Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Breccia]

I wonder how often GOP politicians wake up in a cold sweat in the middle of the night...dreading the fact that they've hitched their political careers/legacies to this delusional buffoon, of all people.

They just close their eyes and think of Anglo Land.

[Kaleredar]

I wonder how often GOP politicians wake up in a cold sweat in the middle of the night...dreading the fact that they've hitched their political careers/legacies to this delusional buffoon, of all people.

The only thing they understand is loss.

Not humility, not honor, not decency, not decorum, not morality. Just whether they win... or lose.

The GOP is poised to gain as much as they're poised to face crushing losses. And so long as they maintain being the party of post-fact, vulturous conspiracy nut zealots who readily court nazis and white supremacists, they deserve to have nothing but crushing losses handed to them.

If they can't change themselves into be respectable, then they deserve to be made irrelevant.

[postman1782]

Project Veritas loses lawsuit against Democratic firms because the jury said they violated wiretapping and hidden camera laws. Jury awards only $120,000 though.

The judge in the case can still impose punitive damages for the wiretapping though.

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/0...ritas-00058490

[fwc577]

snip

I hate this.
I hate the person who created this.
I hate you for posting this.
<3

[Corvus]

Something else that Trump sad in his Hannity interview that hasn't been raised here yet but is over at dailykos;

“Because you’re sending it, to Mar-a-Lago or wherever you’re sending it. And there can be a process, but there doesn’t have to be. You’re the president. You make that decision. So when you send it, it’s declassified. I declassified everything.”

Um, where else was he sending these documents?

[Breccia]

Um, where else was he sending these documents?

I actually will give him a pass on that one. For all we know, he's talking about while he was still in office. That said, you're not the first one to raise that issue. Cohen said the same and he knows Trump's criminal behavior better than most. Michael Bolton backed that up. The fact that the FBI hasn't gone Trump door to Trump door kicking them down suggests they don't have enough evidence that such are there -- Cohen's statement is a firm belief but I don't think he actually saw them.

I do see that Trump and his rabid fanbase are still trying "It's okay because it was declassified" as a defense, when it's not. My neighbor has a F250 that's not classified, I still can't take it without asking. Those documents aren't Trump's, end of story.

Oh, and things said on Hannity by Trump are probably the least credible things there are. Trump lies about everything all the time. There has yet to be any court filing in which Trump asserts declassification (or proves it) and the same with either privilege. His lawyers have said along the lines of "they might be" or "you need to prove he didn't declassify them". And, well, we know how that went.

Poorly.

Speaking of poor, As Trump’s Legal Woes Mount, So Do Financial Pressures on Him

There is no evidence that he faces any immediate crisis. In an interview on Thursday, Eric Trump, his son, said the Trump Organization was in a strong position, noting that it had recently paid off some outstanding debts and seen a windfall from the sale of the Trump International Hotel in Washington.

But when stacked up altogether, the potential costs that the former president faces show that his challenges extend beyond the courtroom and into the maintenance of his wealth even as he continues to signal that he plans another run for the White House.

At a minimum, Mr. Trump’s hopes for new moneymaking ventures are sputtering: The deal that had the potential to reap perhaps the biggest profits for him — a merger involving his upstart social media company — is hanging by a thread, as regulatory and law enforcement scrutiny threatens to unravel it.

Mr. Trump remains a formidable political fund-raising force, but even there his situation is complex. Should he become a presidential candidate, he could face tight new restrictions on the personal use of money he has kept in his main political action committee and used for legal fees, Trump properties and even Melania Trump’s designer.

John A. E. Pottow, a professor of commercial law at University of Michigan, said the sort of legal cases that the Trump Organization faces can hurt any corporation.

“You have a company that has some serious litigation risks,” he said. “They have major liability on the horizon.”

So, Trump isn't desperate for cash...yet. But the lawsuit from NY alone could eat every single dollar from the sale of the DC hotel, and then some. I believe with public evidence that Trump didn't want to sell the DC hotel so much as he needed liquid cash to pay loans coming due. And, well, if he can't do that he has some problems that happen to be friends with Russian money launderers.

Trump is also being sued by Jan 6th victims. While their costs from medical bills etc. was probably neither bigly nor yuge, the fact that Trump claims to be rich and is trying to profit off those attacks could factor in punative damages. Can you imagine being the lawyer who says "Good news Mr. Trump, they only sued you for $10 million. Um, each."

And let's not forget, Trump campaigned and ran while refusing to release his taxes, claiming he's under audit. If that's true, and he's found liable for all kinds of fraud, Biden's IRS owes Trump no favors -- and I'm guessing quite the opposite.

- - - Updated - - -

So I "made the rounds" of various sources with articles along the lines of "Why is NYState suing? Why not arrest him, or shoot him?" Yeah some of the sites are really biased.

There are a variety of answers. Could be any, or all:

1) We already know NYState basically had to have separate criminal and civil investigations. They can and will communicate, but they're not the same investigation. The civil case just got what it needed first.

2) And, yes, this could be bait to force Trump to take the stand. Trump can avoid that by taking the Fifth another few hundred times before a judge and jury, likely losing the case, hundreds of millions, and the ability to run his own goddam business with his own goddam name. And that's a good outcome. Worst for Trump is he says on the stand what he says in public, i.e. easily disprovable lies, and the fun begins with perjury and continues with probable cause to look at every piece of paper Trump Org ever printed or had signed.

3) The standard of doubt is much more favorable in a civil case. The NY AG doesn't need to prove Trump did everything without any doubt, just that he more likely than not told all those employees to commit all those crimes. Something a few memos and a few witnesses can easily hit.

4) There is such a thing as a victimless crime. Deutsche Bank isn't suing for Trump lying to him...yet...and I suspect they don't want to, because then Trump just won't pay them and they really want their money back. They don't want Trump Tower, it's a cash pit and not worth all that much. But Trump's misvaluation has led to tax breaks he didn't deserve, meaning he stole from NY taxpayers, and NYState can sue on their behalf.

5) Trump will not fight the lawsuit as hard has he would fight being thrown in jail. The lawsuit has a better chance of results before Nov 2024.

6) NYState doesn't want to step on the DOJ's toes by also trying to arrest him. For the record, I'm presenting this one even though I don't believe it's true. I'm pretty sure Trump in a jail cell for one crime makes it far easier to investigate and prosecute him for others.

7) Remember how I said the FBI at Mar-a-Lago was a starter's pistol? NYState might have wanted the signal to be more clear. NYState's investigation parallels/overlaps with the criminal investigation as noted before, but also the IRS. "Hey guys," this lawsuit could be saying, "step up to the fucking plate already, time's kind of an issue here."

8) NYState is trying to lock down Trump's finances before the remaining investigations strike. Not only could these lawsuits take far more cash than he has onhand, if Cohen is right at least, but also restrict his access to legal fees while he fires his lawyers for failing to defend his objectively guilty ass. Basically, NY could be the Bard and the DOJ could be the Barbarian.

9) This could be a trap to have Trump siphon off his PAC funds just to "stay alive". Oh, while it's being investigated, so that could be fun.

EDIT: Wait, I missed one.

9a) This is an attempt to divide and conquer, splitting up the loyalties of the Trump family. Even one trying to get a deal struck would be enough. Well, maybe not Eric, he's a moron.

And of course

10) It could actually be personal. Nobody hates anyone like NYC hates Trump. While I don't think anyone who rises to the level of State AG should say "Well I wasn't going to move forward, but he called me mean names on Twitter so here comes the full force of my office" the--

"Didn't Trump do that? Like, a lot?"

Now you see the careful use of the word "should". I don't believe the NY AG is, for example, launching a $250 million lawsuit because Trump said she's a racist. Anyone that knows Trump's history with racism knows that insult means literally nothing. But after a month-ish of Trump trying to weasel his way out of being caught tiny red handed stealing government secrets? Loophole defenses that don't even make sense like that privilege thing the dang poster around here keeps insisting is relevant despite every single court case saying it isn't? After watching that nonsense, and looking over the trail of figurative bodies Trump has left in his wake, stealing from NYState, robbing NY residents of their taxes and paychecks, and spewing years after years of lies about how good he was for the city when he made it worse? Yeah, I can see them saying "Well we were going to wait until mid-October, but you know what, now's good".

With the public evidence we have, barring legal loopholes, Trump is basically caught at this point. You can't tell the tax collector one price and your bank another and expect that to work out. The fact that Trump was stupid enough to file a legal form with 30,000 square feet on a 11,000 square foot place could be enough to nail him. The motivation might have a bunch of options, but the results seem pretty solid so far. The only iffy move so far was using "the art of the steal" like that wasn't a zinger a sixth grader could have come up with. Everything else has been on target.

- - - Updated - - -

Even FOX News is questioning the telepathic declassification.

(Trump on Hannity snipped)

Classification is a system within the executive branch for privileging information, typically relying on three tiers: confidential, secret and top secret. Only those with proper clearance levels can handle or be told about the information in a classified document.

Declassifying documents typically follows a process in which the agency to which the information pertains is consulted. Then, an officially designated "original classification authority" would move to declassify the document, according to the New York Times.

While presidents do have the authority to declassify documents on their own, the relevant agencies would still have to be informed of the move for a formal declassification to take place.

One of these days, I'm going to make it rain CNN points.

- - - Updated - - -

So I didn't actually watch the Hannity interview...why would I? But WaPo did. Apparently Trump and/or Hannity just filled the entire interview with lies and misleading information. In an incredibly sarcastic way, they recommended this issued correction which isn't at all an honest suggestion but an incredibly trolling way of pointing out how Trump lies all the time about everything, and Hannity helps.

Good evening and welcome to “Hannity.”

Last night, we showed you the second part of my interview with President Trump. It has come to my attention that some of what the president said was inaccurate or misleading. Given this network’s commitment to journalistic integrity, it seemed incumbent upon me, then, to correct the record where necessary. After all, the last thing we want is for you, the viewer, to be misinformed.

With that in mind, here is some additional information about what Trump said.

• It is not the case, as Trump claimed, that the term “global warming” was abandoned in favor of “climate change” because the former term “wasn’t working too well.” In reality, it was Republican communications expert Frank Luntz who recommended the latter term to defuse concern about the problem.
• It is also not true that “years ago … they thought it was global cooling,” as both Trump and I claimed. In reality, that idea was a fringe claim that has been elevated not because it was the consensus at the time but because it serves as a rejoinder to the consensus now.
• It’s not the case that $85 billion worth of military equipment was “left behind” when the U.S. withdrew from Afghanistan. First of all, the figure that’s been claimed was $83 billion. But second, that figure is vastly overinflated.
• While it is true that the U.S. “didn’t lose one soldier in 18 months,” it’s important to understand that this is largely because President Trump made a deal with the Taliban not to attack American forces in exchange for setting a timetable to withdraw.
• It’s not true, as Trump claimed, that crime in New York is “the worst we’ve ever had.” In fact, violent crime in New York City is far lower than in decades past and murders are down in the city this year.
• While it is true that “more people died under Biden than under me,” as Trump claimed about the coronavirus pandemic, that’s in part because Trump supporters were less likely to get vaccinated against the virus and, as a result, the per capita death toll in Trump-voting counties has consistently been higher than in Biden-voting ones.
• The flu pandemic a century ago was in 1918, not 1917.
• It’s not true that Trump recommended the military go to the Capitol before Jan. 6.
• It is not true that he sent the National Guard to Minneapolis during the unrest in 2020 “against the governor’s wishes.” In fact, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D) made the first request.
• It is not true that Trump’s favorability numbers went up after New York’s attorney general announced a lawsuit against him; there is no way a valid poll could have been fielded between that announcement and our interview. It is also not true that his poll numbers went up in the wake of the search of Mar-a-Lago.
• Trump’s assertions that he “rebuilt” the military have been repeatedly identified as exaggerated.

Fox News regrets the errors.

Oh, one more, actually: While Trump claimed that he respects many people in the media, we were unable to confirm that assertion. We can confirm that, as he stated, he likes me, Sean Hannity, a lot.

[cut to commercial]

[Dontrike]

I register that as your opinion. I hold a similar one. Your opinion is off-base, ill-informed, and driven by motivated reasoning and adherence to narrative. I certainly couldn't hold my views if I didn't acknowledge those that believe the same is true about me.

If you projected any harder I'd have to pay you $10 for popcorn to see a movie. It would be great if you did a little introspection and saved us all some time having to reply to your lying and insanity.

Such claims have no merit. What do you think of your girl hillary's claims that Trump was an illegitimate president, or that Trump knows he stole the 2016 presidential election?

No way! Even more "whatabout Hillary," because the last two weeks weren't enough.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm responding to your hypothetical about Trump under oath, since we both know he hasn't been put under oath. Anything further is in your own imagination.

Weird how Breccia has been "speculating" while you don't offer that same criticism to your lies.

[Edge-]

https://www.salon.com/2022/09/23/bac...nce-to-appeal/

So the 11th Circuit ruling caused Cannon to revise her ruling in accordance with theirs, allowing the DOJ access to the 100+ classified documents during the special master process. As a consequence -

"Cannon's amendment moots DOJ's appeal, and means Trump can't show any harm — let alone irreparable harm — that the Eleventh Circuit's stay is causing," he explained on Twitter. "So there's still *technically* a stay for #SCOTUS to vacate, but no possible legal justification for asking the Court to do so."

Technically he can still appeal, but the consensus amongst legal experts is that he'd likely lose such an appeal, if the SCOTUS even took it up to begin with. Much as the consensus amongst legal experts, including folks like former AG Bill Bar, was that Cannon was wrong on her order for a special master, and more specifically on preventing the DOJ from using the classified documents in their investigation during that process. And they were right.

[Breccia]

if the SCOTUS even took it up to begin with

I'm pretty sure they wouldn't want to be part of this shit. Either they go on record going dramatically against precedent and set the rule indefiniteily, which Biden could use repeatedly -- or they have to bite the hand that fed them.

Trump got them their posts. And we all know what a completed job is worth in Trump world: Nothing. SCOTUS owes Trump nothing.

[Kaleredar]

https://www.salon.com/2022/09/23/bac...nce-to-appeal/

So the 11th Circuit ruling caused Cannon to revise her ruling in accordance with theirs, allowing the DOJ access to the 100+ classified documents during the special master process. As a consequence -



Technically he can still appeal, but the consensus amongst legal experts is that he'd likely lose such an appeal, if the SCOTUS even took it up to begin with. Much as the consensus amongst legal experts, including folks like former AG Bill Bar, was that Cannon was wrong on her order for a special master, and more specifically on preventing the DOJ from using the classified documents in their investigation during that process. And they were right.

So turns out that “trump fancies himself a famous power player and should therefore be immune to criminal investigation because it might make him look bad” isn’t a legally sound argument

[Edge-]

https://www.thedailybeast.com/house-...quote?ref=home

"Never believe everything you read on the internet." - Abraham Lincoln

What does this quote have to do with the article linked above? Much like this quote, the quote that the GOP rolled out in their "Commitment to America" that is attributed to Lincoln is similarly fake.

"Commitment is what transforms a promise into reality." - Abraham Lincoln

No to be fair, if you google it you get a LOT of results! Problem is that a bunch of sites and social media posts saying that Lincoln said it doesn't actually mean he did. I'm doing a bit of digging on my own and not turning up any historical records showing that he actually said this, though my search is far from exhaustive so far.

[fwc577]

https://www.thedailybeast.com/house-...quote?ref=home

"Never believe everything you read on the internet." - Abraham Lincoln

What does this quote have to do with the article linked above? Much like this quote, the quote that the GOP rolled out in their "Commitment to America" that is attributed to Lincoln is similarly fake.

"Commitment is what transforms a promise into reality." - Abraham Lincoln

No to be fair, if you google it you get a LOT of results! Problem is that a bunch of sites and social media posts saying that Lincoln said it doesn't actually mean he did. I'm doing a bit of digging on my own and not turning up any historical records showing that he actually said this, though my search is far from exhaustive so far.

It's all about what you believe in your heart. They believe Lincoln said it so it's true. Just like, they believe that Jesus wasn't a liberal so they think it's true.

[Edge-]

It's all about what you believe in your heart. They believe Lincoln said it so it's true. Just like, they believe that Jesus wasn't a liberal so they think it's true.

"Give a man a fish, and he will be lazy and eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and you can sell his fish at a premium and pay him in worthless fish heads." - Some dude named Jesus, at some point in history, probably. Maybe.

[tehdang]

If you projected any harder I'd have to pay you $10 for popcorn to see a movie. It would be great if you did a little introspection and saved us all some time having to reply to your lying and insanity.

The feeling is very often mutual.

No way! Even more "whatabout Hillary," because the last two weeks weren't enough.

You can answer it too, if you like. No need to reference Trump in your answer, or make it a central part of your answer.

Weird how Breccia has been "speculating" while you don't offer that same criticism to your lies.

He's looking forward to a future when Trump is under oath. It's fine for him to do. I don't understand what point you're trying to make here. I might as well say that I'm interested in whether the DOJ decides to bring criminal charges against Trump after November. Purely speculating on the future, no need to get all in a huff.

[Breccia]

The feeling is--

Handwaved. Your only point was taken out behind the shed by the 11th and had a double barrel put against its skull. You've spent 14 weeks defending something that's both hypothetical and wrong.

[Kaleredar]

You can answer it too, if you like. No need to reference Trump in your answer, or make it a central part of your answer.

This thread is about Trump. If you're asking people to talk about someone that isn't Trump, or is in no way related to this case, you're asking people to be off topic.

[Strange One]

The feeling is very often mutual.

You can answer it too, if you like. No need to reference Trump in your answer, or make it a central part of your answer.

He's looking forward to a future when Trump is under oath. It's fine for him to do. I don't understand what point you're trying to make here. I might as well say that I'm interested in whether the DOJ decides to bring criminal charges against Trump after November. Purely speculating on the future, no need to get all in a huff.

Are you sure you don't have a learning disability? Coz I can see your extra chromosome from here.

[Breccia]

So Cannon ruled, the DOJ asked the 11th for help, and they got it.

Can Trump appeal? This article quoting multiple experts says "not really, no".

At the core of it seems to be some legal technicalities I didn't know about. From the looks of things, the 11th's ruling isn't the problem. It's that the ruling was so eviscerating that Cannon changed her own order.

Some legal experts, like NYU Law Professor Ryan Goodman, say that Cannon's revised order essentially "erased Trump's chance to appeal to Supreme Court."

Steve Vladeck, a federal courts expert at the University of Texas School of Law, explained that Cannon's amendment doesn't "formally" kill Trump's ability to ask the court to vacate the stay — since the stay is still out there — but in practical terms, it makes it impossible.

"Cannon's amendment moots DOJ's appeal, and means Trump can't show any harm — let alone irreparable harm — that the Eleventh Circuit's stay is causing," he explained on Twitter. "So there's still *technically* a stay for #SCOTUS to vacate, but no possible legal justification for asking the Court to do so."

Former appellate lawyer Teri Kanefield agreed that "changing the order moots Trump's appeal to SCOTUS."

"I suspect that [Cannon] doesn't like being overturned on appeal and wants to avoid more appellate thrashings," Kanefield said.

Even if Trump does appeal, legal experts say he will likely lose.

"I know some justices have stunned us before, but I see no way they overrule 11th Circuit on this issue," tweeted Barbara McQuade, a former U.S. attorney and law professor at the University of Michigan.

Vladeck agreed that the odds of there being five votes to override the ruling — even on a court stacked with Trump appointees — are "exceedingly close to zero."

Former US Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal explained that Trump can attempt to go to the US Supreme Court but "it's a loser every day of the week." He added that the former president got "obliterated" by the appellate court and that they confirmed what legal experts have been saying, "the whole declassification thing is a red herring."

Basically, every legal expert who isn't on Trump's "pay"roll is saying that Cannon's order doesn't make sense, and yes, that now includes Cannon. They're not his documents and they could contain evidence of a crime. He's not getting them hidden, and he's not getting them back.

Speaking of legal experts, this one cited by Business Insider says, basically, the "special master" is baiting Trump's legal team into lying for him.

In court hearings this week, Dearie has challenged Trump's attorneys to present evidence to support two of Trump's key claims: that he declassified the documents kept at Mar-a-Lago, and that the FBI planted evidence there.

Though Trump has repeatedly made those assertions in public, his lawyers have steered clear of repeating it in court, where arguments are more closely scrutinized.

Trump's lawyers have argued that defending his declassification claims at this stage could damage their defense in a potential trial, drawing an unimpressed response from Dearie.

In an appearance on CNN Thursday

Fuck! There goes one of my points.

legal analyst Elie Honig, a former federal prosecutor, said that Dearie was seeking to expose Trump's falsehoods.

"The power of our courts is they have a way of bringing out truth. Perhaps a person can get away with fudging the truth in their public statements, in the media, in their private life, in their business. But when you step into a court, ultimately, the judge or the jury will say, fine, that's your allegation, now prove it," said Honig.

"And you can see the tension in Donald Trump's legal team because they will not say the things in court about declassification and planting that he is saying because lawyers have an ethical obligation."

"You cannot make a false statement to a court. You can argue aggressively for your client, you could try to poke holes in what the other side is doing, but you cannot lie. This is really a test for Donald Trump."

"But that's good, right?"

Seems to be grey area. Team Trump is still saying things like "declassifying them would--" and I imagine, once this case reaches a jury, they'll try "I'm not saying they were declassified, but they were declassified". But for now, the "special master" isn't having any of that, and the DOJ can always press Team Trump in court on the issue -- even bringing up the "special master".

Again, until Trump takes the stand (or signs a form that has the same effect) and says either "I declassified them" or "they are covered by privilege" then the answer is "no". The 11th's ruling makes that even more secure. There is no privilege Trump can assert anymore, and there's no proof he did when he could -- and half the articles I've cited say it wouldn't matter if he tried anyhow. It's a non-issue, a deflection by people so desperate to admit they were wrong that they'd rather literally ask for man-on-man porn in public.

[Corvus]

https://www.thedailybeast.com/house-...quote?ref=home

"Never believe everything you read on the internet." - Abraham Lincoln

What does this quote have to do with the article linked above? Much like this quote, the quote that the GOP rolled out in their "Commitment to America" that is attributed to Lincoln is similarly fake.

"Commitment is what transforms a promise into reality." - Abraham Lincoln

No to be fair, if you google it you get a LOT of results! Problem is that a bunch of sites and social media posts saying that Lincoln said it doesn't actually mean he did. I'm doing a bit of digging on my own and not turning up any historical records showing that he actually said this, though my search is far from exhaustive so far.

I've seen some mentions of the quote being from a Lehman's Brothers ad.

[Breccia]

Meanwhile, the grand jury into Trump's role in Jan 6th continues. Forbes reports what we already know: any issues with privilege are really about that.

Now we know some of the big names in that: Eastman of course, Giuliani, and Cipollone, some of whom have already gone to court and lost. Unlike the current issue with the Mar-a-Lago search (and I'm reluctant to believe Trump took evidence of his Jan 6th crimes, but then didn't destroy it) where Trump is objectively guilty, this one seems to be more of a toss-up. Yes, Executive Privilege and lawyer-client confidentiality are important, but neither applies when a crime is being planned, which is exactly the matter at hand. And that's why a lot of Eastman's emails are now up for grabs. Once it's known that some communications were part of a crime, it seems pretty reasonable to check the rest. So, expect more filter teams to show up.

We know Team Trump was pushing the blatant lie that there was mass election fraud. We know Team Trump was at least a little involved in setting up the Fake Electors. We know Trump riled up a riot of murderous insurrectionists and then didn't answer the phone for hours while they kicked in the door of the Capitol chanting "HANG MIKE PENCE!" And now, we know the WH called a rioter on Jan 6th.

"Wait, I thought the WH call logs had a massive hours-long blank period?"

Yes, but, the traitors didn't. I'm willing to bet that every single one that was arrested had their phones searched.

Grand juries are fickle things and operate under seal. We might not hear anything for a while. But what evidence we have so far leans slightly in the direction of "these WH communications are going to be looked through for evidence of crimes".

Trump's actions regarding the search of the unlocked room where he put this country's most secret information may simply have been a test run. If so, he should be horrified at the results, because he got bitchslapped so hard the judge felt it.