have accountants who pay the bills. So it is to those aides, the accountants, that Trump is telling Giuliani is not to be paid.
 
Upvote 0

Aryeh Jay

Gone and hopefully forgotten.
Supporter
Jul 19, 2012
15,312
14,321
MI - Michigan
✟498,114.00
Country
United States
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Married
Thats a good point. What did Trump get from all Giuliani's "work"? 4 Seasons landscape, drippy hair coloring, and that unbelievable drunk woman.

Hunter Biden's laptop...
 
  • Useful
Reactions: durangodawood
Upvote 0

loveofourlord

Newbie
Feb 15, 2014
8,118
4,528
✟269,140.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Do you blame him, what did he get that he should feel the obligation to pay for?

you pay for services rendered, if you don't like the services you fire them.

Trumps only defense is, and probably one the courts would uphold which is, what he had guiliani do was illegal, so he can't be obliged to pay for illegal job.
 
Upvote 0

loveofourlord

Newbie
Feb 15, 2014
8,118
4,528
✟269,140.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Well...to be fair he should have enough money to pay his lawyers since he's been raising money hand over fist from his supporters who think they're "helping to fight the steal" when what they're really doing is paying off Trumps debts and adding to his bottom line.
PolitiFact - What we know about Trump’s fundraising off the false claim of election fraud

Because as we all know: snake oil salesmen love really committed people, because they don't usually ask questions until long after the checks have cleared their banks!
tulc(grifters gonna grift)

hehe won't happen, but I would laugh if he fell to fraud charges due to not paying Guilani.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: tulc
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Gene2memE

Newbie
Oct 22, 2013
4,094
6,290
✟272,415.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Trump's legal defence will either be.
1. We don't agree that a normal person could foresee that violence would result from Trump's actions and rhetoric.
OR
2. Trump isn't a normal person. He could not have foreseen what a normal person could have foreseen.

Their very valid argument would be that Trump's words don't meet the very specific requirements for incitement under US legal precedent.

These are known as the Brandenburg test. This states that speech must "intend to incite or produce imminent lawless action", and the speaker’s words or conduct must "be likely to produce such action".

It's very simple for a lawyer to argue Trump didn't intend the first part and his words weren't likely to produce the second. And they'd be well within their legal bounds in doing so.

Personally, I feel that Trump's actions did produce the "imminent lawless actions", but it's never going to stick in a legal case.
 
Upvote 0

loveofourlord

Newbie
Feb 15, 2014
8,118
4,528
✟269,140.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Their very valid argument would be that Trump's words don't meet the very specific requirements for incitement under US legal precedent.

These are known as the Brandenburg test. This states that speech must "intend to incite or produce imminent lawless action", and the speaker’s words or conduct must "be likely to produce such action".

It's very simple for a lawyer to argue Trump didn't intend the first part and his words weren't likely to produce the second. And they'd be well within their legal bounds in doing so.

Personally, I feel that Trump's actions did produce the "imminent lawless actions", but it's never going to stick in a legal case.

well thankfully the conviction doesn't require legal anything. It just has to fall under unbecoming a president, and could easily argue 5 months or so of lying about the election, and rousing a crowd multiple times to over throw it, calling up people to try to make them change the election counts under that.
 
Upvote 0

stevil

Godless and without morals
Feb 5, 2011
6,969
5,734
✟247,498.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
and his words weren't likely to produce the second.
His words coupled with his campaign of accusing Democrats of stealing the election were highly likely to produce a violent riot. That's why twitter, facebook etc were deleting his posts and why News shows were carefull about showing his speeches.
 
Upvote 0

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
28,632
15,950
✟484,211.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Thats a good point. What did Trump get from all Giuliani's "work"? 4 Seasons landscape, drippy hair coloring, and that unbelievable drunk woman.
Also a bunch of his supporters rioting in the US Capitol. Don't forget that part.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

seeking.IAM

Episcopalian
Supporter
Feb 29, 2004
4,235
4,910
Indiana
✟931,189.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Remember back when President's used to hold press conferences? I think POTUS has a podium, a microphone, and a White House Press Corps just waiting to hear what he says. He has hardly been silenced. Of course, some of those questions might be kind of hard to answer. :smirk:

I read an article on CNN this morning that said POTUS' aides have advised him not to use the White House press opportunity to make statement(s) lest he go off script and say something damaging to himself. (Cant' find the article right now). So it looks like it's not just social media that has taken away his chance to speak.
 
  • Like
Reactions: whatbogsends
Upvote 0