ScotReiver

I believe this is why he behaves the way he does.

ChatGPT - Trump is the first president in over a century not to have a dog while in office.

And yes, I know how many times I've posted here. I'm happy for you 10,000+ posters that you have an opportunity for another post . With your downvote, of course.

Question for ChatGPT: In cases filed since January 2025 against persons Donald Trump considers his personal "enemies", how many have resulted in a guilty verdict?

The available reporting does not identify any clear tally of successful guilty verdicts from prosecutions widely characterized as targeting Donald Trump’s “enemies” since January 2025—but what evidence does exist points to essentially none (or at most a single ambiguous case).

What the data shows
Multiple analyses and reporting describe numerous investigations, indictments, and legal actions, but emphasize that these cases have largely failed, been dismissed, or not produced charges at all. Courts have thrown out cases, subpoenas have been quashed, and some prosecutions collapsed due to lack of evidence or procedural issues. Even politically supportive reporting notes that many efforts to prosecute perceived opponents “resulted in no charges” or stalled.

Possible exception
One widely reported conviction is that of a Wisconsin judge (Hannah Dugan) for obstruction in an immigration-related case. However, whether this counts as targeting a personal “enemy” of Trump is debatable—it was framed as an immigration enforcement case rather than part of a defined “enemies list.”

Bottom line
Confirmed guilty verdicts tied clearly to prosecutions of Trump’s personal “enemies”: 0. If including borderline or disputed cases: possibly 1.

Key takeaway
Despite a large number of investigations and public threats (hundreds of targets have been identified), the campaign has produced little to no courtroom success, with far more dismissals and failed cases than convictions.

"Justice Department lawyers under Ms. Bondi often behaved in shockingly unethical ways. For decades, Federal judges have looked at assistant U.S. attorneys and other Justice Department lawyers as something more than mere combatants. For good reason, judges assumed that Federal lawyers told them the truth about the facts and the law of their cases. But based on the frequently appalling conduct — for instance, lying, gaslighting, hiding facts and evidence — of Justice Department lawyers in the Bondi era, many judges are no longer giving government lawyers the benefit of the doubt. Nor should they."

And "nothing" is what they should do.

If you're worried that non-citizen illegals might vote in an election, that would make them guilty of a Federal crime if (or more likely when) they were caught. Easy choice - don't risk years in the pen just to cast a vote.

The New Yorker's "War-a--Lago" cover on the current issue:

LINK

I asked this question at ChatGPT -

Who pays for tarriffs, foreign countries or domestic importers?

The answer started with this: "In practice, domestic importers pay tariffs, not foreign countries — though the broader economic impact can be
more complicated."

Looks kike we were taxing our local Cosco and our Joe's Wine Store.

About 20-25 years ago I served for two weeks on a grand jury that was considering local cases. I remembered that a few cases were settled out-of-court before we voted on them, but I don't remember any where we failed to return an indictment. Even though a grand jury only hears the prosecution's side of a case, the evidence presented was always enough for an indictment to trial. That's the norm.

A pretty good where-is-he-now article:

LINK

---------Scotreiver, I think you should spend a few minutes reading the board before coming in and posting. You’re posting foolishness with this post and your Sorsby to LSU post.----------

So the link right above your post has it wrong about the QB ?

That's what they say.

Trump is killing MAGA. This is what MTG said in an interview about why she broke with Trump:

What stayed with Greene long afterward were the last two speakers (at Charlie Kirk service) who took the stage. First there was Kirk’s widow, Erika, who stood in white before the crowd filling the Arizona stadium, lifted her tear-filled eyes and said that she forgave her husband’s killer.

And then there was President Trump. “He was a missionary with a noble spirit and a great, great purpose,” he said of Kirk. “He did not hate his opponents. He wanted the best for them. That’s where I disagreed with Charlie. I hate my opponent, and I don’t want the best for them.”

“That was absolutely the worst statement,” Greene wrote to me in a text message months after the memorial service. And the contrast between Erika Kirk and the president was clarifying, she added. “It just shows where his heart is. And that’s the difference, with her having a sincere Christian faith, and proves that he does not have any faith.”