Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Breccia]

The GOP thing is fucking nuts

See? That wasn't so hard.

Speaking of which, the law enforcement that was on duty at the time are testifying and, hoo boy, I think "peaceful" just got buttfucked on national TV.

The indifference being shown to my colleagues is disgraceful!

My law enforcement career prepared me to cope with some of the aspects of this experience. Nothing has prepared me to address those elected members of our government who continue to deny the events of that day, and in doing so, betray their oath of office.

--officer Fanone

We were all fighting for our lives to give them — to give you guys — a chance to go home to your family, to escape. And now the same people who we helped, the same people who we gave them the borrowed time to get to safety, now they're attacking us, attacking our character

-- officer Gonell, who was asked directly if Trump's description of "loving" was accurate and damn near laughed in America's face

They had marching orders, so to say. When people feel emboldened by people in power they assume that they're right.

One of the scariest things about Jan. 6 is that the people that were there even to this day think that they were right. They think that they were right, and that makes for a scary recipe for the future of this country.

-- officer Dunn

Maybe the police who were on site and nearly murdered are a little too close, but, they all basically said Trump gave the orders that nearly killed them.

[beanman12345]

https://www.rawstory.com/trump-terrorists-2654011411/

So these cops are on record under oath calling them terrorists based on definition of us code. Yeah this is backfiring spectacularly on any of the GoP who voted against this commission.

[Edge-]

https://www.rawstory.com/trump-terrorists-2654011411/

So these cops are on record under oath calling them terrorists based on definition of us code. Yeah this is backfiring spectacularly on any of the GoP who voted against this commission.

Chris "Big Bipartisan Brain" Cizilla at CNN already said that Democrats lost and nothing would come of this, the man is never wrong!

But seriously, between this and the stunt from Greene/Gaetz/Gomar blowing up in their faces as a single man with a whistle disrupted their press conference I'm laughing. Democrats need to lean into not caring about bipartisanship the way Republicans have.

[s_bushido]

Yeah this is backfiring spectacularly on any of the GoP who voted against this commission.

You think so?

Honestly, I don't see this amounting to much of anything... The faithful have already been primed to deny reality when it suits their narrative, and those who can see these events for what they were aren't represented by a political party capable (or even willing) of doing anything about it.

I will be overjoyed to be proven wrong. But I'm not holding my breath.

[DarkTZeratul]

So after trying to claim satire (and failing), and then trying to claim they really had real evidence for real (and failing), Sidney Powell's latest tactic is to claim that it's totally okay that she submitted a massive lawsuit based entirely on lies, because the President was pushing those lies too!
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisond...ter-fraud-too/

In a new court filing responding to a motion for the right-wing attorneys to be sanctioned, the lawyers’ attorney Donald Campbell used Trump’s allegations of voter fraud to hit back against the argument that the lawyers should be sanctioned for not doing their “due diligence” to ensure their affidavits supposedly demonstrating widespread voter fraud were factually accurate.

“The Attorneys are not the only individuals who viewed these affidavits as evidence of serious fraud,” Campbell argued, saying members of two branches of government, including then-president Trump, also “were insisting that there was massive voter fraud.”

“Millions” of Americans believed the voter fraud claims and “believed that their president would not intentionally mislead them,” Campbell said, suggesting any alleged failure on Powell and the other attorneys’ part to vet their voter fraud evidence was because of “confirmation bias” since high-level people like Trump agreed with their claims.

Campbell defended the lawsuit’s purported evidence of fraud—which the judge in the case criticized as being “fantastical” and based on “levels of hearsay”—claiming the pro-Trump attorneys “did, in fact, vet the affidavits” and assessed their “veracity and legal significance” despite the allegations they didn’t.

“Of course, attorneys should look beyond their prejudices and political beliefs, and view evidence with a level of professional skepticism. But no one is immune to confirmation bias,” Campbell wrote. “The attorneys didn’t just have suspicions based merely on their own beliefs. They had evidence that those working at the highest levels of the United States government shared their suspicions. That context makes this case exceptional—and it is a reason for the Court to deny their defendants’ and intervenors’ requests for sanctions.”

[Zaydin]

They whole Pelosi held back the NG horse shit is just further evidence that they rely on their base being ignorant.

Trumphadis always go into denial or refuse to answer when I point out to them that the DC National Guard answers directly to the President, not the Speaker of the House.

- - - Updated - - -

So after trying to claim satire (and failing), and then trying to claim they really had real evidence for real (and failing), Sidney Powell's latest tactic is to claim that it's totally okay that she submitted a massive lawsuit based entirely on lies, because the President was pushing those lies too!
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisond...ter-fraud-too/

Trump claimed fraud when he lost the Iowa caucuses to Ted Cruz in 2016. He claimed fraud prevented his shitty TV show from winning an Emmy.

[PhaelixWW]

You think so?

Honestly, I don't see this amounting to much of anything... The faithful have already been primed to deny reality when it suits their narrative, and those who can see these events for what they were aren't represented by a political party capable (or even willing) of doing anything about it.

I will be overjoyed to be proven wrong. But I'm not holding my breath.

At the very least, this will inform history. This record will be one of the lasting notes of this generation in history books for a long, long time.

If nothing else, I'm glad that we have this kind of official push-back on the blatantly partisan rhetoric that's been stifling the political news sphere lately.

[Edge-]

At the very least, this will inform history. This record will be one of the lasting notes of this generation in history books for a long, long time.

If nothing else, I'm glad that we have this kind of official push-back on the blatantly partisan rhetoric that's been stifling the political news sphere lately.

#BackTheBlue in a real bind here. Are the cops lying antifa FBI plants doing the dirty work of Nancy Pelosi? Or are they patriotic heroes of law enforcement?

*Mental gymnastics intensifies*

[solinari6]

At the very least, this will inform history.

I think things will really start to get interesting once subpoenas start flying. They're not even going to ask people to testify, they're just gonna send subpoenas.

And the DOJ telling all DOJ employees they can ignore any executive privilege and testify about everything leading up to Jan 6 should make for some good fireworks.

Hell, this might be the first time the nation sees the previous guy under oath testifying about something! How could that be boring??

[s_bushido]

At the very least, this will inform history. This record will be one of the lasting notes of this generation in history books for a long, long time.

If nothing else, I'm glad that we have this kind of official push-back on the blatantly partisan rhetoric that's been stifling the political news sphere lately.

Maybe. But you are talking about a country where some not-insignificant percent of the population still proudly flies a flag of a short-lived nation founded to protect the institution of slavery... You'll forgive me if I'm not all that enthusiastic about relying on "history" to be the judge when it is so easily ignored.

[Breccia]

she submitted a massive lawsuit based entirely on lies, because the President was pushing those lies too!

The FOX News defense?

Sorry, but "because my client said so" is not suitable defense for a lawyer.

And I'm calling bullshit on "millions of Americans believed Trump wouldn't lie". People are literally using that as an insanity defense, right now.

[Gorsameth]

So after trying to claim satire (and failing), and then trying to claim they really had real evidence for real (and failing), Sidney Powell's latest tactic is to claim that it's totally okay that she submitted a massive lawsuit based entirely on lies, because the President was pushing those lies too!
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisond...ter-fraud-too/

For the 'biased view' defence to work there has to be actual evidence to view with bias. There is no evidence at all so how can this non-existent evidence be interpreted as real because of biased views?

I don't see how this will work on the court.

[Breccia]

There is no evidence at all

Their new defense says they “did, in fact, vet the affidavits” so they are actually claiming there is evidence which they have.

Which means they'll be ordered to show that evidence, the affidavits and the vetting process. If they fail to do that, I think that's perjury, but it also destroys their defense.

They're being accused of going to court on a lie. Their defense, in part, is "we looked into it, it wasn't a lie". And under the circumstances, I would hope this was an...uh, @cubby is this an "affirmative defense"? Because I don't think it should be as simple as "we thought it was true, and you can't prove we didn't"

[Ursus]

https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/27/polit...ken/index.html

Someone carved a swastika into an elevator at the State Department. I wonder if this is a spot that any random asshole would be able to access, or if it is a State Department employee that would have had to have done this? Surely there must be security video and they can figure out exactly who did it.

[Edge-]

I wonder if this is a spot that any random asshole would be able to access, or if it is a State Department employee that would have had to have done this? Surely there must be security video and they can figure out exactly who did it.

An image showed the crud representation seemingly carved into the siding of “elevator 36”, which is within a secured area of the government building that requires vetting and clearances.

Not a rando.

[cubby]

Their new defense says they “did, in fact, vet the affidavits” so they are actually claiming there is evidence which they have.

Which means they'll be ordered to show that evidence, the affidavits and the vetting process. If they fail to do that, I think that's perjury, but it also destroys their defense.

They're being accused of going to court on a lie. Their defense, in part, is "we looked into it, it wasn't a lie". And under the circumstances, I would hope this was an...uh, @cubby is this an "affirmative defense"? Because I don't think it should be as simple as "we thought it was true, and you can't prove we didn't"

And that's the key here - their claim comes down to "we saw or knew something that gave us a basis for making this claim as sworn officers of the court", and in the suit being filed against them, they will have to show that evidence.

And, ho boy, if they make the mistake of claiming under oath that the President told them it was true, guess who gets deposed?

[Breccia]

And, ho boy, if they make the mistake of claiming under oath that the President told them it was true, guess who gets deposed?

They'd literally rather die. They can and will say "the President said it in public which is legal, and we chose to believe it".

Yes, I want to see Trump defend the things he's saying in public under oath. But these two are so far gone, they'd literally rather die than make Trump face consequences.

[Breccia]

They basically already did with this filing.

I'm still pretty sure there's a difference between "Trump directly, specifically, and personally told us as part of our job as his lawyer" vs. "Trump said it on TV".

[Breccia]

“Orange man say it so it true.”

Again, people are using that as proof they're insane so they don't go to jail. Believing Trump said something true, is evidence they're intentionally submitting of their own free will, to prove they're not of sound mind or judgement.

That's what it's come to. "I'm not capable of being held accountable, because I believed Trump said something true".

[Bodakane]

#BackTheBlue in a real bind here. Are the cops lying antifa FBI plants doing the dirty work of Nancy Pelosi? Or are they patriotic heroes of law enforcement?

*Mental gymnastics intensifies*

Saying they are in a bind implies they care if they are hypocrites. They don't. Every single platform plank, rally cry or tenet of the modern American Republican directly contradicts one of their platform planks, rally cry or tenet.

Every. Single. One.