Trump 55: The Bronze Baron Of Bedminster Wants Back On Twitter And the Forbes 400

[Howl]

On 3/8/2022 at 8:46 AM, AmazonGrace said:

But I love it that Trump's app is called Truth Social as there is probably very little that is true that gets posted, and it's not even that social if nobody's reading it.

Likely a fair number of people signing up are journalists/researchers/academics who are there to monitor what's going on - so even fewer people are there to actually USE it than the numbers signify. 

But we all knew that Truth Social would be the Trump Steaks of social media, so no big surprise. 

Please join me in a round of schadenfreude as Devin Nunes rethinks his life choices while being screamed at by The Donald, spittle flying everywhere, because Truth Social is DOA... *sips tea, smirks*

Edited March 11, 2022 by Howl

[47of74]

3 hours ago, Howl said:

Likely a fair number of people signing up are journalists/researchers/academics who are there to monitor what's going on - so even fewer people are there to actually USE it than the numbers signify. 

Don’t forget the law enforcement who sign up to monitor Branch Trumpvidian land and gather evidence for when these sticks of fornicate carry out their next terrorist/criminal act. 

[GreyhoundFan]

Gee, is anyone surprised by this? "Trump touted a contest for small-dollar donors to dine with him in New Orleans. But no winner met him."

Quote

Former president Donald Trump’s political group sent at least 15 emails in recent weeks offering small-dollar donors the chance to win a coveted prize if they gave money: dinner with Trump in New Orleans last Saturday.

“We booked you a plane ticket,” one of the pitches said, complete with a photo of Trump superimposed in the French Quarter, beneath the dangling trademark ferns. “Contribute ANY AMOUNT RIGHT NOW to be automatically entered to have dinner with President Trump in New Orleans.”

Another pitch promised a full suite of perks. “We’ll cover your flight. We’ll cover your very nice hotel. We’ll cover your dinner,” the email promised, along with a picture with Trump. “All you have to do is enter.”

A third pitch said: “He REALLY wants to meet you, Friend, which is why he’s holding (1) spot on the entry list for YOU only.” Some of the emails came from an account labeled “Dinner with Trump” that was set up by the former president’s leadership PAC, Save America.

But no such winner was flown to New Orleans last weekend, according to four people familiar with the matter. No flight or “very nice” hotel was booked. Trump had no individual meeting with a small-dollar donor, instead only privately greeting a handful of Republican Party donors who gave large checks, taking pictures with some of the party’s most well-heeled members and speaking to a larger group of donors who each gave tens of thousands of dollars.

The email pitches are likely to have raised a sizable sum for Save America. Some similar contests to meet Trump have raised hundreds of thousands of dollars, according to people involved.

“Due to an administrative error in this individual circumstance, the contest winner was not properly notified for last weekend’s event in New Orleans. Consistent with the rules of the sweepstakes, a substitute prize will be awarded to the winner,” Trump spokesman Taylor Budowich said Friday, when asked why no winner was chosen.

He did not say what the substitute prize was, but the fine print of the contest rules say the organization can substitute a prize of “greater or equal value.”

The Washington Post asked Save America to provide winners for a series of other contests it has held, which included meeting the president at a rally in South Carolina this weekend, meeting Trump at his palatial Florida club last year, playing golf with Trump and Georgia Senate candidate Herschel Walker in Palm Beach, or receiving commemorative memorabilia — such as a football signed by Trump and Walker, a College Football Hall of Famer.

The PAC declined to comment, but said it had selected “more than 100” winners in the past, and some Trump advisers say they have met winners at previous events. Some winners have been publicly identified in news stories.

“We protect the privacy of participants, given the hostility and intimidation tactics often used against supporters of President Trump,” Budowich said. The PAC did not answer a question about how much money the New Orleans contest raised — or how winners are chosen and usually notified.

At the event in New Orleans, the Republican Party held a separate contest for its small-dollar donors to meet Trump. The winner was a couple from Mississippi, an official from the organization said, who were flown to New Orleans to “meet the president and see his speech.” The couple, who asked to only be identified by their first names, Sylvia and James, issued a statement through the RNC saying that winning was “a dream come true.”

“Our grass-roots and small-dollar contests are very popular and are a great way to give supporters the opportunity to meet with Republican leaders, like the former president,” RNC spokeswoman Emma Vaughn said.

One former Republican Party official said the contests are often time-consuming, because winners have to be vetted and logistics can be challenging. But there were RNC winners for every contest, this person said, even if officials have to go through multiple participants to find one who could make it and pass the vetting. Several other officials said the contests were worth the trouble because of the amount of donor information they collect and the money they raise.

The contests are popular for attracting small-dollar donors, who have fueled Trump’s political rise, with the donors often giving $5 or $10 hoping to win a trip. It is unclear how many people gave because of the New Orleans contest, with the PAC not reporting new contributions until later this year — and the PAC does not specify whether donations came from contests.

The rules of the PAC’s New Orleans contest said that a winner would receive a round trip coach ticket to the event, one night of accommodations at a hotel, one meal and attendance to the event with Trump, along with a photo. The total retail value, according to the PAC, is about $3,000. The rules said a winner would be chosen by Feb. 28, a few days ahead of the New Orleans event.

Legal experts and former prosecutors said the question is whether the author of the fundraising solicitations knew there would never be a dinner with Trump. If so, the solicitations could be legally questionable, said Peter R. Zeidenberg, a former federal prosecutor in D.C. and now a partner at ArentFox Schiff. “If, on the other hand, they had planned a dinner but it fell through, then that’s definitely not a crime.”

Renato Mariotti, a former federal prosecutor in Chicago now at Thompson Coburn, said a donor could sue over a prize not being awarded, but that would be unlikely. People motivated to donate to Trump may be unlikely to sue by arguing they were defrauded by the former president’s tactics, he said.

“The obstacles help you understand why so many of these campaign tactics that seem obviously misleading have few consequences,” Mariotti said.

Meanwhile, the body responsible for enforcing federal campaign finance law has not been inclined to exact consequences. The former president has faced no penalties in more than 40 cases involving him or at least one of his political committees brought before the Federal Election Commission, according to a review of public outcomes in such cases. Some of the complaints against Trump were dismissed unanimously.

But his undefeated record before the commission owes in part to the fact that the body’s three Republicans have reliably voted in his favor. That pattern has caused the FEC to deadlock on numerous cases, since the body is set up such that no party can control more than three seats — and since four votes are required for any official commission action.

Save America has raised more than $120 million from Trump supporters and sometimes sends 10 or more emails a day, touting contests, merchandise, events of the day and other misleading pitches, such as saying contributions will be matched six times, or that Trump himself is being briefed on the list of donors in an hour. One recent pitch came with the subject line “SHIPMENT ORDER” but was not in reference to any shipment.

A recent pitch asked donors if they wanted to see Trump’s new “TRUMP FORCE ONE” — the former president’s private plane — and to say yes, they had to contribute. Others give shirts and Trump coins for large contributions, while some of the pitches come from surrogates.

The pitches often include Trump, with a beaming smile, and buttons for small-dollar donors. When the button is clicked, donors can give $5, $10 or more. There is also a check mark that automatically signs donors up for repeated contributions unless it is unchecked by the donor — a mechanism that has led to some to demand refunds.

Many of the donors attracted by email pitches, Trump advisers and Republican operatives say, are lower- or middle-class supporters who are die-hard fans of the former president.

Trump’s fundraising for the PAC has annoyed some Republicans, who say he is cannibalizing small-dollar fundraising but not using the money to benefit the party or other candidates. According to the PAC’s most recent filings in January, it started the year with $122 million and had distributed roughly $350,000 among 69 candidates and committees.

The former president’s PAC has more cash on hand than any Republican committee or candidate, and Trump has stockpiled an overwhelming majority of the money. He cannot use it for a presidential bid, but there are few limits on how he can spend it.

But Trump advisers say that many of the Republican committees and candidates mimic their language hoping to do as well as Trump — and that he has brought new donors to the party that never gave before.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

"Trump reminds us why electing him in 2024 would be a disaster"

Quote

Let’s play compare and contrast.

President Biden announced Friday that the United States and its allies will move to cut off normal trade relations with Russia. It’s the latest sign that Biden and the West are working in concert to maximize pressure on Russian President Vladimir Putin amid the mounting humanitarian horrors of his invasion of Ukraine.

Former president Donald Trump, meanwhile, suggested on Fox News Thursday night that Biden should respond to the invasion by personally threatening to obliterate Russia with nuclear weapons. He decried Biden as weak for failing to do so.

We don’t know whether Trump would actually escalate nuclear threats in a situation like this. But we do know this: Even as the United States marshals a robust international response built around maximal economic leverage, for Trump, the key decisive factor must reflexively be reduced to perceptions of unilateral U.S. military strength and the leader’s manly willingness to unleash maximal destructive force.

This contrast raises questions about what it might look like if Trump is president in 2025, in the context of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. We constantly talk about Trump’s efforts to align our interests with Putin's, and against Ukraine, during his presidency. But all that should also inform a debate that’s forward-looking as well.

If Trump runs for president again and wins, he’ll be charting relations with Russia, NATO and Ukraine in the aftermath of this war, possibly while Putin’s conquest expands, or possibly while Ukrainians fight a brutal resistance against Russian occupation.

Trump’s new interview with Sean Hannity shows what a disaster that could prove. Hannity practically pleaded with Trump to describe the situation with moral clarity, yet he largely demurred. At the same time, Trump claimed Putin would never dare invade in the face of Trump’s towering strength, and said Putin only acted now due to Biden’s weakness.

For Trump, it’s a measure of that weakness that Biden won’t threaten nuclear strikes. As Trump suggested, Biden should remind Putin that “we are a nuclear nation,” while advertising our ability to “wipe out Russia.”

All this is absurd: As many have noted, Putin understood that as president, Trump was carrying out his aim of weakening NATO and probably didn’t want to disrupt that. And Putin’s timeline was more likely influenced by Ukraine’s recent drift toward NATO under newly elected president Volodymyr Zelensky and other current domestic factors.

But beyond that, note Trump’s deep inability to conceptualize the situation as an extremely complicated and difficult one without easy or good options. And note his continuing contempt for the ongoing response, which is extraordinary to witness but involves rallying international alliances and doesn’t rely on maximal (and unilateral) displays of performative strength.

This is particularly galling at a moment when the invasion has revitalized NATO and the Western alliance and stirred hopes for a rehabilitated international order of sorts. Conservative writer Matt Lewis points out that former Trump advisers believe he might withdraw from NATO in a second term, and asks: “If Donald Trump gets reelected in 2024, is NATO toast?”

Obviously the international response has not been enough to dissuade Putin, and we don’t know if it will be enough. There are more things Biden can do. We may soon face the crushing realization that the international response has failed, and it’s unclear where we’ll be then.

But as of now, that response has defied expectations, and those gains might be imperiled by a President Trump in 2025. How would a reelected Trump handle various situations in the aftermath of this war, such as partial Putin control over Ukraine combined with ferocious ongoing resistance, or Putin widening the lens of conquest?

Trump sympathizers might note that his tough talk about threatening Russia with nuclear annihilation shows he’s on Ukraine’s side. But that doesn’t really tell us much. Opinion among Republican lawmakers is running strong against Putin: Most have condemned the invasion and support maximal efforts against it. Heck, even Hannity is prodding Trump to condemn Putin.

In this environment, Trump is groping his way toward an explicitly anti-Putin position. But this says nothing about how he would approach more complicated questions about our relationship with NATO and our allies, and it seems like extreme folly to imagine he’d seek to build on Biden’s approach.

Heather Hurlburt, a foreign-policy analyst with New America, notes that this moment should spur Republicans to ask themselves such questions. Some Republicans, Hurlburt notes, seem to be seizing this moment to marginalize pro-Putin sentiment in the GOP, but once passions fade over Ukraine, that might become harder if Trump becomes its standard-bearer.

“Republicans who are pleased to see the reemergence of their party as an important support for trans-Atlanticism need to ask themselves whether that’s compatible with a second Trump presidency,” Hurlburt told me.

It should be noted that some analysts think the moral climate has shifted so overwhelmingly amid the invasion that Trump couldn’t revert to his previous pro-Putin, anti-West tendencies.

“Whoever the American people elect in that circumstance will continue to both support Ukraine and lead the NATO alliance,” former Ambassador William B. Taylor Jr., who testified during Trump’s first impeachment, told me.

Hopefully we won’t have to find out whether this applies to Trump. But in his case, it seems extremely dubious to count on such an outcome.

 

[Cartmann99]

 

[Cartmann99]

I didn't know they were still selling these:

 

[Dandruff]

2 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Gee, is anyone surprised by this? "Trump touted a contest for small-dollar donors to dine with him in New Orleans. But no winner met him."

Wonder how much people would be willing to pay to not be stuck listening to him and watching him eat.

[Cartmann99]

Trumpworld Crypto Coin Sinks After Trump Gets Involved

Quote

Donald Trump is seemingly now in the cryptocurrency game after he was gifted 500 billion “Let’s Go [Brandon]” tokens by a blundering Trumpworld crypto investor.

One might think an association with the former president would boost the meme coin’s value. But instead, the opposite has occurred.

Between noon Wednesday—the day the interview was posted—and early Friday afternoon, the crypto token’s value had fallen nearly 19 percent.

Trump’s coins are already worth about $10,000 less, now down to $45,000—a minuscule $0.00000009 apiece—though their value could rise dramatically if they take off the way other meme coins have.

Trump’s post-presidential office didn’t immediately return The Daily Beast’s request for comment. It’s not yet clear whether he has actually taken ownership of the tokens.

The gift was made by the coin’s most vocal backer, hedge funder and diehard Trump supporter James Koutoulas, which he presented via a podcast hosted by D-list Trumpworld personality David J. Harris. (According to Koutoulas, Harris is also a backer of the coin.)

“Sounds good to me!” Trump said of the gift. “I don’t know exactly what it means, but it sounds good to me.”

According to Harris’ description, the coin’s backers intend to use the tokens to support the “Freedom Truckers” who have repeatedly tried and failed to form a convoy in the Washington, D.C. area, and the “firemen, police, nurses, doctors” who have been laid off because of vaccine mandates, which have since largely been loosened.

“I’ll tell you what, those groups are the right groups to support… They’re great. They’re great patriots, great people,” Trump said.

Koutoulas told The Daily Beast on Friday afternoon that he had yet to hear from Trump, while on Twitter he wrote that he was “deeply honored” Harris had hawked the coin.

It’s not clear how a meme coin will accomplish the objectives outlined on the podcast, not to mention that the previous iteration of the cryptocurrency was an absolute disaster.

 

[Cartmann99]

 

[Cartmann99]

Trump Asks Supporters to Give Him Money For New Plane After Emergency Landing Over the Weekend

Quote

Donald Trump’s PAC sent out an email blast telling the former president’s supporters to give him cash for a new private jet called “Trump Force One.”

On Wednesday, multiple reports ran the story Trump was traveling on a plane that had to make an emergency landing after a speech he gave to a number of Republican National Committee donors in New Orleans. The plane belonged to a GOP donor who lent it to Trump so he could fly back to Mar-a-Lago, but shortly after take-off, the plane returned to the airport because of a reported engine failure, and Trump caught a flight on another donor’s plane instead.

Insider reports that hours after the story got picked up by the media, the Trump Save America PAC emailed supporters with a request they contribute to “Trump Force One’s” construction if they want to see it. The email links to a webpage where people are asked to give monthly recurring donations for as much as $2,500 a month.

“I need to trust that you won’t share it with anyone: my team is building a BRAND NEW Trump Force One,” the email said. “The construction of this plane has been under wraps — not even the fake news media knows about it — and I can’t wait to unveil it for everyone to see.”

Insider notes that Trump still has his private Boeing 757, though it is “sitting unused in upstate New York” after the former president said it was getting a tune-up months ago.

Reminds me of when some of Sarah Palin's fans were proudly dipping into their grocery budgets so Palin wouldn't have to fly commercial for her screeching engagements.

[Dandruff]

46 minutes ago, Cartmann99 said:

Trump Asks Supporters to Give Him Money For New Plane After Emergency Landing Over the Weekend

Reminds me of when some of Sarah Palin's fans were proudly dipping into their grocery budgets so Palin wouldn't have to fly commercial for her screeching engagements.

He has a team building him a plane?  Sure, who wouldn't believe that.

[onekidanddone]

51 minutes ago, Cartmann99 said:

Trump Asks Supporters to Give Him Money For New Plane After Emergency Landing Over the Weekend

Reminds me of when some of Sarah Palin's fans were proudly dipping into their grocery budgets so Palin wouldn't have to fly commercial for her screeching engagements.

Trump is trying to take a page out of the Kenneth Copeland play book.   Didn’t Sarah claim to have sold a plane on eBay?

[Becky]

10 hours ago, Cartmann99 said:

Trump Asks Supporters to Give Him Money For New Plane After Emergency Landing Over the Weekend

Reminds me of when some of Sarah Palin's fans were proudly dipping into their grocery budgets so Palin wouldn't have to fly commercial for her screeching engagements.

Anyone who donates to this needs a good psych evaluation. 

[Dandruff]

7 hours ago, Becky said:

Anyone who donates to this needs a good psych evaluation. 

I'd expect a room-temperature IQ as a frequent part of the diagnosis.

[WiseGirl]

Seth has an idea...

 

[onekidanddone]

52 minutes ago, Dandruff said:

I'd expect a room-temperature IQ as a frequent part of the diagnosis.

These are the same people who give money to prosperity gospel preachers 

[Cartmann99]

Trump cites 'a lot of love' as reason Putin wants to 'make his country larger'

Quote

Former President Donald Trump on Sunday explained that Vladimir Putin is invading Ukraine because he "wants to make his country larger or he wants to put it back the way it was."

During a WABC radio interview with Jeanine Pirro, Trump argued that President Joe Biden should brag more about the United States' nuclear arsenal.

"Biden keeps talking about [Russia] as a nuclear power," Trump said. "He should be saying we're a nuclear power and we should not play games with it. He'll say, we can't do this, we can't do that while they are a nuclear power. Well, we're a nuclear power too. In fact, I rebuilt our entire nuclear arsenal."

The former president insisted that he knows Putin well.

"He's got a big ego," Trump explained. "I think what's going on now is hard. I understand he's gotten rid of a lot of his generals."

“They wanted to rebuild the Soviet Union," he continued. "That’s what this is all about to a large extent. And then you say, what’s the purpose of this? They had a country. You could see it was a country where there was a lot of love and we’re doing it because, you know, somebody wants to make his country larger or he wants to put it back the way it was when actually it didn’t work very well.”

Click the link above if you want to listen to the whole interview.

[smittykins]

On 3/11/2022 at 4:48 PM, Cartmann99 said:

I didn't know they were still selling these:

 

I still get a kick out of the fact that original website had a teeny-tiny disclaimer that said “Sorry, money-back guarantee not valid on intentionally damaged bears.”

[47of74]

Fuck face has a sad since Time Warner Cable dropped OAN

Quote

Donald Trump has spoken out against Time Warner Cable’s decision to drop One America News, a far-right TV station that routinely praises him.

In recent months, multiple cable providers have axed OAN, an outspokenly pro-Trump network that has been accused of promoting right-wing conspiracy theories – including in a $1.6bn lawsuit by two voting machine companies, Smartmatic and Dominion Voting Systems.

 

[Cartmann99]

Full text of the resignation letter is under the spoiler:

Spoiler

Dear Alvin,

I write to tender my resignation as a Special Assistant District Attorney and to explain my reasons for resigning.

As you know from our recent conversations and presentations, I believe that Donald Trump is guilty of numerous felony violations of the Penal Law in connection with the preparation and use of his annual Statements of Financial Condition. His financial statements were false, and he has a long history of fabricating information relating to his personal finances and lying about his assets to banks, the national media, counterparties, and many others, including the American people. The team that has been investigating Mr. Trump harbors no doubt about whether he committed crimes — he did.

In late 2021, then-District Attorney Cyrus Vance directed a thorough review of the facts and law relating to Mr. Trump’s financial statements. Mr. Vance had been intimately involved in our investigation, attending grand jury presentations, sitting in on certain witness interviews, and receiving regular reports about the progress of the investigation. He concluded that the facts warranted prosecution, and he directed the team to present evidence to a grand jury and to seek an indictment of Mr. Trump and other defendants as soon as reasonably possible.

This work was underway when you took office as District Attorney. You have devoted significant time and energy to understanding the evidence we have accumulated with respect to the Trump financial statements, as well as the applicable law. You have reached the decision not to go forward with the grand jury presentation and not to seek criminal charges at the present time. The investigation has been suspended indefinitely. Of course, that is your decision to make. I do not question your authority to make it, and I accept that you have made it sincerely. However, a decision made in good faith may nevertheless be wrong. I believe that your decision not to prosecute Donald Trump now, and on the existing record, is misguided and completely contrary to the public interest. I therefore cannot continue in my current position.

In my view, the public interest warrants the criminal prosecution of Mr. Trump, and such a prosecution should be brought without any further delay. Because of the complexity of the facts, the refusal of Mr. Trump and the Trump Organization to cooperate with our investigation, and their affirmative steps to frustrate our ability to follow the facts, this investigation has already consumed a great deal of time. As to Mr. Trump, the great bulk of the evidence relates to his management of the Trump Organization before he became President of the United States. These facts are already dated, and our ability to establish what happened may erode with the further passage of time. Many of the salient facts have been made public in proceedings brought by the Office of the Attorney General, and the public has rightly inquired about the pace of our investigation. Most importantly, the further passage of time will raise additional questions about the failure to hold Mr. Trump accountable for his criminal conduct.

To the extent you have raised issues as to the legal and factual sufficiency of our case and the likelihood that a prosecution would succeed, I and others have advised you that we have evidence sufficient to establish Mr. Trump’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and we believe that the prosecution would prevail if charges were brought and the matter were tried to an impartial jury. No case is perfect. Whatever the risks of bringing the case may be, I am convinced that a failure to prosecute will pose much greater risks in terms of public confidence in the fair administration of justice. As I have suggested to you, respect for the rule of law, and the need to reinforce the bedrock proposition that “no man is above the law,” require that this prosecution be brought even if a conviction is not certain.

I also do not believe that suspending the investigation pending future developments will lead to a stronger case or dispel your reluctance to bring charges. No events are likely to occur that will alter the nature of the case or dramatically change the quality or quantity of the evidence available to the prosecution. There are always additional facts to be pursued. But the investigative team that has been working on this matter for many months does not believe that it makes law enforcement sense to postpone a prosecution in the hope that additional evidence will somehow emerge. On the contrary, I and others believe that your decision not to authorize prosecution now will doom any future prospects that Mr. Trump will be prosecuted for the criminal conduct we have been investigating.

I fear that your decision means that Mr. Trump will not be held fully accountable for his crimes. I have worked too hard as a lawyer, and for too long, now to become a passive participant in what I believe to be a grave failure of justice. I therefore resign from my position as a Special Assistant District Attorney, effective immediately.

Sincerely,

Mark F. Pomerantz

 

[Howl]

I just read this at the New York Times Metro link.  What the WTAGDF! There's going to be a firestorm of coverage tomorrow.  I don't see how Bragg can be an effective DA going forward after the revelations in Pomerantz' letter that point out irrefutable evidence of Trump's corruption and criminal acts found during their investigation. 

Here's what Seth Abramson has to say on twitter an hour ago:

BREAKING NEWS: Trump Prosecutor Wrote “Donald Trump Is Guilty of Numerous Felony Violations” in His Resignation Letter, Confirming That the Non-Prosecution of Career Criminal Trump in NYC Was Indeed a Politically Motivated Cover-Up By Alvin Bragg—Who Should Lose His Job Over It.  

The language of the letter is absolutely *stunning*—and unambiguous. 

The letter makes clear there was no valid “law enforcement” reason to suspend the prosecution of Trump, that none of the individuals tasked with the investigation and prosecution agreed with its suspension, and that they found Bragg’s actions inexplicable and unacceptable.

On a personal note, I want to say—as a former criminal defense attorney who remains under the oath to the United States Constitution he swore in October 2001—that gutless, politically calculating men like Alvin Bragg are why people don’t trust lawyers or our legal system.

 

 

Edited March 24, 2022 by Howl

[Cartmann99]

Spoiler

Oh goody, another rally!

Spoiler

 

 

[Cartmann99]

MAGA-affliated lawyers love it:

Spoiler

Habba is the "parking garage lawyer" mentioned in the second spoiler.  When she's not appearing on Newsmax and Fox for Trump, she's the legal counsel for a parking garage in New Jersey.

Meanwhile in the saner world:

Spoiler

 

 

[47of74]

One lawyer said fuck face and his lawyers might be facing rule 11 sanctions.

He's referring to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11

Quote

(b) Representations to the Court. By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper—whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it—an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:

(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;

(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law;

(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and

(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.

 

[Cartmann99]

5 minutes ago, 47of74 said:

One lawyer said fuck face and his lawyers might be facing rule 11 sanctions.

I love when legal Twitter goes through Trump's filings and explains why the various parts make them want to laugh/cry/set things on fire.