Trump Elected: The True MAGA Era Begins, Now What?

Trump pardons convicted fraudster and big Trump donor, Trevor Milton of Nikola.

Trevor Milton, the founder of electric vehicle start-up Nikola who was sentenced to prison last year for fraud, was pardoned by President Donald Trump, the White House confirmed Friday.

The pardon of Milton, who was sentenced to four years in prison for exaggerating the potential of his technology, could wipe out hundreds of millions of dollars in restitution that prosecutors were seeking for defrauded investors.

Milton, 42, and his wife donated more than $1.8 million to a Trump re-election campaign fund less than a month before the November election, according to the Federal Election Commission.

At Milton’s trial, prosecutors say a company video of a prototype truck appearing to be driven down a desert highway was actually a video of a nonfunctioning Nikola that had been rolled down a hill.

Milton had not been incarcerated pending an appeal. When asked by a reporter in a news conference Friday why he pardoned Milton, Trump said it was “highly recommended by many people.” Trump suggested that Milton was prosecuted because he supported the president.

“They say the the thing that he did wrong was he was one of the first people that supported a gentleman named Donald Trump for president,” Trump said. Trump went on to say that Milton “did nothing wrong” and that the Southern District of New York’s prosecutors were “a vicious group of people.”

During his securities fraud case, Milton was defended by two lawyers with connections to Trump: Marc Mukasey, who has represented the Trump Organization; and Brad Bondi, the brother of Pam Bondi, who Trump appointed as U.S. Attorney General.

Nikola, which was a hot start-up and rising star on Wall Street before becoming enmeshed in scandal, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in February. Milton, convicted of fraud, was portrayed by prosecutors as a con man six years after he had founded the company in a basement in Utah.

Prosecutors said Milton falsely claimed to have built its own revolutionary truck that was actually a General Motors product with Nikola’s logo stamped onto it. Called as a government witness, Nikola’s CEO testified that Milton “was prone to exaggeration” when pitching his venture to investors.

Milton resigned in 2020 amid reports of fraud that sent Nikola’s stock prices into a tailspin. Investors suffered heavy losses as reports questioned Milton’s claims that the company had already produced zero-emission 18-wheel trucks.

The company paid $125 million in 2021 to settle a civil case against it by the SEC. Nikola didn’t admit any wrongdoing.

At the time of his conviction U.S. Attorney Damian Williams said, “Trevor Milton lied to investors again and again — on social media, on television, on podcasts, and in print. But today’s sentence should be a warning to start-up founders and corporate executives everywhere — ‘fake it till you make it’ is not an excuse for fraud, and if you mislead your investors, you will pay a stiff price.”
 
JEEP said:
That's why I give the benefit of the doubt to Max's accounting of this deportation action.
Click to expand...
You give more than the benefit of the doubt. You are all in.

Maybe he's right, or maybe he's not. I'd like more facts about the allegation that these non-citizens in an asylum type program were summarily deported because their asylum was revoked on the grounds of any tattooes combined with any hand gestures.

Law and constitutionality aside, maybe they shouldn't have been making hand gestures and maybe they shouldn't have gotten tattooes.
 
Windmill knight said:
US covering Europe's behind, it sounds like the message was actually for Europe! As in, "we are still the ones with the means to enforce our order around the world, not you". And the way to do that was to bomb Yemen?? Then there's the elephant in the room of Israel pulling the strings of the US as it pleases, but for that we didn't need any leaks.
Click to expand...


 
Click to expand...

A close up and personal view of our bombing of Yemen and the stoic reaction of a father with his terribly frightened son:


Watched this entire 1 1/2+ hour interview with Larry C. Johnson and Col. Larry Wilkerson. What I got from it was the realization that our country is indeed going to be despised by the rest of the world, particularly if the nutjobs influencing Trump convince him to attack Iran with the very real risk that a nuclear strike could ultimately be employed.


This is all getting quite serious.
 
SummerLite said:
The Constitution and laws of the land have been altered for many years to favor the corrupt as well.
Click to expand...
Here is an example of how the Constitution or laws where altered to remove power from the Executive Branch. I had no idea it was this extreme!


Another case presented to the Supreme Court, will Chief Justice Roberts uphold the Separation of Powers this time or screw things up again? TRO is temporary restraining order. Bound to be revealing.

From our brief to the Supreme Court filed minutes ago in the Alien Enemies Act case:“Only this Court can stop rule-by-TRO from further upending the separation of powers—the sooner, the better. Here, the district court’s orders have rebuffed the President’s judgments as to how to protect the Nation against foreign terrorist organizations and risk debilitating effects for delicate foreign negotiations. More broadly, rule-by-TRO has become so commonplace among district courts that the Executive Branch’s basic functions are in peril.”

From our brief to the Supreme Court filed minutes ago in the Alien Enemies Act case:“This case presents fundamental questions about who decides how to conduct sensitive national-security-related operations in this country—the President, through Article II, or the Judiciary, through TROs. The Constitution supplies a clear answer: the President. The republic cannot afford a different choice.”
 
Last edited:
daddycat said:
You give more than the benefit of the doubt. You are all in.

Maybe he's right, or maybe he's not. I'd like more facts about the allegation that these non-citizens in an asylum type program were summarily deported because their asylum was revoked on the grounds of any tattooes combined with any hand gestures.

Law and constitutionality aside, maybe they shouldn't have been making hand gestures and maybe they shouldn't have gotten tattooes.
Click to expand...

Interesting take. So I suppose from this 'law and constitutionality aside' perspective, all the Palestinians maybe shouldn't have decided to live in such a dangerous place? Seems like a logical fallacy to me.
 
SummerLite said:
Here is an example of how the Constitution or laws where altered to remove power from the Executive Branch. I had no idea it was this extreme!

Click to expand...
It is not really true though. In general, it is a good idea to check the claims made in some tweet instead of assuming it is true. Often it is enough to check the replies where someone already checked the claims:

Does the president need unanimous consent from all 677 judges to implement a major decision?

No, this is completely false. The president does not need consent from any federal district judges—let alone unanimous consent from all of them—to implement a major decision. Under the U.S. Constitution, the president has the authority to act within the executive branch’s powers, such as issuing executive orders, enforcing laws, or making policy decisions, without requiring judicial approval beforehand. The judiciary does not have a role in approving executive actions before they are taken. This part of the claim fundamentally misunderstands how the U.S. government operates.

Can just 1 judge freeze an action nationwide if they disagree?

This part contains a kernel of truth but is exaggerated. Once the president or the executive branch implements a decision, individuals, organizations, or states can challenge it in federal court. If a federal district judge rules that the action is unlawful, they can issue an injunction—a court order that temporarily blocks the policy’s enforcement. In some cases, judges have issued nationwide injunctions, which pause the policy’s implementation across the entire United States, not just within their district.

However, this is not as simple as "1 judge disagrees, and it’s frozen." Here’s why:

- Temporary Nature: A nationwide injunction is a temporary measure while the legal case is resolved. The government can appeal to a higher court (e.g., a circuit court of appeals or the Supreme Court), which can stay or overturn the injunction.

- Judicial Process: The judge’s ruling must be based on legal grounds, such as a violation of the Constitution or federal law, not personal disagreement or ideology (e.g., being a "communist").

- Checks and Balances: Higher courts can review and reverse these decisions, so a single judge does not have unchecked power to permanently halt a policy.
Click to expand...

People making these extreme claims (like the one in your tweet) are basically helping the PTB by riling up the "right" to overreach like the "left" did.

Of course judges usually have some interpretation room, but that too can be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court. As long as it does its job, more or less, there is not really a "judicial crisis" or even "judicial tyranny" in my view.

If anything, it was the executive powers of the president that have been more and more increased over the decades. Congressional approval is not even required anymore when the president decides to bomb some random country.
 
axj said:
If anything, it was the executive powers of the president that have been more and more increased over the decades. Congressional approval is not even required anymore when the president decides to bomb some random country.
Click to expand...
No, I don't think this is correct. I'd need to do some research to give the examples but not now.
If Stephen Miller is giving false info to stir people up it's really disappointing. I consider him to be a reliable source.

Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy and Homeland Security Advisor | 45 & 47
 
SummerLite said:
If Stephen Miller is giving false info to stir people up it's really disappointing. I consider him to be a reliable source.

Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy and Homeland Security Advisor | 45 & 47
Click to expand...
We all know that at least on the topic of Israel pretty much all the politicians in the US lie. That alone shows that none of them are a reliable source. If they lie on one topic, they can lie on other topics too.

We also know that Trump likes to exaggerate and sometimes tells outright lies too, not just about Israel. So why would his chief of staff be that much different?

Maybe Miller even believes what he is saying regarding the "judicial tyranny", but he is obviously not an impartial observer and says what he thinks will help him, his party and Trump. Maybe he is even co-opted by the PTB in some ways to rile up the "right" to overreach like the "left" did.

SummerLite said:
No, I don't think this is correct. I'd need to do some research to give the examples but not now.
Click to expand...
It is not correct that presidents can often bypass congressional authorization to start and wage wars around the world?

For the United States, Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution says "Congress shall have power to ... declare War."

On at least 125 occasions, the president has acted without prior express military authorization from Congress. (Source)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States
Click to expand...
 
With Trump, I think it's important not to fall into the trap of thinking that just because the Dems/woke mob are bad, that Trump by default is good.

A tactic I've noted Trump using is deflecting to Biden, and also he exegerates/oversells himself. I think someone needs to judge his presidency on its own merits and not necessarily get swept up in hysteria. Thus far he has made some good decisions but also some really questionable ones.

With Trump, I think you need to be on your toes. He's certainly not Biden or woke, but he brought us project warp speed. I will never forget project warp speed!

A quote I always remember is from the first Spiderman movie where Peter Parker was told by his grandad "with great power comes great responsibility". I think Trump bombing little kids in Yemen or arresting/deporting people for legitimately protesting wars/conflicts is contrary to this.
 
I don't know whether to post this in the best jokes thread.



🤡
 
Puma said:
I don't know whether to post this in the best jokes thread.

Click to expand...
Sooo, Greenland is somehow under threat from China and Russia?

Putin has weighed in on the subject of US expansion:
As JD Vance touched down in Greenland, the Trump administration received an unlikely endorsement for the US’s first potential territorial expansion since 1947: Vladimir Putin.

Speaking at an Arctic policy forum in the northern Russian city of Murmansk on Thursday, Putin presented a more comprehensive case than any US official yet for Donald Trump’s plan to annex Greenland, crafting a historical argument that sounded suspiciously convenient in terms of Russia’s own territorial designs on Ukraine.

The US’s plans to take control of Greenland “may surprise someone only at first glance, and it is a deep mistake to believe that this is some kind of extravagant talk by the new American administration,” Putin began. “Nothing of the sort.”

The US had plans to buy Greenland in the 1960s but Congress would not support the deal, Putin said. It “protected the territory from Nazi occupation” in the 1940s and made an offer to buy the island that was rebuffed. Even going back to 1910, the US had designs on Greenland, the Russian leader noted, calling the US plans “serious” with “longstanding historical roots”.

Then Putin moved on to Alaska, which was sold by the Russian empire to the US in 1867 in what has become a national case of seller’s remorse. “Let me remind you that by 1868, the purchase of Alaska was ridiculed in American newspapers,” Putin continued. Now, he said, the purchase under president Andrew Johnson had been vindicated.

In short, Putin concluded, get over it. Big countries have territorial ambitions. Deals for land and annexations are not just historical relics – they are a modern reality. And, rejecting generations of international norms not to take territory by force or through extortion, it is none of our business what they do over there.

“As for Greenland, this is an issue that concerns two specific states and has nothing to do with us,” Putin said, while adding that Russia would continue to defend its interests in the Arctic from “dangerous” powers such as Finland and Sweden.

[...]
But as US power recedes abroad, the White House has declared ambitions throughout the western hemisphere in a turn that some commentators have compared to the Monroe doctrine of 1823, under which the US proclaimed itself the protector of the hemisphere. And with each soundbite declaring that the US should take back the Panama canal or that Canada should become the 51st state, Trump will find an enthusiastic ally in the Kremlin who will see his jaded vision of a new world order reflected in another.
Click to expand...
www.theguardian.com

Putin’s endorsement of Trump’s Greenland takeover reflects their vision of a new world order

As US pivots toward territorial ambitions in the west, the Kremlin’s support signals a deeper alignment in their challenge to global norms
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

Additional remarks:
“It can look surprising only at first glance and it would be wrong to believe that this is some sort of extravagant talk by the current U.S. administration,” Putin said. “It’s obvious that the United States will continue to systematically advance its geostrategic, military-political and economic interests in the Arctic.”

Trump irked much of Europe by suggesting that the United States should in some form control the self-governing, mineral-rich territory of Denmark, a U.S. ally and NATO member. As the nautical gateway to the Arctic and North Atlantic approaches to North America, Greenland has broader strategic value as both China and Russia seek access to its waterways and natural resources.

[...]
Speaking on Thursday, Putin noted that Russia is worried about NATO’s activities in the Arctic and will respond by strengthening its military capability in the polar region.

“We are certainly concerned about NATO members describing the Far North as the region of possible conflicts,” he said, noting that Russia’s neighbors Finland and Sweden have joined the alliance. “Russia has never threatened anyone in the Arctic, but we will closely follow the developments and mount an appropriate response by increasing our military capability and modernizing military infrastructure.”

Russia has sought to assert its influence over wide areas of the Arctic in competition with the United States, Canada, Denmark and Norway as shrinking polar ice from the warming planet offers new opportunities for resources and shipping routes. China also has shown an increasing interest in the region, believed to hold up to one-fourth of the Earth’s undiscovered oil and gas.

“We won’t allow any infringement on our country’s sovereignty, reliably safeguard our national interests while supporting peace and stability in the polar region,” Putin said.

While pledging to strengthen Russia’s military foothold in the Arctic, Putin said that Moscow was holding the door open to broader international cooperation in the region.

“The stronger our positions will be, the more significant the results will be and the broader opportunities we will have to launch international projects in the Arctic involving the countries that are friendly to us, and, possibly, Western countries if they show interest in joint work. I’m sure the time will come to launch such projects.”

Kirill Dmitriev, head of the Russian Direct Investment Fund and Putin’s envoy for international investment who took part in talks with U.S. officials, told reporters last month that Russia and the U.S. should develop joint energy ventures.

“We need joint projects, including in the Arctic and other regions,” he said.
Click to expand...
apnews.com

Putin says US push for Greenland rooted in history, vows to uphold Russian interest in the Arctic

Russia’s President Vladimir Putin says that President Donald Trump’s push for control over Greenland wasn’t surprising given longtime U.S. interest in the mineral-rich territory.
apnews.com apnews.com
 
axj said:
If anything, it was the executive powers of the president that have been more and more increased over the decades.
Click to expand...
This is what I wanted to quote, sorry its late and I'm tired. Yes, these powers have been changed and growing over the years as the DS wanted more control with their POTUS picks. I believe it was after Nixon the power of POTUS was diminished for awhile. The DS will change on a whim anything that will help their cause. This is more like hidden history and behind the scenes stuff.


What is said here is actually correct. All judges must agree to allow something to move forward, it only takes one to hold things up.
The tyranny part is misleading I'd say. Miller can be flamboyant which causes a reaction, he wants a reaction here.

The statement below is correct also which is separation of powers. Its all in how one reads these statements which seems like whats happening here.

Does the president need unanimous consent from all 677 judges to implement a major decision?

No, this is completely false. The president does not need consent from any federal district judges—let alone unanimous consent from all of them—to implement a major decision. Under the U.S. Constitution, the president has the authority to act within the executive branch’s powers, such as issuing executive orders, enforcing laws, or making policy decisions, without requiring judicial approval beforehand. The
 
Last edited:
Sooo, Greenland is somehow under threat from China and Russia?
Click to expand...

One thing to consider about the US having a stronger presence in Greenland, for protection and economics, is what could happen in the future when other leaders come into power. Putin wants cooperation with the US which is a beautiful thing but what about the next leader? Who knows about Xi and China, the same thing. The Arctic Circle is an important area.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Trending content

Back
Top Bottom