Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[postman1782]

Remember when I said this? Well... Ron Johnson is trending because he wants to know what Pelosi knew about that day. Fucking unbelievable.

https://mobile.twitter.com/atrupar/s...40762564898819

Says the guy that supported Biden's withholding of the loans promised to Ukraine in 2016, but now wants to investigate Biden because of it, or at least he did in 2020 running up to the election. Even though he signed the letter approving it. Johnson that is.

[Benggaul]

Quickie Sunday report:

89,691 new cases, about 21k fewer than last Sunday but that's going to tighten up a bit more since several states have still not reported. I'm optimistic it will still be under 100k, however, which makes it the first day under that threshold since the beginning of November, more than 3 months ago.

1,340 deaths is about 550 fewer than last Sunday and brings the total to 474,933. Again that will likely tighten up considerably once the totals come in from the 3-4 states that normally report on Sunday but haven't. It should still be much lower regardless.

Related news:

Pfizer expects to cut COVID-19 vaccine production time by close to 50% as production ramps up, efficiencies increase--Very welcome news and, coupled with the opening of several vaccine "megacenters" this should help a great deal in getting the pandemic at least somewhat under control before the next outbreak, hopefully ensuring we don't see the numbers we have been this past winter ever again.

Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer's Strict COVID Orders Effective in Driving Down Cases: Analysis--Gee, what a surprise. Go fuck yourselves, MAGAts.

Super Bowl revelers without masks crowd Tampa streets despite coronavirus--Because football is obviously worth dying for. Fuck Florida.

Stay safe, folks.

[Breccia]

Because football is obviously worth dying for.

It's okay, I'm sure DeSantis' well-thought-out and executed health plan will oh right it's about the worst in the country.

- - - Updated - - -

Lindsey Graham sets up the first part of his upcoming hypocrisy.

While chastising Trump for...

(checks news)

While saying Trump "will have his place in history" for his role in the riots, he also says Congress isn't meant to be a prosecutor. He still says the impeachment is unConstitutional because Trump lost, get over it, which I'll remind everyone is because McConnell delayed the vote.

"How is this part one?"

Because, if following that line of thinking, actual federal or state prosecutors do go after Trump, I'd willing to bet the usual $25 to...oh shit, I owe you guys a pint of Ben and Jerry's, don't I? More on that later. Anyhow the point is, I'd bet real money that, if real prosecutors went after Trump, Graham would be one of the people who said "You can't prosecute Trump for acts he did as President".

It's a hypothetical of course. But admit it, you all agree with me.

- - - Updated - - -

Once again, it's time to play Guess the Speaker! The subject is Trump.

He’s said that not being on social media, and not being subject to the hateful echo chamber that social media too frequently becomes, has actually been good,

That's Trump ally and former campaign aide Miller, about why Trump is happier since being banned from Twitter -- something he fought against and said was a bad decision by Twitter, just so we're clear.

Miller probably should have added "In fact, forget the blackjack!"

[dextersmith]

Dominion sues Rudy Giuliani for $1.3 billion over false election claims

Shouldn't they sue Trump instead since he was acting as Trump's agent? He'll soon learn who his political friends are. You think his insurance will cover any of this?

[Orange Joe]

Maybe you should try and present the quote of them claiming that, unless you are roleplaying as Carlson or Maddow right now

You could have tried reading.

In sum, the Fox News lawyers mocked the legal case made by McDougal's legal team. She alleged "a reasonable viewer of ordinary intelligence listening or watching the show ... would conclude that [she] is a criminal who extorted Trump for money" and that "the statements about [her] were fact."

"Context makes plain," Fox's lawyers wrote, "that the reasonable viewer would do no such thing."

The judge fully agreed.

[Breccia]

Shouldn't they sue Trump instead

I should let @cubby answer this one, but I think the answer is "Dominion has no proof Trump ordered Giuliani to make those exact statements". If it comes up in trial, due to subpoena for example, you'll see him added to the defendants instantly.

Now that said, I'm fairly sure Trump also said some things about Dominion being broken while he was in office, but even the worst of those pale in comparison to what Giuliani said. He's by far the easier target.

- - - Updated - - -

As the impeachment trial gets underway, remember this quote:

These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously and viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly and unfairly treated for so long. Go home with love and in peace. Remember this day forever!

It was Trump's third after the murderous insurrection started, hours after it started. He was still claiming he won in a landslide. He was still claiming it was stolen. But most importantly, he was claiming that when his landslide victory (he didn't have one) was stolen (it wasn't) that these things happen. That they're expected. That they're necessary.

Anyone who votes against impeachment on the grounds it's not Constitutional because Trump left office is still an asshole, because the GOP intentionally delayed the vote to make that happen. But at least it's an argument that doesn't put them on the side of an open, public traitor.

Anyone who says what Trump did isn't all that bad, however, is therefore supporting the murderous insurrection. And they need to be up against the metaphorical wall next election, and this needs to be smeared across every headline.

[cubby]

I should let @cubby answer this one, but I think the answer is "Dominion has no proof Trump ordered Giuliani to make those exact statements". If it comes up in trial, due to subpoena for example, you'll see him added to the defendants instantly.

Now that said, I'm fairly sure Trump also said some things about Dominion being broken while he was in office, but even the worst of those pale in comparison to what Giuliani said. He's by far the easier target.

@dextersmith

Even with proof, it wouldn't matter in a libel/defamation suit. Just because someone tells you to say something doesn't mean they fall into the "at fault" category coming from the actual statement in question. Giuliani made the statement, it's his ass on the line.

Trump could also be brought into the suit, but it's highly unlikely, as the President is typically immune from any and all statements made while President, so the ass-hat-in-Chief would be immune from just about any civil suit.

[Breccia]

Trump could also be brought into the suit, but it's highly unlikely, as the President is typically immune from any and all statements made while President, so the ass-hat-in-Chief would be immune from just about any civil suit.

I would love to see this tested. Trump did not speak those things as a legitimate Commander in Chief or head of the Executive Branch. He spoke those things as a whining sore loser, refusing to accept a dozen recounts and sixty-plus failed lawsuits, because his rallies were totes bigger gaiz!

He was chain-lying about the democracy he was supposed to represent, declaring himself dictator, and based it on literally less than nothing.

I'd really love to see the courts' view on that. The President of the United States didn't say that, Trump did. He was expressing his personal views, not those of the office.

If the courts are okay with that, then Biden has no choice but to remove that protection himself. Think about it: what if, hypothetically, President Whitey says "Black people are the devil and they should all die"? Is that okay? "Gay people are an abomination and they should all die"? Is that okay? "Women should not vote and you should kill any who try"? Is that okay?

There are limits. I think Trump crossed the line by declaring himsef the winner of a landslide victory that Dominion stole, then instigating a murderous insurrection. I really need to see the courts take this issue on. Maybe they'll say he didn't cross the line, and I'd have to accept that, but until that happens, that's carte blanche for Biden to say "I've outlawed Florida, you should kill any Floridian you see" and that would be allowed.

And yes, I know this is "just" defamation, but my point remains. Trump did not have absolute authority. This is the United States of America. We don't have absolute authority.

No-one is above the law.

[Benggaul]

It was bound to happen sooner or later.

U.S. Rep. Ron Wright dies weeks after testing positive for coronavirus

You'd think someone living with cancer would take things like COVID-19 more seriously, but hey, Texas Republican, so thoughts and prayers, I guess.

[Poopymonster]

I would love to see this tested. Trump did not speak those things as a legitimate Commander in Chief or head of the Executive Branch. He spoke those things as a whining sore loser, refusing to accept a dozen recounts and sixty-plus failed lawsuits, because his rallies were totes bigger gaiz!

He was chain-lying about the democracy he was supposed to represent, declaring himself dictator, and based it on literally less than nothing.

I'd really love to see the courts' view on that. The President of the United States didn't say that, Trump did. He was expressing his personal views, not those of the office.

If the courts are okay with that, then Biden has no choice but to remove that protection himself. Think about it: what if, hypothetically, President Whitey says "Black people are the devil and they should all die"? Is that okay? "Gay people are an abomination and they should all die"? Is that okay? "Women should not vote and you should kill any who try"? Is that okay?

There are limits. I think Trump crossed the line by declaring himsef the winner of a landslide victory that Dominion stole, then instigating a murderous insurrection. I really need to see the courts take this issue on. Maybe they'll say he didn't cross the line, and I'd have to accept that, but until that happens, that's carte blanche for Biden to say "I've outlawed Florida, you should kill any Floridian you see" and that would be allowed.

And yes, I know this is "just" defamation, but my point remains. Trump did not have absolute authority. This is the United States of America. We don't have absolute authority.

No-one is above the law.

In effect Trump did until January 21st.

[Magical Mudcrab]

Says the guy that supported Biden's withholding of the loans promised to Ukraine in 2016, but now wants to investigate Biden because of it, or at least he did in 2020 running up to the election. Even though he signed the letter approving it. Johnson that is.

Yes, Biden did threaten to withhold aid to Ukraine. It was used as leverage to have Viktor Shokin removed as a part of the Obama administration's anti-corruption policies, as Shokin was not pursuing political corruption within the country. That you make this attempt to equate this to Trump's attempt to leverage foreign aid to undermine an election by sabotaging a political competitor is pathetic. These events events are similar only in the leverage used, not in the intent behind their usage.

[Breccia]

In effect Trump did until January 21st.

I think you're missing my point.

The Office of the President is expected to say things to the public, with the authority of office. In such a role, I understand they have protection.

I say that Trump was not speaking from that office. He was speaking as himself, not the job. If he uses blatant lies to attack democracy, inciting a murderous insurrection, I do not believe he has such protection from those comments. Again, otherwise he could just order a hit on Floridians.

Bear in mind, there are people arguing he shouldn't be impeached because he's not in that role anymore. I therefore have their argument on my side, repulsive as that sounds, because if he can't be held accountable for the role he had at the time, then he shouldn't be protected by it, either.

I want to see someone brave enough to bring this to a court of law. Force the issue. Trump was declaring himself the winner of the election and directly said Dominion stole it. Yes, I know traditionally Presidents are protected, but Trump wasn't one then and isn't one now.

To think of it another way: should I be allowed to give a Jewish person a failing grade, just because he's Jewish, and get away with it, because I have tenure? Or does even tenure have its limits? That's the discussion: the limits. I think Trump passed those. The courts are free to disagree, and like I said I'd have no choice but to accept that...if such a case came to them. Until then, Trump is trying to dance across both sides of the line, whichever offers more protection. You can't do that. I don't make the rules, I just want to see them enforced.

- - - Updated - - -

This OP ED article has a few good points, one of which is the strategy of impeachment. From a GOP perspective.

64% of Republicsans said they'd leave the party and join Trump's if he made one.
82% of Republicans still support Trump, and by context murderous insurrection.

This means, in all likelihood, one of three things will happen.
1) Trump will die of being a colossal fatass.
2) Failing that, Trump will run again as a Republican and win, or
3) Run on his own party and crush the remaining Republicans 2-to-1.

"Couldn't he just, you know, sit at home and watch TV, not running again?"

That sounds like (a) admission he lost, which he's never publicly done, and (b) seeing a chance to make even more money and his name on more headlines and Trump deciding not to do that. So no.

The only way out? Block Trump from running. Impeachment would do that. Problem is, it'd take about one-third of GOP Senators to do that -- and almost certainly, any who did would face a very tough re-election (unless Trump dies, because there is no Vice Cult Leader).

In theory, a group of dedicated true conservatives could throw themselves on the proverbial hand grenade and take one for the good of their party. But each one would have to look at their current situation and say "I would rather not have this job, than have this job and let Trump run the country".

Any GOP Senators planning to do this might as well announce their retirement, since they could personally cure cancer and still get voted against by the rabid fanbase.

[Rasulis]

Dominion sues Rudy Giuliani for $1.3 billion over false election claims

Shouldn't they sue Trump instead since he was acting as Trump's agent? He'll soon learn who his political friends are. You think his insurance will cover any of this?

It is normally covered under "errors and omissions" for lawyers. However, it does not cover intentional fraudulent claims. I don't know of any insurance that will cover that. So likely he will have to cover the cost himself or ask for donations.

[Edge-]

It is normally covered under "errors and omissions" for lawyers. However, it does not cover intentional fraudulent claims. I don't know of any insurance that will cover that. So likely he will have to cover the cost himself or ask for donations.

How long do you think it takes to raise around $1B on OnlyKlans?

[Poopymonster]

Tbf, the amount isn’t anywhere near what they’d ever get in court. It’s more about grabbing headlines.

It's also a warning shot. "Listen you degenerate fuckwits. Lie and say it was stolen, go for it. Lie and say you were robbed, bully for you. Lie and start naming names, like ours, and we'll stomp what's left of your liar dick in the dirt."

[Edge-]

Tbf, the amount isn’t anywhere near what they’d ever get in court. It’s more about grabbing headlines.

I know, I still think he's gonna need to start selling feet pix on OnlyKlans if he's gonna raise enough money to cover what the settlement will likely be.

[cubby]

I would love to see this tested. Trump did not speak those things as a legitimate Commander in Chief or head of the Executive Branch. He spoke those things as a whining sore loser, refusing to accept a dozen recounts and sixty-plus failed lawsuits, because his rallies were totes bigger gaiz!

He was chain-lying about the democracy he was supposed to represent, declaring himself dictator, and based it on literally less than nothing.

I'd really love to see the courts' view on that. The President of the United States didn't say that, Trump did. He was expressing his personal views, not those of the office.

If the courts are okay with that, then Biden has no choice but to remove that protection himself. Think about it: what if, hypothetically, President Whitey says "Black people are the devil and they should all die"? Is that okay? "Gay people are an abomination and they should all die"? Is that okay? "Women should not vote and you should kill any who try"? Is that okay?

There are limits. I think Trump crossed the line by declaring himsef the winner of a landslide victory that Dominion stole, then instigating a murderous insurrection. I really need to see the courts take this issue on. Maybe they'll say he didn't cross the line, and I'd have to accept that, but until that happens, that's carte blanche for Biden to say "I've outlawed Florida, you should kill any Floridian you see" and that would be allowed.

And yes, I know this is "just" defamation, but my point remains. Trump did not have absolute authority. This is the United States of America. We don't have absolute authority.

No-one is above the law.

Same here - watching the court wade through speech as a President vs speech as a private citizen would be interesting, to say the least.

[Edge-]

Maybe his defense will be stuff like



https://mobile.twitter.com/RudyGiuli...85526421110789

Such a brilliant mind...

How the fuck has he evaded getting banned so far? Seriously, he's just as bad as the rest of the lunies Twitter has already removed...and yet he still tweets.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, we know he’s into cousins and incest porn is a big industry...

I dunno what the market for "Step-Great-Uncle" is looking like in that scene. But I'd hazard to guess it's a pretty niche market, and based on prior performance in front of the camera I fear he wouldn't be a good actor.

[cubby]

It is normally covered under "errors and omissions" for lawyers. However, it does not cover intentional fraudulent claims. I don't know of any insurance that will cover that. So likely he will have to cover the cost himself or ask for donations.

You are correct - Errors and Omissions typically covers accidental mistakes (filing errors, typos, etc) that result in claims brought against practicing attorneys. It absolutely does not cover illegal behavior. Attorneys also have malpractice insurance, which is a broader policy covering a host of other actions by attorneys that result in claims brought against them. MP insurance probably won't cover this, and it certainly won't cover the total damages sought. After the cap, the attorney/firm is on the hook for the remainder of the judgment.

Dominion and [can't recall name] have filed a brilliant law suit. And they have a really good chance to win. And as a benefit, they get to make Lil Rudy admit he had no proof (recall that Rudi continues to say he has proof, but has yet to present it).

[Felya]

Can’t make this shit up... grifting to the end:

Trump Hotel in D.C. Hikes up Price for Significant QAnon Date of March 4
https://www.newsweek.com/qanon-trump...-march-1567489