Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Breccia]

First Amendment protected speech bothers an absolute ton of people, who might be tempted to outlaw speech they don't like.

Citation needed.

Prosecutors and cops are really bothered by getting stuff like warrants and demonstrating guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Citation needed.

[Kaleredar]

Sorry if I don't want legal rights and privileges subject to analysis at who it bothers. First Amendment protected speech bothers an absolute ton of people, who might be tempted to outlaw speech they don't like. Prosecutors and cops are really bothered by getting stuff like warrants and demonstrating guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. So if you really want to talk about executive powers, don't act like that's the same thing as questioning what bothers whom.

The FBI had a warrant signed by a judge to raid trumps properties under suspicion that he had taken secret and otherwise privileged or classified documents with him that he did not have the right to take.

President Biden, as head of the executive, has the right to state that non-president trump can not exert executive privilege over those materials.

The only judge that kind of sided with trump on the matter (and that wasn’t even over whether he could supposedly retain the documents) was told she didn’t know what she was talking about by numerous other judges and legal professionals and then recanted her decision.


What’s your problem, again?

[Breccia]

What’s your problem, again?

His problem is the same: he broached a hypothetical about privilege that literally everyone stomped on, including now the judges, even before it started. For 16 days it's all been about deflection and Clinton ever since, because his lack of a point was resoundingly disproven by every other poster here, every expert we cited, and the courts themselves -- all before Trump even raised it under oath, meaning it never mattered anyhow.

He has no point. If he has a problem, it's "my chosen leader Trump is going to jail for his objective crimes, and I don't like that".

[Zan15]

@Breccia So how about that Bigl-y stock price

Things must be going well for donny's twitter wana be huh?

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/09/26/trum...ts-pulled.html

Trump-linked SPAC changes address to UPS store as investments pulled

As of Friday, DWAC had lost $138.5 million of its $1 billion in private financing.



Those poor people sitting on this from 175-100-50-25-16

[Breccia]

As of Friday, DWAC had lost $138.5 million of its $1 billion in private financing.

Wow. I wasn't even sure they had a billion. But um...don't they have to refund all that money if the deal falls through? Which it's about to?

[tehdang]

What’s your problem, again?

Other than Cthulhu 2020 saying I "seem to think the President's power is absolute?"

I've rejected questioners that ask my opinion on certain absurd Trump theories. I've rejected Biden's DOJ arguments on process. That's two executives that are both diminished by my arguments. And somebody out there mentions me and still thinks I'm a big believer in presidential power? I'd suggest a careful re-reading of my posts before launching into unsupported allegations. In this case, before defending the post of another.

I see you've dropped the pretense on what "does not bother anyone," so I don't really have a problem with you. For the rest of your post, I think restatement of past arguments I've discussed at length is of no further benefit. There is nothing new there. A special master is already reviewing the vast majority of the seized documents for potential assertions of executive privilege, as the DOJ ought to have done in the first place. If there is nothing you have to add that hasn't been already said, I say we leave it there and move on to whatever people decide to tag me in next.

[Huehuecoyotl]

A special master is already reviewing the vast majority of the seized documents for potential assertions of executive privilege

Is he though? You could argue that he's looking for unicorns as well, if you want. As I think numerous people have already pointed out to you, there CAN'T be anything that has "executive privilege" because that privilege belongs to the office. Which Trump no longer holds.

So do you think he's still president? Or do you think that he's kept the privileges of office after he's left it? Maybe he just THOUGHT that he had those privileges. I've heard that sometimes just thinking is enough to make things happen.

[cubby]

Other than Cthulhu 2020 saying I "seem to think the President's power is absolute?"

I've rejected questioners that ask my opinion on certain absurd Trump theories. I've rejected Biden's DOJ arguments on process. That's two executives that are both diminished by my arguments. And somebody out there mentions me and still thinks I'm a big believer in presidential power? I'd suggest a careful re-reading of my posts before launching into unsupported allegations. In this case, before defending the post of another.

I see you've dropped the pretense on what "does not bother anyone," so I don't really have a problem with you. For the rest of your post, I think restatement of past arguments I've discussed at length is of no further benefit. There is nothing new there. A special master is already reviewing the vast majority of the seized documents for potential assertions of executive privilege, as the DOJ ought to have done in the first place. If there is nothing you have to add that hasn't been already said, I say we leave it there and move on to whatever people decide to tag me in next.

What's your take on the classified nuclear documents found in Trump's possession? Outside of the DoJ process issue you've mentioned before.
(no gotcha trap here - just curious)

[Zan15]

Wow. I wasn't even sure they had a billion. But um...don't they have to refund all that money if the deal falls through? Which it's about to?

well the money was committed not actual given.

So at least they didn't give it up to Trump who never pays his bills.

[tehdang]

What's your take on the classified nuclear documents found in Trump's possession? Outside of the DoJ process issue you've mentioned before.
(no gotcha trap here - just curious)

Let's let a little more time pass from when you called all my posts just repetition of others' talking points. I have no desire for such a repetition, nor prove such insults are costless by my behavior.

Is he though? You could argue that he's looking for unicorns as well, if you want. As I think numerous people have already pointed out to you, there CAN'T be anything that has "executive privilege" because that privilege belongs to the office. Which Trump no longer holds.

I pointed out Supreme Court decision text and reasoning from it that shows they're wrong. They have persisted in ignoring or sidelining those arguments in responses, so the disagreement stands. I don't see anything new or newsworthy in taking them up again, so I'm happy to let the special master do what the DoJ failed to do. If you'll recall, the DoJ launched a limited appeal that didn't reverse the judgement appointing a special master to review the vast majority of documents for potential assertions of executive privilege.

Or do you think that he's kept the privileges of office after he's left it? Maybe he just THOUGHT that he had those privileges.

A brief linking of my posts on the "after he's left office" issue:
https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...0#post53914470
https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...6#post53904996
https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...9#post53902469
https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...1#post53900673

[cubby]

Let's let a little more time pass from when you called all my posts just repetition of others' talking points. I have no desire for such a repetition, nor prove such insults are costless by my behavior.

I'm not walking away or back from those comments, they stand as true. However, considering you seem to have struck a different tone on this particular topic, I'd be curious to see your reasoning on Trump and his possession of nuclear secret documents. Trump has objectively broken the law, having in his possession documents that cannot, ever, be declassified (even in his mind), by law. What is your take on that particular issue, ignoring the Executive Privilege and Attorney-Client assertion discussions?

But if you need some more time to recover, I understand.

[Breccia]

well the money was committed not actual given.

Okay, I feel better. That said, yes I've been keeping up with their losses, and I want to say "It happened to the right people".

That's...not entirely true. As I said earlier, someone must have made money -- very likely dumping the stock the instant it hit $100 and never looking back. And I don't forsee such people sticking around to help the project out of loyalty. They could potentially be the DWAC owners, holding some of that sweet profit they made on short-selling Trump as an asset-hole, and using some of it to repay $10/share when it folds but keeping the other $90/share for themselves. I don't know, I don't think anyone does.

I don't know this site but they used this thumbnail



so you know I gotta quote it.

At one point, Digital World was one of the most promising SPACs with the stock surging to $100 on news of a deal with Trump Media & Technology Group ("TMTG"). As a social media power looking for a free speech platform, TMTG appeared a great concept for former President Donald Trump and investors.

Nearly 20 months after Trump left the White House and his exclusion from most media platforms, the former President just doesn't appear to have the same reach. Truth Social hasn't gotten off to a great start, and the lack of updated financial data isn't helping the excitement around the social platform.

Regardless, though, the biggest issue facing Digital World is the inability to close the SPAC deal. The SEC continues to investigate the timing of the original deal, and investors recently failed to vote on an extension of the timeline to close the deal.

Now, investors in the original $1 billion PIPE aren't happy with the stock price dipping. They wanted to work on better terms. The apparent lack of a new deal led to $138.5 million worth of investments terminating the PIPE investment out of the $1 billion original plan.

That's the part you quoted.

The PIPE still has $861.5 million in investments, but the delay in closing the deal will definitely lead to lower conversion prices leading to additional shares issued. The initial conversion rate was only 18 million shares at a price of $56, but the conversion price shall be adjusted to the greater of a 40% discount to the closing VWAP and the floor price of $10.00.

The FBI raid of Mar-Lago led to an initial surge of Truth Social app downloads. Though, data from data.ai suggested the app only had 107,500 global downloads for the week ending August 15. The number was 5x the prior week, highlighting how weak app downloads have been for Truth Social.

As of now, Trump only has 4.1 million followers on Truth Social after having 89 million on Twitter. Trump hasn't seen much growth in the last few months.

Investors failing to vote for the deal will indeed end up for a 50% haircut from the price those shares could've been sold for on the Nasdaq. Digital World adjourned the special meeting vote until October 10, and the SPAC needs 65% of shareholders to vote for the deal per the charter.

Without an extension approval, Digital World only has until December 8 to close the deal. The extension approval will give the SPAC until September 8, 2023 to close the deal. In theory, most SPAC deals close within a year from the original business combination agreement, but this deal involves a former President hated by the legal system with the SEC already having taken 115 days back on September 8 to provide feedback.

The stock has now fallen over 40% since my original warning on Digital World back in June. The Truth Social platform was very basic, and the site had limited users questioning why the stock would be worth nearly $30 on a deal.

The key investor takeaway is that Digital World isn't worth the risk with all of the signs questioning whether the deal even closes and how the price could stay above $10 after the de-SPAC transaction. Investors should continue to avoid the stock due to all of the red flags.

Now to be fair, the stock did improve today. But it is still down over the last five days, month, etc.

So, one of two things will happen.
1) People who read the writing on the wall will cash out and flee, but this will leave only investors who want to see this actually succeed. These people can buy the low-cost stock, and increase the likelihood that a 65% "yes" vote will actually pass. This only extends the deal, of course, it doesn't make it happen.
2) People who read the writing on the wall will cash out, one by one the survivors' resolves will fail and they'll cash out too, leaving nothing.

- - - Updated - - -

Let's let a little more time pass from when you called all my posts just repetition of others' talking points.

That sounds like someone who can't defend Trump on having nuclear secrets. Don't be ashamed -- nobody else can, either. Most of us just don't want to.

[Breccia]

I've only really seen disagreement.

Except for the dang poster who refuses to see that, yes. And even that one judge didn't flat-out say "Trump has these covered" but instead "there might be a problem, so we'll give this one citizen far more leeway than any other citizen ever gets". Like you said, basically anyone whose opinion matters said "this ruling made no sense" including the 11th, of which 2 of the 3 were Trump appointees, and still didn't grant him any leeway.

Add to that the entire thing being hypothetical anyhow. Trump never once said they were privileged. He hinted they might be. The 11th didn't give a fuck what Trump said on his knockoff Chinese Twitter, they care about what's alleged in court, which was nothing.

One of the articles I personally quoted suggested that the 1 single judge was so eviscerated so humiliatingly by this, that they're going to avoid any further controversial rulings from now on, because nobody likes to be put in their place in public, and judges in particular don't like being overruled.

I did not even find a lot on FOX News backing Cannon's ruling. Almost every source referred to the ruling, at best "controversial" and cited dissenting experts, at worst "nonsense". Hindsight is 20/20, but lawfareblog (whoever that is) nailed it perfectly. This article pre-dates the smackdown the ruling would get a few days later, but reads exactly like it.

Error #1: The court has no jurisdiction over this matter.

Error #2: A district court has no authority to block a criminal investigation.

Error #3: The ruling is simply incoherent with respect to executive privilege.

Error #4: Normal people don’t get special masters when the FBI executes search warrants against them.

Emphasis mine: nobody is saying that the FBI should breach lawyer-client privilege, and in fact the opposite in this context. Lawyer-client communications are not government property and are not classified. Yes, the Jan 6th panel probably wants them, because Eastman/Giulani/Powell were very likely conspiring treason, but that's not the case the judge/11th ruled on. There's a grand jury doing that, in private, elsewhere.

I also refer to the Atlantic because it contains this line

Cannon’s opinion, by contrast, is so deeply flawed that it’s hard to know where to begin a critique.

If that sounds familiar, it should.

I do not know how the hell Ride to Heck got cleared for release unless the entire QA team simultaneously resigned to start a shotgun tasting business. It's bad. It's explosively, apocalyptically bad, and you should totally buy it. I'm serious, you have to see this shit! Where to start?

-- Zero Punctuation review of Ride to Hell: Retribution

Back to the Atlantic:

This issue surfaced during Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, which I worked on. When the special counsel received court authorization to search Paul Manafort’s Virginia home, a team of FBI agents who were not part of the special counsel’s investigation, known as a “taint team,” conducted it. That same day, as soon as the search was completed, we called Manafort’s counsel and alerted them that all of the evidence from the search would be made available to them, so that they could review and flag any materials they believed were privileged. The taint team resolved all of the flagged issues, and the process proceeded rapidly and without a hitch. Importantly, it did not require a special master, even though the volume of material (including electronic data, which the Mar-a-Lago search did not uncover) significantly outstripped the volume at issue in the Trump search. But Cannon did not seek to determine whether there were in fact any disputes between the parties about any such documents or explore with the parties the workability of a taint team.

Two other aspects of her decision are also worth noting. Cannon includes within the scope of the special master’s review documents that may raise executive privilege. She does not explain how the former president has the power to assert executive privilege; how executive privilege could restrict documents from being shared with the executive branch (which DOJ is part of); how it could apply to any documents at Mar-a-Lago that emanated from agencies like the CIA, NSA, or FBI; or why it would not be outweighed by the fact that the documents are needed in a criminal investigation (an interest that the Supreme Court found would overcome a privilege assertion by former President Richard Nixon). And even if some of the documents are covered by executive privilege, the documents would, by law, still have to go to the National Archives and not be returned to the person who absconded with them.

To understand the illogic of her decision, imagine the following scenario. I rob a bank of $1 million and stash the bags of cash in my hotel room. My gloves and wallet fall into one bag by accident. The police search my hotel room pursuant to a court-authorized warrant that permits seizure of the cash, gloves, and wallet. The judge appoints a special master to review the evidence seized, including every last dollar, even though I have no right to the return of anything that was seized. And she enjoins the criminal case for the duration.

But there is more: To support her decision, Cannon misleadingly claims that the current president has not asserted executive privilege. That is a shameful sleight of hand. If she really had a concern about President Joe Biden’s position, she need only have asked at oral argument. She did not. Instead, she engaged in a tortured reading of the evidence that the Justice Department did present to her. A letter sent by the archives to Trump’s counsel in May noted that Biden had authorized sharing the 15 boxes with the FBI and left to the archives the determination as to whether the documents taken from Mar-a-Lago were covered by executive privilege, and that, in consultation with the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, it had decided that this was not a close call and rejected the claim. Her opinion mentions the May archives letter, so we know she was aware of it, but she failed to address it or even note its executive-privilege discussion.

And that's about half of it. Why yes, that is Weissman, how did you guess?

The ruling was so bad, not even the original judge sticks up for it anymore. Not even the special master who was appointed is a fan of it -- asking Trump to say, under oath, what's privileged by this coming Friday. In the case before us, there is nothing, nothing, that leads any reasonable person to believe that privilege will help Trump here in any way, other than slowing things down.

Maybe by Friday, Team Trump will go under oath and say "these things are covered by privilege". Until they do so, the privilege argument is as wrong as it is irrelevant.

[Drutt]

Denver Riggleman pointing fingers in no uncertain terms in his new book.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/20...-louie-gohmert

The Republican congressmen Louis Gohmert and Paul Gosar adopted such extreme, conspiracy-tinged positions, even before the US Capitol attack, that a fellow member of the rightwing Freedom Caucus thought they “may have had serious cognitive issues”.

The White House, where it was announced that President Biden has tested positive for COVID-19 in Washington<br>A general view of the White House, where it was announced that U.S. President Joe Biden has tested positive for the coronavirus disease (COVID-19), in Washington, U.S., July 21, 2022. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque
White House switchboard called phone linked to January 6 rioter after attack
Read more
Denver Riggleman, once a US representative from Virginia, reports his impression of his former colleagues from Texas and Arizona in a new book.

The Breach: The Untold Story of the Investigation into January 6th is published in the US on Tuesday. The Guardian obtained an early copy.

Riggleman is a former US air force intelligence officer who lost his seat in Congress after he officiated a same-sex marriage. In his book, he describes fallout beyond his primary defeat, including someone tampering with the wheels of his truck, endangering the life of his daughter.

“If I ever find the individual who did that,” he writes, “God help that person.”

After leaving Congress, Riggleman worked for the House January 6 committee, members of which were reportedly angered by his decision to publish a book.

Describing text messages surrendered to the committee by Mark Meadows, Donald Trump’s last chief of staff, Riggleman shows that on 5 November 2020, two days after election day and with the result not called, Gohmert touted his experience as an attorney and tried to join the White House team working to overturn Joe Biden’s win.

“I’m in DC,” Gohmert wrote to Meadows. “Thinking I’ll head to Philadelphia to fuss. Would love to be there … at [White House] to be ear for discussions and advice if asked. Handled massive fraud case vs Texas biggest utility … so some legal experience. May I come over?”

Meadows asked Gohmert to go on TV instead.

But Gohmert remained in Trump’s orbit. On 20 December, along with Scott Perry (Pennsylvania), Andy Biggs (Arizona), Jody Hice (Georgia), Matt Gaetz (Florida), Mo Brooks (Alabama) and Marjorie Taylor Greene (Georgia), he attended a White House meeting with Trump at which election subversion was discussed.

According to testimony to the January 6 committee, Gohmert, Gaetz, Brooks, Greene, Perry and Biggs asked for pardons before Trump left office.

On 6 January 2021, a crowd Trump knew to be armed but told to “fight like hell” breached Congress in an attempt to stop certification of the election. Nine deaths have been linked to the riot, including law enforcement suicides.

Riggleman describes how in the aftermath of the attack, Gohmert and other Republicans continued to push conspiracy theories, claiming the attackers were leftwingers disguised as Trump supporters.

Such claims have entered the Republican mainstream. So has the far right.

Describing his own spell in Congress, between 2019 and 2021, Riggleman says he joined the hardline Freedom Caucus as a way to allay concerns among conservatives that he was insufficiently loyal to Trump.

Once in, he says, he “began to understand that some of my colleagues had fully bought into even the more unhinged conspiracy theories I had been seeing out on the campaign trail”.

Riggleman describes one meeting in which Gohmert “promoted a conspiracy theory related to master algorithms”, saying he “suspected there was a secret technology shadow-banning conservatives across all platforms”.

Riggleman writes that others “nodded along”, though “of course, that’s crazy”. He says he said “something to that effect” during the meeting in question.

In subsequent meetings, Riggleman “would come to see that Gohmert was one of a few colleagues who had gone deep down the rabbit hole.

“Scott Perry, Jody Hice, Randy Weber and the caucus chairman, Andy Biggs, all said things that stunned me.”

Gosar is a far-right provocateur whose many controversies include being censured for tweeting a video depicting violence against Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a prominent New York progressive.

Riggleman says Gosar and Gohmert “seemed to be joined at the brain stem when it came to their eagerness to believe wild, dramatic fantasies about Democrats, the media and big tech.

“I came to believe Gosar and Gohmert may have had serious cognitive issues.”

Riggleman also calls Gosar “a blatant white supremacist”, describing him and the Iowa Republican Steve King “making a case for white supremacy over pulled pork and ribs”.

“It was unbelievable,” Riggleman writes. “I had always bristled when I’d hear Democrats dismiss Republicans as ‘racists’. To me, it seemed like an easy insult that dodged policy discussions. Now, here I was behind the curtain, seeing that some of my colleagues really seemed to hold these awful views.”

Describing his own farewell address, which he made a month before the Capitol attack, Riggleman claims to have been “the canary in the coalmine” regarding extremism in the Republican party.

“On 10 December 2020,” he writes, “less than a month before the Capitol attack, I … railed against disinformation and ‘super-spreader digital viruses that create a fever of nonsense’ … I noted how QAnon promoters were linked with both the conspiracists who questioned the Covid pandemic and Trump’s Stop the Steal movement to overturn the election.

“… Based on what I had been seeing, I warned that we were heading down a very dark road. No one listened.”

[Breccia]

So what else is going on?

1) SS took phones of 24 agents on duty Jan 6th and gave them to investigators. This happened shortly after the criminal investigation into the SS on Jan 6th, of course, about those missing text messages.

2) That documentary filmed about Roger Stone apparently has footage showing Stone preparing to flee when his treason attempt failed.

And worse.

The clip finds Stone on the phone in D.C. Willard Hotel, in what he dubbed the “war room.” Who he’s talking to isn’t yet clear, but he can be heard telling them, “All right, well we’re going to start pulling our stuff together.” He then turns to Kristin Davis, a close associate, and says, “Let’s pack. We’re outa here,” adding, “As soon as possible. They want to get out of town.”

It’s not the only damning clip that was made public. Another, also from Jan. 6, shows him encouraging Capitol stormers, advising them to “shoot to kill,” before adding, “I’m just kidding.”

In another, filmed the day before the 2020 election, according to CNN, Stone seems to already ready for things to get ugly, telling someone, “F**k the voting, let’s get right to the violence.”

Yeah, um...that speaks highly to motive.

3) Some idiot went on ABC News and tried to defend Trump. It went exactly as expected.

“I want to ask you about the investigation into Donald Trump’s handling of classified information. Even though his lawyers have provided no evidence that he declassified the documents, Trump said this week that he could declassify documents by thinking about it. Do you agree with that?” ABC’s This Week host George Stephanopoulos asked Barrasso [R-WHY-BOTHER]

It’s a softball question. Of course a senator who has been in office for more than 15 years knows that Trump was bullshitting. But Barrasso didn’t want to answer the question directly and chose instead to filibuster with a word salad of obfuscation, painting the Justice Department’s decision to search Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort as politically motivated.

“I’ve not heard that one before, George,” Barrasso responded. “I tell ya, in terms of (bla bla bla, skipped)”

But Stephanopoulos didn’t let Barrasso get off the hook that easily. “Senator, that was a rhetorical question. You know the president can’t declassify documents by thinking about it. Why can’t you say so?” the host said.

“I don’t think a president can declassify documents by saying so, by thinking about it,” Barrasso admitted.

4) The "special master" asked the DOJ to double-check that list of theirs, after Team Trump suggested (but would not claim under oath, because they're fucking pussies who know they're lying) that the FBI planted shit.

They went from 11,000 documents to 11,055. And they blamed the miniscule difference on "we finally had enough time to finish all the details". Honestly, I can't think of a reason why, if the FBI did in fact plant evidence, they'd leave it off the first list.

But of course, Team Trump is lying. If they really feel like planting evidence is a problem, let them make the accusation on the stand. Otherwise, fuck off.

5) I cannot pass up a headline of "Judges aren't buying any of Trump's 'MAGA make-believe' as his attorneys struggle.

Appearing on MSNBC on Sunday afternoon, former FBI official Peter Strzok told host Yasmin Vossoughian that the judges are not buying Trump's "MAGA make-believe," stories and his legal team has no way of defending him without perjuring themselves.

'What defenses do you see of the former president's team floating here?" the host asked him.

"I don't think they have many," Strzok said as he smiled. "At the end of the day this is always been from Trump's side, sort of a publicity stunt, something to fund-raise off of, something he could take to his base and continue the narrative that somehow he has been wrongly investigated, and the deep state is going after him and that he can use this to engender more support for this nonsense tale that he is trying to get away from any accountability for any potential criminal acts he engaged in."

"At the end of the day, what's refreshing is that all this nonsense in this land of MAGA make-believe hits the judicial system of the United States it crumbles immediately," he added as he laughed. "That's what you have seen from Judge [Raymond] Dearie, the special master laying out an aggressive timeline saying 'We have heard you make the statements that you declassified them, we heard you make statements that evidence has been planted. Fine, by Friday, give details of exactly what you mean by that, and not only that but by next month, by mid-October, to have a complete review of a privilege log for anything you claim as executive privilege, client-attorney privilege.'"

"I don't see any argument that Trump can make, and more importantly, any argument that attorneys representing Trump are going to be willing to put their name on the line for something that isn't supported by the law, that isn't supported by fact, and that might get them into a lot of trouble ethically and with their bar memberships," he added.

Which is 50/50 at this point, looking at their track record. But yes, if your client lies off the stand and directs you to do those same lies on the stand for him, the correct answer is "fuck you fatty, you're not paying me enough".

6) Don't get too friendly with Anton Lunyk, currently identified as the rioter the WH called during the murderous insurrection.

7) And a funny bit, because the "pink hat lady" lives in an area where the coverage sucks so hard you'd think you're in central Pennsylvania...you are...federal prosecutors are saying "fuck it, put her in house arrest".

Ms. Powell

No, not that one.

is accused of hefting a massive pipe to bash in a window at the Capitol, then bellowing orders through a bullhorn at other rioters about the layout of the building. She wore a distinctive pink hat in the attack, forever earning her the "pink hat lady" nickname although some have taken to calling her the “bullhorn lady.” Either way, she’s facing certain prison time if convicted.

[Huehuecoyotl]

So Trumps latest lawyer, Christopher Kise, is apparently getting sidelined, because of all of the losing. Is there anybody left for him to hire that hasn't already been stiffed by him for payment, or turned him down flat, or proven so incompetent that is isn't even worth pretending that he's totally going to pay him, honest. I just left my wallet in my other pants. I'll get it to you, trust me.

Another attempt to stall the Mar-a-lago case?

[Gorsameth]

So Trumps latest lawyer, Christopher Kise, is apparently getting sidelined, because of all of the losing. Is there anybody left for him to hire that hasn't already been stiffed by him for payment, or turned him down flat, or proven so incompetent that is isn't even worth pretending that he's totally going to pay him, honest. I just left my wallet in my other pants. I'll get it to you, trust me.

Another attempt to stall the Mar-a-lago case?

I'm sure he won't mind being side-lined after being payed 3mil upfront.

Does Trump have another 3mil lying around to pay the next one?

[Breccia]

So Trumps latest lawyer, Christopher Kise, is apparently getting sidelined, because of all of the losing.

Um...that's less than one month, correct?

The obvious read is clear: Kise refused to listen to Trump's lies, criminal direction, and general stupid and/or unfollowable orders, He gave specific, clear advice that followed the letter of the law, and Trump fired him for it.

I'm sure he won't mind being side-lined after being payed 3mil upfront.

I believe there was some discussion of him being paid over time from the PAC which...actually the PAC was changed, that's a lawsuit on the way. Well, imagine my lack of sympathy when this creates strife. Kise and Cohen can go on TV together.

Oh, didn't Kise leave his law firm for this? I mean, I might leave my job for $3 million, but I'm a public school teacher. Kise is a competent lawyer.

[Poopymonster]

Oh, didn't Kise leave his law firm for this? I mean, I might leave my job for $3 million, but I'm a public school teacher. Kise is a competent lawyer.

I'm a Poopy of modest means. I'd take a sure fail for that payout. You gimme 3 million? It would last me the rest of my life. About 40ish years, give or take.

[cubby]

Um...that's less than one month, correct?

The obvious read is clear: Kise refused to listen to Trump's lies, criminal direction, and general stupid and/or unfollowable orders, He gave specific, clear advice that followed the letter of the law, and Trump fired him for it.

I really hope Kise set up the contract so he will keep the $3MM regardless of outcome or length of employment.

However, it seems too early to have fired him. More than likely:

Former federal prosecutor and CNN legal analyst Jennifer Rodgers asked if the shift in Kise's role meant that his team anticipates Trump might be charged soon in a Georgia investigation into his actions following the 2020 presidential election.

"Would make sense for Kise to lead the GA case defense with his state law experience and Trusty to stay on the fed case," Rodgers said, referring to another Trump lawyer, James Trusty.

This would also make sense - although "making sense" has never been part of Trump's modus operandi.