djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,172
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 1, 2023 11:58:02 GMT -5
all things considered, i think it is GREAT that this case is coming first. do you want me to articulate WHY, or do you all feel the same way? My thinking is if this case didn't come first there would be no point to ever bringing it. It will also burn through Trump's possible lawyers cause you know he's not going to pay these guys. What is your logic? i think this case is the weakest case, and some in the legal community have argued that ERGO, it was NOT the best case to bring first. in their logic, it will expose the case against Trump to ridicule, and undermine future justice against him. i think just the opposite. this case is going to expose every possible problem with the more solid cases, and make them even MORE solid. in other words, i think it INCREASES the likelihood that he will be convicted in future trials, NO MATTER THE OUTCOME.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,495
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Apr 1, 2023 12:05:31 GMT -5
I think this is potentially the strongest case against him and also the most insignificant.
|
|
laterbloomer
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 26, 2018 0:50:42 GMT -5
Posts: 4,350
|
Post by laterbloomer on Apr 1, 2023 12:25:35 GMT -5
I think this is potentially the strongest case against him and also the most insignificant. I don't understand that. What is weak about seeing Trump telling people to go to the Capital to stop the proceedings? I do not see anything weak about that case. I think the problem is getting a jury that doesn't have at least one Magat to hang the jury.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,172
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 1, 2023 12:30:12 GMT -5
I think this is potentially the strongest case against him and also the most insignificant. I don't understand that. What is weak about seeing Trump telling people to go to the Capital to stop the proceedings? I do not see anything weak about that case. I think the problem is getting a jury that doesn't have at least one Magat to hang the jury. i disagree as well, but it really depends on what the indictment is. there is absolutely no doubt that Trump paid hush money. i think even he admits that. what this case needs to do is establish a link to another crime. if it is a campaign spending crime, that is quite weak. but there may be some OTHER crime that is in the indictment that is stronger. in any case, the need to link the hush money to another crime coupled with the fact that this case is being brought in NY makes this case weak, imo. most of the legal community agrees with me. the documents handling case is probably the strongest, followed by the false slate of electors conspiracy, followed by J6, followed by this. JMHO. i am disregarding the other TWO DOZEN CASES that are lower profile.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,495
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Apr 1, 2023 12:46:58 GMT -5
 Apr 1, 2023 10:25:35 GMT -7 laterbloomer said:  Apr 1, 2023 10:05:31 GMT -7 billisonboard said: I think this is potentially the strongest case against him and also the most insignificant. I don't understand that. What is weak about seeing Trump telling people to go to the Capital to stop the proceedings? I do not see anything weak about that case. I think the problem is getting a jury that doesn't have at least one Magat to hang the jury. His defense lawyers, however, point to a different passage, in which Trump said, "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard." link Case "A": man pays hush money to cover affair and lies about it Case "B": President of the United States incites an insurrection I think a jury would be more easily convinced to find guilt in "A" than "B".
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,909
|
Post by happyhoix on Apr 1, 2023 12:48:36 GMT -5
i heard something interesting about this trial today. because the defense can challenge the validity of the grand jury, this is not likely to come to trial for a year. in other words, the assertion that i made yesterday might be immaterial. he might be CONVICTED on a different charge before this one ever reaches verdict. Great - Trump will drag this out as long as possible. It’s his MO. Plus he gets to fund raise off it longer.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,495
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Apr 1, 2023 13:06:39 GMT -5
I don't understand that. What is weak about seeing Trump telling people to go to the Capital to stop the proceedings? I do not see anything weak about that case. I think the problem is getting a jury that doesn't have at least one Magat to hang the jury. i disagree as well, but it really depends on what the indictment is. there is absolutely no doubt that Trump paid hush money. i think even he admits that. what this case needs to do is establish a link to another crime. if it is a campaign spending crime, that is quite weak. but there may be some OTHER crime that is in the indictment that is stronger. in any case, the need to link the hush money to another crime coupled with the fact that this case is being brought in NY makes this case weak, imo. most of the legal community agrees with me. the documents handling case is probably the strongest, followed by the false slate of electors conspiracy, followed by J6, followed by this. JMHO. i am disregarding the other TWO DOZEN CASES that are lower profile. What i have heard is the counts involve "filing false documents" which are misdemeanor crimes in New York unless they are tied to another crime that would make them a felony. I am not privy to the thinking of the legal community so will have to take your word on what they think. Without full knowledge of the evidence available, it is very difficult to assess the strength of any case. For example, I am not aware of any admissible evidence connecting Trump to the false slate of electors conspiracy (some might exist) so can't assess how strong a case might exist to convict him on any charge concerning that issue.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,335
|
Post by swamp on Apr 1, 2023 15:31:57 GMT -5
i heard something interesting about this trial today. because the defense can challenge the validity of the grand jury, this is not likely to come to trial for a year. in other words, the assertion that i made yesterday might be immaterial. he might be CONVICTED on a different charge before this one ever reaches verdict. The defendant asks the judge to review the grand jury minutes for sufficiency. It’s standard. it’s also common for a year to pass between arraignment and trial. You need time for discovery, motions, and hearings. The state level courts are also pretty busy. so far everything the press has been so breathless about is a big old nothingburger.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,495
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Apr 1, 2023 17:53:57 GMT -5
My thinking is if this case didn't come first there would be no point to ever bringing it. It will also burn through Trump's possible lawyers cause you know he's not going to pay these guys. What is your logic? i think this case is the weakest case, and some in the legal community have argued that ERGO, it was NOT the best case to bring first. in their logic, it will expose the case against Trump to ridicule, and undermine future justice against him. i think just the opposite. this case is going to expose every possible problem with the more solid cases, and make them even MORE solid. in other words, i think it INCREASES the likelihood that he will be convicted in future trials, NO MATTER THE OUTCOME. Sorry, not seeing this. It would be watching the Knicks to improve your game plan to beat the Nationals and the Falcons.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,546
|
Post by Tennesseer on Apr 2, 2023 12:06:33 GMT -5
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,495
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Apr 2, 2023 18:45:21 GMT -5
Captures my thoughts well: Trying a former president breaks centuries of precedent, but he should be tried if the offenses themselves are likewise precedent-shattering, and those election-related ones are. Paying hush money to cover up an affair, however, is not at that level. And I worry that the far more serious cases against Trump will get lumped together with the Stormy Daniels affair as just more efforts to find something to bring Trump down.
The rule of law is pursued not simply to punish people but to create a system of self-government that is widely viewed as legitimate. The hush money case will captivate the country. And if the rumors about the charges facing him are true, Trump is probably guilty. But will it create more or less faith in our judicial system and our democratic system? That is the worry that leads me to conclude that this is a case of trying the right man for the wrong crime.
Opinion: The problem with Trump’s indictment
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,909
|
Post by happyhoix on Apr 3, 2023 9:51:12 GMT -5
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,495
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Apr 3, 2023 10:09:32 GMT -5
FWIW I think it is a judge's, not a DA's, decision to issue gag orders.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,172
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 3, 2023 11:00:25 GMT -5
it depends on what you mean by trash. he won't be allowed to incite violence against the DA, as he has been.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,335
|
Post by swamp on Apr 3, 2023 12:39:39 GMT -5
I keep seeing headlines about "trump expected to plead not guilty at his arraignment" like it's news. It's not. It's how the system works. He legally is not guilty, and the People either have to prove his guilt or a plea is worked out.
I would love to see more substantive and educational reports of what is going on, rather than making comments making routine issues look like a BIG DEAL.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,335
|
Post by swamp on Apr 3, 2023 12:40:24 GMT -5
The court issues orders, not the DA. The DA can ask for one.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,546
|
Post by Tennesseer on Apr 3, 2023 15:13:46 GMT -5
Chuck Todd Presses Ex-Manhattan DA On Why He Didn't Charge Trump In Past“Meet the Press” host Chuck Todd questioned former Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. over why his office didn’t prosecute Donald Trump before the ex-president’s indictment last week by Vance’s successor. “Why didn’t you charge the hush money case? Why didn’t you ever charge it in 2018, 2019, 2020?” Todd asked Vance, who was Manhattan DA from 2010 until the end of 2021. Vance said he had begun probing the hush money payment to porn actor Stormy Daniels, but said the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York caused his office to “stand down.” “I was asked ... to stand down on our investigation, which had commenced involving the Trump Organization,” Vance said. “As someone who respects that office a great deal and believing that they may have perhaps the best laws to investigate, I did so.” Rest of article here: Chuck Todd Presses Ex-Manhattan DA On Why He Didn't Charge Trump In Past
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,546
|
Post by Tennesseer on Apr 3, 2023 17:33:10 GMT -5
I cannot believe I'm citing Fox News but here goes. Trump’s former Secret Service agents to testify in DC grand jury Friday in documents caseSeveral U.S. Secret Service agents connected to former President Trump have been subpoenaed and are expected to testify before a Washington, D.C., grand jury likely on Friday this week. The grand jury appearances are related to Special Counsel Jack Smith's probe into the handling of classified documents at Trump's personal estate, Mar-a-Lago. A source familiar with the probe did not give a definitive number of agents involved, but confirmed the April 7 scheduled testimony. The development in this case comes as Trump is scheduled to appear in court Tuesday to be arraigned following his indictment last week related to hush money payments made to a porn star in 2016. A spokesperson for Secret Service said the agency has no comment. A spokesperson for Smith also declined to comment. Trump's legal team has been largely unsuccessful in fighting subpoenas and other actions from Smith's team. Earlier this month, a judge ruled one of Trump's lawyer, Evan Corcoran, must testify before the grand jury related to the probe. Smith's team is alleging that Trump mislead his attorneys about the classified documents stored at his home. Trump has forcefully disputed that claim. Attorney General Merrick Garland assigned Smith as special counsel on Nov. 18 to investigate the matter, which has unfolded since FBI agents raided Mar-a-Lago on Aug 8., and seized classified records, including some marked as top secret, according to a warrant and property receipt. U.S. Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart signed the warrant, giving agents the authority to seize "all physical documents and records constituting evidence, contraband, fruits of crime, or other items illegally possessed" in violation of U.S. Code, including documents with classification markings and presidential records created between Jan. 20, 2017, and Jan. 20, 2021. The property receipt showed FBI agents took approximately 20 boxes of items from the premises, including one set of documents marked as "Various classified/TS/SCI documents," which refers to top secret/sensitive compartmented information. Trump’s former Secret Service agents to testify in DC grand jury Friday in documents case
|
|
laterbloomer
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 26, 2018 0:50:42 GMT -5
Posts: 4,350
|
Post by laterbloomer on Apr 3, 2023 18:26:31 GMT -5
I'm not sure the fact that no POTUS before now has been indicted means none should have been. I really don't think he's the first to pay hush money or use campaign funds inappropriately. In my dream world it's Jan 6 he gets jailed for. Insighting an insurrection and calling for someone to murder Pence.
Am I the only one that wonders what threat Pence and Lindsay are under to keep publicly defending him? I seriously believe the lives of all their grandchildren have been threatened. At a minimum. I think Putin or some other despot is the mastermind behind it. Trump is evil but he's an idiot.
|
|
busymom
Distinguished Associate
Why is the rum always gone? Oh...that's why.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 21:09:36 GMT -5
Posts: 28,416
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"https://cdn.nickpic.host/images/IPauJ5.jpg","color":""}
Mini-Profile Name Color: 0D317F
Mini-Profile Text Color: 0D317F
|
Post by busymom on Apr 3, 2023 18:30:52 GMT -5
I'm not sure the fact that no POTUS before now has been indicted means none should have been. I really don't think he's the first to pay hush money or use campaign funds inappropriately. In my dream world it's Jan 6 he gets jailed for. Insighting an insurrection and calling for someone to murder Pence. Am I the only one that wonders what threat Pence and Lindsay are under to keep publicly defending him? I seriously believe the lives of all their grandchildren have been threatened. At a minimum. I think Putin or some other despot is the mastermind behind it. Trump is evil but he's an idiot. But he's been a USEFUL idiot. Especially for the GOP, and for Russia.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,909
|
Post by happyhoix on Apr 3, 2023 18:51:37 GMT -5
I cannot believe I'm citing Fox News but here goes. Trump’s former Secret Service agents to testify in DC grand jury Friday in documents caseSeveral U.S. Secret Service agents connected to former President Trump have been subpoenaed and are expected to testify before a Washington, D.C., grand jury likely on Friday this week. The grand jury appearances are related to Special Counsel Jack Smith's probe into the handling of classified documents at Trump's personal estate, Mar-a-Lago. A source familiar with the probe did not give a definitive number of agents involved, but confirmed the April 7 scheduled testimony. The development in this case comes as Trump is scheduled to appear in court Tuesday to be arraigned following his indictment last week related to hush money payments made to a porn star in 2016. A spokesperson for Secret Service said the agency has no comment. A spokesperson for Smith also declined to comment. Trump's legal team has been largely unsuccessful in fighting subpoenas and other actions from Smith's team. Earlier this month, a judge ruled one of Trump's lawyer, Evan Corcoran, must testify before the grand jury related to the probe. Smith's team is alleging that Trump mislead his attorneys about the classified documents stored at his home. Trump has forcefully disputed that claim. Attorney General Merrick Garland assigned Smith as special counsel on Nov. 18 to investigate the matter, which has unfolded since FBI agents raided Mar-a-Lago on Aug 8., and seized classified records, including some marked as top secret, according to a warrant and property receipt. U.S. Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart signed the warrant, giving agents the authority to seize "all physical documents and records constituting evidence, contraband, fruits of crime, or other items illegally possessed" in violation of U.S. Code, including documents with classification markings and presidential records created between Jan. 20, 2017, and Jan. 20, 2021. The property receipt showed FBI agents took approximately 20 boxes of items from the premises, including one set of documents marked as "Various classified/TS/SCI documents," which refers to top secret/sensitive compartmented information. Trump’s former Secret Service agents to testify in DC grand jury Friday in documents caseRumors are that Trump had his boxes pulled out of storage so he could root through them AFTER he claimed to his lawyers he didn’t have any more classified documents - to pull out his special mementos- rumor is also there is closed caption video. I’m thinking surely he can’t be so stupid to forget about cameras, and then I think, yeah, he could be. Wonder if it was the government security cameras or his own resort cameras? I guess we’ll find out at some point.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,495
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Apr 3, 2023 19:11:56 GMT -5
I'm not sure the fact that no POTUS before now has been indicted means none should have been. I really don't think he's the first to pay hush money or use campaign funds inappropriately. In my dream world it's Jan 6 he gets jailed for. Insighting an insurrection and calling for someone to murder Pence. Am I the only one that wonders what threat Pence and Lindsay are under to keep publicly defending him? I seriously believe the lives of all their grandchildren have been threatened. At a minimum. I think Putin or some other despot is the mastermind behind it. Trump is evil but he's an idiot. It would be wonderful to gain more insight into the hold he has on those two after what he did to incite an insurrection.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,546
|
Post by Tennesseer on Apr 3, 2023 19:15:01 GMT -5
Trump sure didn't look like a happy camper as he entered his NYC high-rise building earlier today.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,172
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 3, 2023 19:18:44 GMT -5
Trump sure didn't look like a happy camper as he entered his NYC high-rise building earlier today. he is a menace when he is calm and relatively happy. he is dangerous when angry and sullen.
|
|
teen persuasion
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:49 GMT -5
Posts: 4,050
|
Post by teen persuasion on Apr 3, 2023 21:48:53 GMT -5
I cannot believe I'm citing Fox News but here goes. Trump’s former Secret Service agents to testify in DC grand jury Friday in documents caseSeveral U.S. Secret Service agents connected to former President Trump have been subpoenaed and are expected to testify before a Washington, D.C., grand jury likely on Friday this week. The grand jury appearances are related to Special Counsel Jack Smith's probe into the handling of classified documents at Trump's personal estate, Mar-a-Lago. A source familiar with the probe did not give a definitive number of agents involved, but confirmed the April 7 scheduled testimony. The development in this case comes as Trump is scheduled to appear in court Tuesday to be arraigned following his indictment last week related to hush money payments made to a porn star in 2016. A spokesperson for Secret Service said the agency has no comment. A spokesperson for Smith also declined to comment. Trump's legal team has been largely unsuccessful in fighting subpoenas and other actions from Smith's team. Earlier this month, a judge ruled one of Trump's lawyer, Evan Corcoran, must testify before the grand jury related to the probe. Smith's team is alleging that Trump mislead his attorneys about the classified documents stored at his home. Trump has forcefully disputed that claim. Attorney General Merrick Garland assigned Smith as special counsel on Nov. 18 to investigate the matter, which has unfolded since FBI agents raided Mar-a-Lago on Aug 8., and seized classified records, including some marked as top secret, according to a warrant and property receipt. U.S. Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart signed the warrant, giving agents the authority to seize "all physical documents and records constituting evidence, contraband, fruits of crime, or other items illegally possessed" in violation of U.S. Code, including documents with classification markings and presidential records created between Jan. 20, 2017, and Jan. 20, 2021. The property receipt showed FBI agents took approximately 20 boxes of items from the premises, including one set of documents marked as "Various classified/TS/SCI documents," which refers to top secret/sensitive compartmented information. Trump’s former Secret Service agents to testify in DC grand jury Friday in documents caseRumors are that Trump had his boxes pulled out of storage so he could root through them AFTER he claimed to his lawyers he didn’t have any more classified documents - to pull out his special mementos- rumor is also there is closed caption video. I’m thinking surely he can’t be so stupid to forget about cameras, and then I think, yeah, he could be. Wonder if it was the government security cameras or his own resort cameras? I guess we’ll find out at some point. Hannity couldn't deflect Trump from blurting out his proud confession: "I have the right to take stuff!... You know, they paid Richard Nixon $18 million for what he had."
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,546
|
Post by Tennesseer on Apr 3, 2023 22:14:05 GMT -5
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,169
|
Post by tallguy on Apr 3, 2023 22:15:40 GMT -5
Rumors are that Trump had his boxes pulled out of storage so he could root through them AFTER he claimed to his lawyers he didn’t have any more classified documents - to pull out his special mementos- rumor is also there is closed caption video. I’m thinking surely he can’t be so stupid to forget about cameras, and then I think, yeah, he could be. Wonder if it was the government security cameras or his own resort cameras? I guess we’ll find out at some point. Hannity couldn't deflect Trump from blurting out his proud confession: "I have the right to take stuff!... You know, they paid Richard Nixon $18 million for what he had." Setting aside the idea that Richard Nixon may have been paid for what he had, it doesn't matter. Donald Trump had NO right to take stuff. The Presidential Records Act was not signed into law until well AFTER Nixon, and it is THAT law that specifically bars Trump from taking presidential records for his own purposes. I don't know why anybody would expect Trump to know that, considering his complete and utter ignorance on any other law that adversely impacts what he wants. Still, what he knows or doesn't know is irrelevant. It is still against the law, and his ignorance doesn't change that.
|
|
tbop77
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 8:24:37 GMT -5
Posts: 2,510
|
Post by tbop77 on Apr 4, 2023 7:39:18 GMT -5
I find watching the GOP defend Trump's actions hilarious. Rallying around a man who paid his whore hush money and recorded it as either business or election transaction. What a good businessman he is. Defending that behavior. How low can you go?
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,546
|
Post by Tennesseer on Apr 4, 2023 8:54:20 GMT -5
I find watching the GOP defend Trump's actions hilarious. Rallying around a man who paid his whore hush money and recorded it as either business or election transaction. What a good businessman he is. Defending that behavior. How low can you go? Mostly GOP silence and not expelling George santos from Congress?
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,546
|
Post by Tennesseer on Apr 4, 2023 9:17:06 GMT -5
A Fox News Guest Let Out A Freudian Slip For The Ages, Accidentally Calling Trump ‘President Fraud’Donald Trump may have become the first president in American history to be indicted on criminal charges, but there’s no guarantee he’ll be convicted. There’s a chance the case against him could fall apart and he returned to the “zombie apocalypse” that is his hometown for nothing. Still, the unprecedented move has galvanized the Republican party, who’ve spent the last few days rallying to his defense. One of them got so worked up, though, that he let out what seemed like a top shelf Freudian slip. Over the weekend, Los Angeles attorney Brian Claypool, who moonlights as a political commentator, went on Fox News to tear apart Manhattan district attorney Alvin Bragg’s case against the former president. He expressed skepticism that the dozens of charges — still not made public — would stick, and that the indictment would lead to a conviction. He bandied about GOP buzzwords like “political witch-hunt,” called Bragg “radical,” and said he was “targeting Trump.” He also called Trump an unkind name. While discussing Bragg’s motives for charging Trump, Claypool claimed that what he wanted to do was “humiliate President Fraud.” Claypool quickly caught himself, but the damage was done. You can watch Claypool’s full interview in the video below, but it’s worth noting that when he gets to the Freudian slip, there’s a sudden edit, excising his screw-up. Still, it was a good slip, albeit not as epic as the one George W. Bush made last year about the Iraq War. A Fox News Guest Let Out A Freudian Slip For The Ages, Accidentally Calling Trump ‘President Fraud’
|
|