Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[cubby]

She is a Trump judge, but she was also skeptical at first. I don't think this is an instant win for Trump.

Honestly hardly matters. I don't know what a "special master" could do at this point. The FBI has everything, the FBI has seen everything, and anything lawyer-client was going to be returned anyhow.

@jonnysensible

The Special Master is just going to carve out any documents that were legally seized by the FBI that are possibly covered by attorney client privilege. The SM will not do anything more than that, and this ruling is in no way shape or form a "win" for Trump. What Trump will do with this ruling, is lie and claim "yuge win" to his ridiculously willfully ignorant base, and they will eat it up, as they do with all the slops Team Trump send them.

Just as @tehdang - he's already claiming this as a big win, because he's been told to think and say that.

- - - Updated - - -

https://www.thedailybeast.com/feds-p...s-inner-circle

A Russian-speaking woman from Ukraine was able to pose as a banking dynasty heiress and infiltrate Mar-a-Lago last year on numerous occasions, including one instance where she played golf with Trump himself.

It seems like Mar-a-Lago is even easier to get into than Trump University was.

And all those Special Access Compartment classified documents just sitting around his office.

[Breccia]

The Special Master is just going to carve out any documents that were legally seized by the FBI that are possibly covered by attorney client privilege.

Which, again, aren't what the FBI was looking for in the first place. The National Archives has no business with someone's personal lawyer's notes, no matter who that person is, it's not WH property.

And, if it is Executive Privilege, it goes to Biden. Who...will just hand it back to the FBI and say "You deal with this, I'm busy reducing student debt and inflation".

- - - Updated - - -

Later that year, spies and informants were dying or being captured.

The NYTimes reported on this in 2021. I was wondering why it was trending as recent news.

[gondrin]

So, what happens when someone tries everything and anything to stay out of trouble and it doesn't work? Start to ask people to commit crimes for you by asking to revolt against their bosses. Desperation is thy name.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...8de3261356e9e0

Trump urges FBI agents to revolt as DOJ builds case over Mar-a-Lago top secret documents

In a post on his Truth Social account on Saturday afternoon, former president Donald Trump urged FBI agents to stage a revolt over the investigation into stolen top secret documents he was hoarding at his Mar-a-Lago resort despite warnings from the DOJ.

Three weeks after the search at the Florida resort by FBI agents turned up boxes of highly sensitive documents in a locked room, the former president is now encouraging those same agents r to turn on current FBI director Christopher Wray.

Twenty-four hours after the judge released a highly redacted copy of the affidavit that led to the search, Trump wrote, "When are the great Agents, and others, in the FBI going to say 'we aren’t going to take it anymore,' much as they did when James Comey read off a list of all of Crooked Hillary Clinton’s crimes, only to say that no reasonable prosecutor would prosecute. The wonderful people of the FBI went absolutely 'nuts,' so Comey had to backtrack and do a FAKE INVESTIGATION in order to keep them at bay."

Oh yeah, he has to add in both his "win" in 2016 and his YUGE loss in 2020 in all conversations.

He added, "The end result, we won in 2016 (and did MUCH better in 2020!). But now the 'Left” has lost their minds!!!'"

[Spectral]

Here's the thing on that.

They wont admit they saw or heard of any of this.

Like, seriously, call them up. Hell, I'll do it. (I'm not sure how many of these people are actually Americans and how many are just foreign concern trolls pretending to be Americans, but I figure it's a good start)

@PC2
@tehdang
@Zeth Hawkins
@Spectral
@lockybalboa


What are your thoughts on Trump's complete and potentially malicious mishandling of top-secret government documents, potentially endangering American interests around the world, for no discernible good reason, the proceedings of which have had him lie and shift his position at every possible step of this investigation?

A. Do you say "it's an FBI conspiracy?"

B. Do you say it's "no big deal" and is being "blown out of proportion by the Biden administration?"

C. Do you say "if Trump did it, it was right?"

Because I think, fundamentally, it's D) you just don't care. Deep, at the very heart of yourself, you just don't give a fuck what Trump did. If he ran again in 2024, I think you'd still vote for him. Not just "not vote for Biden and vote for no one," I think you would genuinely look at Donald Trump, acknowledge that he broke the law in ways that endangered National Security, and say to yourself "well at least he's not a democrat" and then vote for him and for republican politicians echoing those exact same thoughts.


And then you wonder what the problem in the United States is, and think of how you can pin it on women getting abortions or on minorities or on gay and trans people.


Feel free to refute any of that.


I'd have highlighted more users who were obviously pro-trumpers, but most of them seem to have either been banned or gone utterly silent in the last year. I think D3athr@y or whatever his name was also skulks around still but I couldn't remember how exactly to spell his name to adequately mention him.

As I'm not invested in Trump, it's an easy enough answer for me - he should face the same consequences any civilian would for the same crime (assuming there is a crime, obviously we haven't seen prosecution brought at this point). I know I would have been in deep shit for similar actions and that was very clear to me during training despite the fact that it was unlikely I'd ever wind up handling anything about a Confidential document.

[postman1782]

As I'm not invested in Trump, it's an easy enough answer for me - he should face the same consequences any civilian would for the same crime (assuming there is a crime, obviously we haven't seen prosecution brought at this point). I know I would have been in deep shit for similar actions and that was very clear to me during training despite the fact that it was unlikely I'd ever wind up handling anything about a Confidential document.

Just having the documents, any of them, not just the classified ones, are against the presidential records act. And the classified ones, are against the espionage act. There is no assumption of a crime, he literally had the stolen classified material.

[Breccia]

A FOX News contributor reminds us all what's the biggest obstacle to Trump's success:

Trump's words and actions.

You do searches at the end of an investigation and that's why you never have this issue of releasing an affidavit in the middle of it, while the FBI is trying to gather evidence. The only way it makes sense to me that they're fighting so hard to avoid disclosing the information -- because information in these kinds of affidavits typically gets disclosed eventually in a criminal case -- the only reason it makes sense to fight over it is if you hope that you'll never have to disclose it, which argues toward not prosecuting him.

If he wants to keep berating the Justice Department and the FBI, he could talk himself into being charged because they could go to Garland and say, "You know, look, he's castigating us and the only way that we can get our reputations back and show the public what really happened here is to have a public trial," whereas I don't really think that's where this is headed.

I don't believe Garland is the kind of person who can be goaded into a fight, but that's not quite the issue here. Trump has already accused him of planting evidence on Biden's behalf and he didn't flinch. And for the most part, what Trump's willfully ill-informed rabid fanbase says based on their ignorance doesn't matter to Garland, either. But if enough GOP lawmakers continue to say, as they said before the affidavit was released then they got real quiet, "I have no authority here but you need to show me the evidence or back off!" the DOJ will respond in the only language they speak: court filings. So, yes, Trump could push himself into filed charges, if he yells loudly enough that the Party of Trump during primary season feels obligated to echo it.

[tehdang]

Multiple posters have demonstrated that your understanding of the situation is patently misinformed at best, and malicious disinformation at worst.

If a metaphor would make it easier for you, think of it like this.

Clinton was driving in a 45 zone going 50. A cop pulls her over, decides writing the ticket isn't worth it, and lets her off with a warning.

Trump was driving in a 45 zone going 95, ran up on the curb, cut off a police car, then lead them on a high-speed chase through downtown trying to lose them before they caught up with him, and now he's loudly complaining that he wants his car out of impound and that he was unfairly targeted for speeding because he saw Clinton going 50 when he blew by her.

And you're coming in here with "they both violated traffic laws! Why are the police treating them differently?!?!"

And your statements in this thread, following the metaphor, have only ever acquiesced to "Traffic laws are very important. I think the person doing 50 was in the wrong. Because they didn't give that driver a ticket, we clearly can't trust their judgement on any potential traffic violation."

Argument by analogy doesn't get you out of excusing lying, coverup, and obvious violations of the law. You're just deciding that Clinton's was less bad, when really her offense showed prosecutors don't really want to prosecute violations of that law. If you ever want to revisit Clinton's offense in the context of her doing 100 on the freeway, running cars off the road, and getting off with a stern verbal warning, let me know.

Well, let me ask you right now.

Are you more troubled by women getting abortions, illegal immigrants, and pushes for LGBTQ+ rights including things like trans women playing on women's sports teams and shared restrooms, or are you more troubled by high-ranking far right-wing politicians who occupy offices of power engaging in the distribution of conspiracy theories, judiciary malfeasance, and right wing violence?

Which do you think is a larger issue in the United States?

Because I think the people in power abusing power and the people they goad on dealing violence is more problematic. And no, I don't mean "idle threats on the internet," I mean "raiding the capitol building," "Storming an FBI office with the intent to kill," and "conspiracies to kidnap governors" egged on by politicians citing the existence of "space lasers" and peddling "mask hoaxes." To me, that's more important than what's in the pants of a person batting a volleyball over a net.

You're on your third reframe of your original post right now. I don't think it's salvageable in terms of twisting every response into a new question. I'll just restate that doing accusatory questions is not helped by transitioning to general invective against Republicans. Unless you will circle back to how women and minorities are being blamed for the mishandling of classified documents.

What evidence of malfeasance on the part of the FBI do you have? Trump claiming that there is?

You take Trump at his word that this is all cooked up. I choose to believe the thoughts of the FBI over the thoughts of the person they're investigating. A person who has lied in the past, is currently lying about the situation, and who I have no reason to believe wont continue to lie in the future.

They considered the Nunes memo to be ultra-secret, will destroy confidential agents and national security if it was declassified, and when it eventually was done so ... it was just resisted because the FBI screwed up in a major way. And multiple agents quit or were fired, and one took a plea deal on tampering with emails in order to lie to a judge. This FBI & DOJ does not deserve the benefit of the doubt on what they're leaking. They need to prove it in court. Indict Trump, levy charges. (It could still just be a hairbrained idea from someone in DOJ to get documents back and give the left a little shadenfreude and buzz in the process)

So you're going with "The FBI is probably making it all up and it's no big deal"

You're getting closer to an accurate summary. "The FBI & DOJ have no reason to be trusted with short statements and an abundance of leaks, so it's prudent to wait until indictments, release of near-totally unredacted documents, and/or cross-examination of FBI theories before a judge."

If that's the conspiracy you're going with, then you could have just said that outright.

This may be the first time I've heard doubts on bare speculation be called "conspiracy."

Your statement of "breaking the law is bad" is meaningless when, instead of saying how that pertains to your thoughts on Trump, you immediately pivoted it to "so don't you think Hillary Clinton is bad? You're a hypocrite if you don't!"

I illustrated what I meant by "prosecutorial discretion" by making the comparison to Hillary. She was never charged under the same statute that's in play here. She was never raided despite all the lies and destruction of evidence. I also wanted to know, in your heap of severe phrases, if you had the common sense to apply them to more than a political opponent. It told me someone about your perspective when you altogether refused to use the same standards when the political party was changed. Please let me know if you change your retrospective evaluation changes.

Which echoes my ultimate sentiment of: you don't care what Trump did. Your standing opinion seems to be that Trump is probably the victim of FBI overreaction and possibly malfeasance, as evidenced by your misunderstanding of the circumstances surrounding a completely unrelated investigation on a completely different person who did a completely unrelated thing. Which you then are giving yourself enough leeway to segue into "Well even if Trump did something wrong, Clinton did a wrong thing too!"

I don't think the FBI & whoever authorized it at the DOJ were right to raid the home of the former president, given what they've released thus far, which is paltry. In the words of a former prosecutor, "what damning events occurred that convinced the Justice Department that the drastic step of seeking a search warrant for a former president’s home was its best option." We just don't know, and I'm not going to write damning opinions in the face of the lack.

Which echoes my ultimate sentiment of: you don't care what Trump did ...

And you've never said that that assertion is wrong.

I've repeated long enough my opinions on what the raid means. Your sentimentality on why what I said justifies a conclusion of just not caring is of your own construction. It's your own business if you think some collection of leaks and assertions mean you must conclude guilt and proper raid now or be on team injustice. If I can confirm your understanding, you think all my talk about this being premature and unjustified based on what we know now doesn't contradict your assertion that the only reason I'm doing this is I don't care what Trump did.

Do you not know that he not only did that shit constantly, but he also ATE certain ones to hide shit. How do you not know this, what with you being a fan of Trump you'd think you'd know his favorite food is secrets.

I guess bare assertions really are evidence these days. X asserted Y was true, therefore we know Y is true.

At no point did I say that about the FBI, not sure why you're trying to change topics and lie some more, but it's hilarious that anyone believes you here or with you believing "but Hillary" has not only anything to do with what Trump did, but that is absolves him in any way. Seriously, go look shit up if you not only don't know he tore up documents, and ate some of them, but the shit he's doing here.

Oh, I thought the "but what about Hillary" quote from your post referred to the FBI. Please, what were you referring to involving her?

[Breccia]

Argument by analogy doesn't get you out of excusing lying, coverup, and obvious violations of the law.

Well that sounds like what Trump is trying, by constantly bringing up Clinton and Obama. Thank you for decrying what Trump is doing as his best, in fact only, defense against the crimes he's objectively guilty of.

[Dontrike]

Argument by analogy doesn't get you out of excusing lying, coverup, and obvious violations of the law. You're just deciding that Clinton's was less bad,

No, it's not a "decision" it's just plain reality that showed she obviously did less than Trump in this instance, one because she actually did what she was supposed to do and second because once an investigation was done it cleared her. The very fact you keep claiming what she did was worse is solely based on the fact that you're a fan of Republicans and their brand of illegal doings.

Even if what she did was found to be illegal it still doesn't come close to stealing nuclear secrets and other information that likely got people killed, and that's not even mentioning the casual treason that comes with it.

For someone that seems to hate analogies you sure have no problem with whataboutism and "but Hillary" for the last week.

[Kaleredar]

Argument by analogy doesn't get you out of excusing lying, coverup, and obvious violations of the law. You're just deciding that Clinton's was less bad, when really her offense showed prosecutors don't really want to prosecute violations of that law. If you ever want to revisit Clinton's offense in the context of her doing 100 on the freeway, running cars off the road, and getting off with a stern verbal warning, let me know.

You've demonstrated you really don't understand what occurred with Clinton. Multiple posters have pointed out such, and I've yet to see you actually refute them.

You should stop conflating this with something you clearly don't understand. And yes, it was YOU that brought up Clinton.

You're on your third reframe of your original post right now. I don't think it's salvageable in terms of twisting every response into a new question. I'll just restate that doing accusatory questions is not helped by transitioning to general invective against Republicans. Unless you will circle back to how women and minorities are being blamed for the mishandling of classified documents.

I'm not going to reframe it until you "understand" the rather simple premise I created from the outset.

So I'll extrapolate it thusly: Trump's actions don't bother you because you feel what democrats are doing is more harmful to America, and that he and any malfeasance he may commit is worth keeping them out.

Is that an accurate statement?

They considered the Nunes memo to be ultra-secret, will destroy confidential agents and national security if it was declassified, and when it eventually was done so ... it was just resisted because the FBI screwed up in a major way. And multiple agents quit or were fired, and one took a plea deal on tampering with emails in order to lie to a judge. This FBI & DOJ does not deserve the benefit of the doubt on what they're leaking. They need to prove it in court. Indict Trump, levy charges. (It could still just be a hairbrained idea from someone in DOJ to get documents back and give the left a little shadenfreude and buzz in the process)

You're getting closer to an accurate summary. "The FBI & DOJ have no reason to be trusted with short statements and an abundance of leaks, so it's prudent to wait until indictments, release of near-totally unredacted documents, and/or cross-examination of FBI theories before a judge."

This may be the first time I've heard doubts on bare speculation be called "conspiracy."

So yes, you're accusing the FBI of a grand overarching conspiracy, all on the word of Trump.

And you can't exactly claim that he "didn't have the documents." He very clearly did. It boils down to whether you care that he took the documents. Which you are then giving yourself a pass on caring that Trump had unsecured top secret and otherwise classified documents by claiming "Clinton did something like that."

I illustrated what I meant by "prosecutorial discretion" by making the comparison to Hillary. She was never charged under the same statute that's in play here. She was never raided despite all the lies and destruction of evidence. I also wanted to know, in your heap of severe phrases, if you had the common sense to apply them to more than a political opponent. It told me someone about your perspective when you altogether refused to use the same standards when the political party was changed. Please let me know if you change your retrospective evaluation changes.

Again, you haven't demonstrated you understand the difference between Clinton and Trump's situation. On multiple fronts. By multiple posters. Letting alone the FBI literally saying that their decision with Clinton should not be taken to be universally applicable to someone else who might do something similar.

I don't think the FBI & whoever authorized it at the DOJ were right to raid the home of the former president, given what they've released thus far, which is paltry. In the words of a former prosecutor, "what damning events occurred that convinced the Justice Department that the drastic step of seeking a search warrant for a former president’s home was its best option." We just don't know, and I'm not going to write damning opinions in the face of the lack.

Because they asked nicely for the documents that Trump had no right to retain and were denied.

Because they then issued a subpoena for the documents that Trump had no right to retain and it was ignored.

So then they raided his home for the documents. Because all other means of obtaining them had failed, and because Trump, former president or not, had no right to have them.

And nothing Hillary did or Obama did or anyone else did, or your flagrant misunderstanding of what they did, gave him that right.

So either you're asserting that Trump didn't have the documents in question, or, by merit of being a former president (yes, former, as he's not the "rightful president" regardless of his claims, which I'm sure is a whole other can of worms from Trump you're ignoring,) should have been able to retain them for however long he wanted in any way he saw fit, and he should have expected no recourse for having done so.

Those are your only two options here.

I've repeated long enough my opinions on what the raid means. Your sentimentality on why what I said justifies a conclusion of just not caring is of your own construction. It's your own business if you think some collection of leaks and assertions mean you must conclude guilt and proper raid now or be on team injustice. If I can confirm your understanding, you think all my talk about this being premature and unjustified based on what we know now doesn't contradict your assertion that the only reason I'm doing this is I don't care what Trump did.

I don't think you'll care what Trump did no matter what happens.

[Breccia]

Graham's wife tells me that her husband went on live TV and said

If there’s a prosecution of Donald Trump for mishandling classified information, after the Clinton debacle…there’ll be riots in the streets

"She's very good at exact quotes."

Well, she needs breath control for *cough* so Graham also brought up the Clinton thing, calling it a 'double-standard' in a way only Trump defenders use to deflect from their chosen party leader being a criminal. Of course, if Graham was indeed on FOX News, that only means he was hitting their target demographic right in the disinformation. Oh, and I got another CNN point.

EDIT: Obviously, I hope that even Trump defenders don't resort to violence in the goal of political change, also known as "literal terrorism". But if they must do so, (a) I don't want to hear shit about BLM ever again, and (b) wearing bright red items on their skulls when pissing off SWAT snipers would be the last stupid thing they'll ever do.

[s_bushido]

How many more hearings and investigations of Clinton do they want, exactly? Is it really the Dem's fault that they couldn't pin anything on her after, what, a decade+ of trying?

[Breccia]

How many more hearings and investigations of Clinton do they want, exactly?

They don't want investigations. Actual actions can fail to get results. Promises, threats, and speeches about investigations, those never get old. Well, not to the rabid fanbase, at least.

[Kaleredar]

Graham's wife tells me that her husband went on live TV and said



"She's very good at exact quotes."

Well, she needs breath control for *cough* so Graham also brought up the Clinton thing, calling it a 'double-standard' in a way only Trump defenders use to deflect from their chosen party leader being a criminal. Of course, if Graham was indeed on FOX News, that only means he was hitting their target demographic right in the disinformation. Oh, and I got another CNN point.

EDIT: Obviously, I hope that even Trump defenders don't resort to violence in the goal of political change, also known as "literal terrorism". But if they must do so, (a) I don't want to hear shit about BLM ever again, and (b) wearing bright red items on their skulls when pissing off SWAT snipers would be the last stupid thing they'll ever do.

I invite any and all potential "riots in the street" that result from the pursuit of justice if it means Trump is properly brought up on these crimes.

Just like I said to kokulums and Yuppie a billion times when they'd g on their little "angry right-wingers attacking if Trump is ever held accountable" tirades:

The just will not fear the unjust. If these people want to out themselves as crazy conspiracy nutters, then so be it. And if these people want to put themselves up against the US government when it comes to a conflict, they're more than welcome to try. It'll get them off the streets one way or another.

[Shadowferal]

"Riots on the street" was already tried with a poor attempt at insurrection.

[s_bushido]

"Riots on the street" was already tried with a poor attempt at insurrection.

That was clearly a false flag by the feds and their Antifa shocktroops, so it doesn't count.

[Breccia]

This Axios article is a pretty good summary piece on the woes of CyberTrump 2077. Most of it is stuff we know: they owe RightForge $1.6 million, DWAC asked their shareholders to put off the purchase for a year, nobody knows who works for them, etc etc.

A few things they add which I didn't know and therefore I project onto you that you didn't know either:

1) Trump has 4 million followers. On Twitter, he was pushing 90 million. Axios didn't say how many of either were bots.

2) He got a million of them since the raid. Worth noting: Musk said Twitter was worth $44 billion. Trump says his media platform is worth $1 billion. Dividing the 88 million followers he had by 44 would be about the pre-raid number. Of course, Trump on his platform very likely has that Tom from MySpace thing going that he was automatically added.

3) CyberTrump 2077 still isn't available for Android. Axios says that's 44% of US smartphones.

4) DWAC has almost $300 million in cash. This actually lines up fairly well. The stock surged to over $100 when Trump said he had a billion in funding. It's now about $30, and DWAC has about 30% of a billion. This cash, by law, is in a special trust that can only be used for the DWAC merger, or returned to its clients. I don't think CyberTrump 2077 is worth a billion, and I don't think DWAC thinks it's worth a billion, either.

If Trump is forced to wait a year before the merger, that means he's not getting the cash yet, because that's how not paying people works. He should be familiar with that. He'll have to use his own money to keep it afloat for a year -- and that's even assuming DWAC doesn't just nope the fuck out of this whole thing.

And it's been my personal experience that, while media outlets are quoting Trump from his social media platform, they're not generally linking it. Which means they don't think it's viable, either.

Hey Siri, tell me a joke.

"Truth Social."

- - - Updated - - -

Well, that second judge who suggested she'd be in favor of a "special master", despite Trump's fourth-grade-level legal filing, hasn't ruled yet -- just given her opinion before the DoJ even made their case at all. Hmm. Sounds a little awkward.

But whatever. We all know how this works: the FBI took everything that might have been a problem, rather than scrutinize literally every scrap of paper on-site, and will return what isn't covered by the warrant. Which is standard practice.

Of course, it could be weeks bef--

DOJ: "We're done."

Wait, what?

DOJ: "Yeah, remember how the warrant was two weeks ago? We've been doing our jobs this whole time. This isn't DeSantis' voter fraud team made out of tinfoil hatters and police academy dropouts. This is the FBMFI, son, while we're on the clock we get this shit done."

So...what did you find?

DOJ: "We did find a limited number of items that could, potentially, be lawyer-client. Naturally we put those aside for further review without reading them, because unlike some people we don't break the rules."

What about WH Executive Privilege?

DOJ: "Those were already ours. That's the stuff we were looking for in the first place. We put those in a secure location because it's top fucking secret and classified fucking intelligence and you're not supposed to leave it lying around some random-ass three-star hotel."

Um...so what now?

DOJ: "Well we have a filter team for exactly this kind of stuff. Let us know when this 'special master' appears out of thin air and shows up to proofread our work. We'll be over here, catching domestic terrorists and shit. Peace the fuck out."

[Paranoid Android]

This immunity thing is great.

*Sarcasm Incoming* This is satire.

If Trump is correct then Biden has some incredible powers to possibly (sarcasm) take out people who go after Hunter. Now I'm not calling for taking of any life or harm.

Hunter? This guy might have free range by proxy. I think Hunter can really do some damage and let's just find a nice immunity cloak for Hunter.


Fascism and worship of some authoritarian is scary. While polling sadly shows not even 60% believe in prosecuting a President who does a crime and our great two party system where one is blocking for Trump, really does give a person a possible God King status if elected President.

[Edge-]

https://www.rollingstone.com/politic...on-1234583872/

Trump is demanding an election redo because he didn't listen to the Zuckerberg interview on Joe Rogan, or Zuckerbergs earlier testimony in front of Congress where he said the exact same thing.

Part of me wants to be like...yeah, go for it. Lose a second time in two years, loser. But alas for him, there's no Constitutional mechanism for this so he'll just have to cry into his small, orange hands.

[Demolitia]

https://www.rollingstone.com/politic...on-1234583872/

Trump is demanding an election redo because he didn't listen to the Zuckerberg interview on Joe Rogan, or Zuckerbergs earlier testimony in front of Congress where he said the exact same thing.

Part of me wants to be like...yeah, go for it. Lose a second time in two years, loser. But alas for him, there's no Constitutional mechanism for this so he'll just have to cry into his small, orange hands.

I know that's not a useful or constructive comment, but from an EU perspective, "how the fuck is this possible" is what comes to mind. And we include Hungary and Poland.