Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Breccia]

That's not how this works.

Indeed.

While even our resident Trump supporters admit he's a criminal (not that they have a choice, but it's still kind of them to reflect reality) I keep wondering...what, exactly, was Trump trying to do by claims of privilege?

How Executive Privilege works is hardly a secret anymore, but there's really no option that helps Trump here.

1) We've all been over plenty of times, Trump has a real problem asserting privilege while not in the White House. Worse, for him at least, Trump appointed Kavanaugh to SCOTUS, but Kavanaugh has personally argued that the public should have a very hard time reading former President Bush's records. Mar-a-Lago's staff is "the public". Kavanaugh is likely going to take a dim view on Trump stealing WH documents and keeping them in a hotel basement.

2) There is no angle anyone could possibly use to claim Biden can't read Trump's documents. You know what would stop that? Trump stealing them and lying about it.

3) Also, if you read literally everything written on former Presidents' privilege, you'd notice there's a crime exception. Biden can waive a former President's privilege, if it interferes with his duty leading the Executive Branch. For example, if privilege is stopping the DoJ from seeing evidence of a crime. Thanks, Nixon!

4) Also, Trump has now said in public he was taking the items for his library. Normally NARA does that, so taking them is counterproductive. Trump might have meant his own private Trump library, but, um, why would he claim privilege on items he was going to put in public? Trump's defenses are contrary to each other.

5) Also, Trump claims he declassified them. I'm at a loss to explain how something is declassified and yet privileged.

6) As I've also mentioned, Trump removed a bunch of files from their folders and, best case scenario, the FBI found them anyhow. If you take documents out of their protective folder that says "Don't read the contents" you can't expect the FBI to respect those instructions, because you removed those instructions.

7) And the big one, of course, is still that items covered by privilege are still not the property of private civilian Donald Trump. Even if the FBI read them, which again would be completely understandable because Trump more or less put them out in public, that doesn't change the fact that their very presence in his house is the crime.

Hey @cubby if I stole your briefcase filled with your clients' files, and you called the police on me, could I tell the cops with the warrant at my house "Wait, you can't take those files, because they're privileged"?

[postman1782]

No such order exists.

The fuck it doesn't. https://www.lawfareblog.com/trump-lo...tive-privilege

This is even about the National Archives as well. This was the Supreme Court saying the former president, does not have executive privilege. Only the current president can claim executive privilege.

[Flarelaine]

The fuck it doesn't. https://www.lawfareblog.com/trump-lo...tive-privilege

This is even about the National Archives as well. This was the Supreme Court saying the former president, does not have executive privilege. Only the current president can claim executive privilege.

The catch here is that Trumpsters believe Trump is the current president.

[P for Pancetta]

Any other person would've been long on death-row for the crimes committed. This whole process is a joke.

[tehdang]

Funny story: they did. Remember, they were looking for things Trump stole from the WH. Their filter team already removed the rest. Executive Privileged documents don't belong to Trump, so even if the FBI said "hey, let's read every single word of every single page" it would not change the fact that Trump stole documents, and the FBI found them.

The filter team failed to remove documents potentially protected by executive privilege in clear contradiction of past supreme court precedent. They invented a novel legal theory as to why they didn't need to. That one crashed and burned.

In other words, you keep admitting Trump is a criminal. We agree.

You'll have to update your understanding of 'reserving judgement' one of these days.

Your contention here seems to be that you assume that the contents of those folders included

Stopping you right here. I make no assumptions. I speak of what has been introduced at court and examined by judges. The DoJ was negligent in its filter team. This negligence invited the appointment of a special master and temporary pause in its investigation.

The DoJ may have legal theories of criminality that they wish to advance. We shall see those when they're required to prove it at court. Not with these incessant media leaks and rumors.

For someone that claims to hate bias so much you sure do have a ton of it for Trump, almost like you're a hypocrite, especially if you believe he's not a criminal. Why would he steal classified and top secret documents again? You've never explained it.

Yes yes we all must pronounce citizens guilty prior to indictment on charges. I love the new era of partisanship.

Yeah yeah, the FBI is only bad when it goes after your Trumpy bear. Shouldn't you be using Truth Social right now? At least there everyone believes the lies you spew.

I know the judge's order was inconvenient, but really you should start getting on board with "I think he's guilty, I think you should think he's guilty at this moment in time, but what you say has grounding in the facts of the case."

It would, you know, avoid having to call judges ruling on process (not criminality, mind you) partisan or hacks or all that stuff. The more you have to call court decisions and supreme court rulings "lies," the less people will believe you have good insight into what's going on.

The fuck it doesn't. https://www.lawfareblog.com/trump-lo...tive-privilege

This is even about the National Archives as well. This was the Supreme Court saying the former president, does not have executive privilege. Only the current president can claim executive privilege.

Uhh, wrong.

Here's a reminder. Trump failed in his exertion of executive privilege in that case because the privileged communication at issue was the narrow subject of a special congressional committee pursuant to its lawful exercise of power. Secondly, and importantly, Trump asserted his executive privilege, and no action was possible on the covered documents until it had been denied by the high court. Bad instructions to filter teams denies him that right in the current case.

But as long as we're in the argument-by-links phase, here's one.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/...be-into-chaos/

The Justice Department has not yet commented as of this writing, but it seems certain that prosecutors will seek a reversal of Cannon’s order from the Eleventh Circuit — specifically, to the extent the district judge (a) concluded that Trump, as a former president, may retain an executive privilege of confidentiality that can be successfully asserted against the executive branch of the incumbent president and (b) suspended the ongoing criminal investigation until a special master can be appointed and has a meaningful opportunity to review the apparently thousands of documents seized.

When a salient point of law is unclear, the responsible course for prosecutors is to flag the issue for the court and get a ruling before taking controversial actions. Instead, in seeking the search warrant, DOJ advised Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart that the filtering process that would be implemented in connection with documents seized in the search would screen only for attorney-client privileged documents, not executive privileged documents. The latter category is apt to be considerably more expansive. It does not appear that DOJ alerted Reinhart to the possibility that Trump could have a colorable executive-privilege claim, and there’s no indication that Reinhart raised the question on his own.

Gee whillickers, you may get one, or even two, court rulings on exactly this point of contention. All you have to do is hold your horses a tiny bit. And, maybe, avoid dismissing such matters outright, since they're the subject of court decisions and likely appeals. You could even avoid calling judges dumb by implication, in their court orders that don't dismiss possible executive privilege claims outright.

The catch here is that Trumpsters believe Trump is the current president.

I've been saying this is about executive privilege claims by the former president from the outset. Maybe this is one voice against calling me a Trumpster? Nah, I bet it'll get reduced to "some Trumpsters" or "most Trumpsters."

[Breccia]

The filter team failed--

You do not know what the filter team removed. Your entire post is premised with outright guesswork, with no facts to back it up. SCOTUS has never ruled on a case like this -- there has never been a case like this. So, that part is an outright lie on your part.

But thanks once again for admitting Trump stole government property, which is a crime. Honestly, you don't need to keep doing that. The first time was enough.

- - - Updated - - -

It occurs to me that some of the defenses we're seeing from Trump and the rabid fanbase are so, well, outlandish, because they're looking at the wrong crime. The FBI executed a search warrant because NARA asked them to get back the material Trump stole. They were not looking for the Jan 6th committee. Maybe privilege will help there, maybe it won't, but that's not the issue right now.

The issue right now is, Trump stole government property (including SCI) that he's not allowed to have. Whether or not it's privileged doesn't change that part. Trump's supporters are defending him against the next crime, because they know they're going to need to.

There is no defense against this current crime. The FBI left Mar-a-Lago with government property Trump stole. Trump's flailing defenses include "the FBI planted stuff on me for my library" none of which makes sense, but the Executive Privilege bit is only relevant for his role in other crimes -- such as leading a murderous insurrection.

[Gorsameth]

They ran out of ways to defend Trump actually having the documents so they are running to find anything else to use as a distraction.
I don't even get why the filter team looking at documents under potential Executive Privilege is relevant unless Trump supporters expect some of the stuff the FBI took to be used in other cases running against Trump.

The contents of the documents is not relevant to the current FBI action, Trump having them at all is what matters. The filter team only needed to separate official government files, regardless of their content, from Trumps personal effects.

[Endus]

Yes yes we all must pronounce citizens guilty prior to indictment on charges. I love the new era of partisanship.

The premise of being held innocent until proven guilty in a court of law is a principle that only ever applies to actual court proceedings. It mandates you get a trial to convict, before you're sentenced. That's it. That's all it means.

It doesn't mean a suspect can't be arrested and held in a jail cell until trial.

It doesn't mean a suspect's property can't be searched for evidence of a crime.

It doesn't mean no investigation of that suspect and their compatriots can be done.

It doesn't mean anyone outside the courts themselves can't form an opinion as to their culpability, and express that opinion publicly; it necessarily falls short of defamation because the very fact of an investigation into such demonstrates that there's justifiable reason to believe they might have done the thing. If it's enough for authorities to investigate, it's more than enough for private citizens to express opinions.

[Draco-Onis]

It would be hard for any president to receive unfiltered advice if their advisers are subject to exposure the second the president leaves. This is an obvious abrogation of executive privilege as a concept.

ROFLMAO he isn't president any advisor he has doesn't matter, he doesn't have privilege anymore and his advisors are not with the current president. You right winger sure do love crime and hate the police how ironic.

No such order exists.

The supreme court has said so and Joe Biden you know the current president who gets to decide executive privilege have already said so.

- - - Updated - - -

They ran out of ways to defend Trump actually having the documents so they are running to find anything else to use as a distraction.
I don't even get why the filter team looking at documents under potential Executive Privilege is relevant unless Trump supporters expect some of the stuff the FBI took to be used in other cases running against Trump.

The contents of the documents is not relevant to the current FBI action, Trump having them at all is what matters. The filter team only needed to separate official government files, regardless of their content, from Trumps personal effects.

I think Lindsey Graham said the position of reich wingers perfectly Trump in and out of office is above the law in their opinion.

[Gorsameth]

"Laws for you, not for me" is a core tenant of the GOP

[Breccia]

They ran out of ways to defend Trump actually having the documents so they are running to find anything else to use as a distraction.

To give Trump what little credit he's due, if a document really is Executive Privilege, because it refers to him setting or following WH policy, it should not be part of the Jan 6th investigation.

Problem for Trump is, his re-election is not WH business. Like, end of story, point over. How states vote is out of his tiny hands. How the House/Senate votes is out of his tiny hands. Those discussions, and any discussions about how to change those (*cough* starting a lynch mob *cough*) are not privileged for the Jan 6th committee.

Of course, the subpoena that Trump violated that led to this FBI raid isn't that. NARA found out Trump stole stuff and he refused to give it back, leading to an entirely different set of broken laws, that not even the rabid fanbase can counter. Trump is just objectively guilty, especially if the documents are Executive Privileged.

[bladeXcrasher]

This is "I can shoot someone on the street and my supporters wouldn't care"...minus the shooting in the street.

[Breccia]

Well, enough about even Trump supporters admitting Trump is guilty of crimes. Let's talk about, I dunno, DWAC? Let's just check the stock price and HOLY FAT ORANGE FUCK it dropped 17% almost instantly.

What happened? It was a holiday weekend, nothing happens on holiday weekends!

Well..something did, apparently. The most reasonable story is that DWAC's vote to extend the deadline happened and failed. The deadline to purchase is still Sept 8, but there may be some legalese mumbo jumbo I can't predict that gets in the way.

DWAC's initial stocks sold for $10, and are currently $20.

"That's good!"

But remember, the price almost instantly spiked to over $100 and was over $25 all the way up until last week. Literally anyone who wasn't in on the ground floor lost money on this deal.

"That's bad."

Plus, the SEC investigation will not end just because they called the merger off.

"That's go...wait, are we not doing the Simpsons yoghurt thing?"

And also, if/when the merger fails, Trump doesn't get that billion in cash (well, his share of it...wait, is he on the board or not?) he would have used to keep himself above water paying loans. He also remains pretty much the sole owner of a knock-off Chinese Twitter account with fewer fans than an Ohio sports franchise.

There is a special shareholder meeting in an hour, apparently. I expect we'll see the answers soon. DWAC has no reason to drop below $10, should they liquidate, they have to pay back the initial investment...and eat any other operational losses.

Doing business with Donald Trump has proven, time and again, to be a good way to lose money. The people buying into DWAC knew what they were doing. I have no sympathy, no empathy, no sadface for them.

CyberTrump 2077 lost, get over it.

[Edge-]

The filter team failed to remove documents potentially protected by executive privilege in clear contradiction of past supreme court precedent.

I do not believe the precedent was set with the potential documents being evidence of crimes. That's the rub here, most other instances where issues of privilege have come up weren't directly related to federal criminal investigations.

- - - Updated - - -

This is "I can shoot someone on the street and my supporters wouldn't care"...minus the shooting in the street.

This test already happened when Dick Cheney shot a guy in the face "accidentally" while on a hunting trip. Even the guy he shot in the face still supported him.

- - - Updated - - -

CyberTrump 2077 lost, get over it.

Just catching up on this news now.

I missed this from Trump though -



So like...cool? He's rich so...take the company private? Why do so via mergers and investor backing when he could have just done it himself?

I feel like once upon a time we were worried about Trump leaving the White House to start a media empire. And that those concerns, while potentially valid given his mastery of the manipulation of media, were unfounded for one key reason. Trump is unable to actually start or run successful companies that can't extensively use shady tactics and engage in things like overvaluing property for loan purposes and then undervaluing it for tax purposes.

IN OTHER NEWS: https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/06/polit...gia/index.html

Oh look, more Trump folks engaged in wrongdoing related to voting.

A Republican official in GA escorted two Trump operatives into a election office...and in a coincidence on that same day the voting system there was breached.

Just a total coincidence.

And as a reminder: Republicans are guilty of literally everything they continue to accuse Democrats of.

[Breccia]

Why do so via mergers and investor backing when he could have just done it himself?

Come on, we both know the answer to that.

Trump is lying.

[cubby]

They ran out of ways to defend Trump actually having the documents so they are running to find anything else to use as a distraction.
I don't even get why the filter team looking at documents under potential Executive Privilege is relevant unless Trump supporters expect some of the stuff the FBI took to be used in other cases running against Trump.

The contents of the documents is not relevant to the current FBI action, Trump having them at all is what matters. The filter team only needed to separate official government files, regardless of their content, from Trumps personal effects.

This is basically the situation now. They are ignoring the major issues of Trump in possession of SAP/SAC documents just lying around his office, and other situations where he has empty classified folders with documents unaccounted for. The National Security Office is already doing a Risk Assessment, which is right before they do a Threat Assessment.

At this point, the only thing keeping Trump from being indicted is his profile as a former President, and his legion of violent insurrectionists threatening any legal action against him.

(notice how @tehdang still can't even answer the simplest questions? )

[Edge-]

Speaking of the election and lawsuits and money and stuff. Y'all remember the Dominion lawsuit against Fox for $1.6B?

It's still going on and has some twists - https://www.npr.org/2022/09/06/11211...-lawsuit-pirro

The November 2020 email from an anguished Fox News news producer to colleagues sent up a flare amid a fusillade of false claims.

The producer warned: Fox cannot let host Jeanine Pirro back on the air. She is pulling conspiracy theories from dark corners of the Web to justify then-President Donald Trump's lies that the election had been stolen from him. The existence of the email, confirmed by two people with direct knowledge of it, is first publicly disclosed by NPR in this story. Fox News declined comment.

Pirro was far from alone in broadcasting such false claims. In the weeks that followed Election Day 2020, other prominent Fox stars, commentators and their guests heavily promoted them.

This email is likely pretty disastrous for Fox's case if it truly exists, as it shows that the lies were known internally, warned against, and ignored anyways. I'll let real lawyers correct me if I'm wrong here, but this is exactly why you see career criminals like Trump intentionally not using emails and notes that can be archived and referenced. Because paper trails are damning when you're facing lawsuits over what you knew and when you knew it.

- - - Updated - - -

https://www.axios.com/2022/09/06/rep...nt-health-care

So we've already gone over how many Republicans running for office this midterm are frantically trying to scrub their extremist views on girls and womens bodily autonomy from their websites and everything.

Well, that's not the only thing - https://www.axios.com/2022/09/06/rep...nt-health-care

Republicans in tight congressional races are going silent on health care, scrubbing campaign websites of anti-abortion language and in some cases distancing themselves from past criticisms of the Affordable Care Act.

...

Axios contacted Republican campaigns in 10 of the closest House and Senate races. Only Nevada's U.S. Senate hopeful Adam Laxalt responded. And a review of candidates' websites and past statements found that even hard-liners endorsed by former President Trump have dialed back language on social media channels and eschewed positions like repealing the ACA.

Laxalt campaigned against the ACA while running for Nevada Attorney General in 2018. He softened his stance two year later when running for governor, saying he supported protections for patients with preexisting conditions. Now, as he challenges incumbent Democrat Catherine Cortez Masto, the only health care issue on his website is investigating what he terms public health failures of the government's COVID-19 response.

His press secretary, Brian Freimuth, wouldn't elaborate on Laxalt's position on the ACA, but said if elected, he would "prioritize reducing costs, expanding choices, and allowing patients to keep the doctor they prefer while protecting those with pre-existing conditions."

Ohio Senate candidate J.D. Vance also hasn't laid out a health care agenda on his website, though he said at a February campaign event that "Obamacare was a disaster" and needed to be repealed and replaced by "something with substance."

Georgia Senate hopeful Herschel Walker hasn't spoken much about health care, but his website said he wants to increase "competitive market options to ensure that every Georgian has access to quality, affordable healthcare."

North Carolina Senate candidate Ted Budd also isn't showcasing policy points or saying much on health care since April, when he lamented on a podcast that an Obamacare repeal and replace bill he backed as a congressman in 2017 died in the Senate.

Pennsylvania Senate hopeful Mehmet Oz, a retired cardiothoracic surgeon, has said he'd expand access to private short-term health plans former President Trump championed as an alternative to ACA coverage. CNN reported in March that Oz previously supported federal health insurance mandates and promoted the Affordable Care Act, though his campaign told CNN that stance had changed.

Ohio's Madison Gesiotto Gilbert, who's running for the 13th congressional district, told an Ohio Trump rally in April that she backs eliminating Obamacare but has since confined her positions to opposing Medicare for All and backing "patient-centered health care that removes the role of the federal government."

Between the lines: This kind of distancing makes sense, said Republican strategist Brendan Buck.

"Republicans have been talking about health care for the last decade almost exclusively around repeal and replace. We found out the hard way that it’s not a winning issue anymore and backed off of that entirely."

Just a reminder that the Republican party is literally the, "Do-nothing" party. They have no platform. No vision. They're purely regressive and reactionary, with no forward-thinking vision beyond, "Maybe we should cut taxes once more?"

To highlight that point -

The big picture: The difficulty has been coming up with a distinctly Republican take on health care, said Larry Levitt, executive vice president of the Kaiser Family Foundation.

"When Republican candidates have talked about health care, it's generally in opposition to Democratic plans," Levitt said. "That leaves Republicans in a bit of a box in this campaign since the ACA is now as popular as ever."

Recent KFF polling shows the Affordable Care Act has a 55% approval rating, one of the highest ratings on the law since it was implemented.

[Breccia]

They have no platform.

Every Democrat running against an incumbent Republican needs to throw their ACA vote in their face. They don't want people to remember? Remind them.

[Edge-]

Every Democrat running against an incumbent Republican needs to throw their ACA vote in their face. They don't want people to remember? Remind them.

It does require context in many states, including that their Republican governments are often unwilling to take federal funding for expanded coverage. You know, reminding people that not only do Republicans still not have a replacement for the ACA over a decade after they began the "Repeal and replace!" campaigning, and that in the interim that Republicans are intentionally rejecting federal dollars that could help people in their state.

Weird that many, if not most, of the moves from Republicans are specifically designed to harm people.

- - - Updated - - -

https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/s...76546730708992

Why the fuck doe Ted Cruz keep talking about Mickey Mouse and Pluto having a gay relationship?

Does Rafael Cruz really just wanna see an anthropomorphic cartoon mouse and a cartoon dog raw dogging each other or something? Someone should probably introduce him to Rule 34 (DO NOT GOOGLE THIS) because I'm fairly certain this absolutely exists.

[cubby]

Speaking of the election and lawsuits and money and stuff. Y'all remember the Dominion lawsuit against Fox for $1.6B?

It's still going on and has some twists - https://www.npr.org/2022/09/06/11211...-lawsuit-pirro

The November 2020 email from an anguished Fox News news producer to colleagues sent up a flare amid a fusillade of false claims.

The producer warned: Fox cannot let host Jeanine Pirro back on the air. She is pulling conspiracy theories from dark corners of the Web to justify then-President Donald Trump's lies that the election had been stolen from him. The existence of the email, confirmed by two people with direct knowledge of it, is first publicly disclosed by NPR in this story. Fox News declined comment.

Pirro was far from alone in broadcasting such false claims. In the weeks that followed Election Day 2020, other prominent Fox stars, commentators and their guests heavily promoted them.

This email is likely pretty disastrous for Fox's case if it truly exists, as it shows that the lies were known internally, warned against, and ignored anyways. I'll let real lawyers correct me if I'm wrong here, but this is exactly why you see career criminals like Trump intentionally not using emails and notes that can be archived and referenced. Because paper trails are damning when you're facing lawsuits over what you knew and when you knew it.-

If this is the case, and that email does contain the "lies" reference in there, then yeah, that's some pretty bad shit for Fox (not denying you or the NPR story, just to be clear - just whether the courts will "see" the email.

If the case keeps going south for Faux, they might end up settling.