Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Belize]

Needed some good news today. If it wasn't so early over here and me just getting to work I'd open something.

I mean Pat Robinson eating shit was already a pretty good day.

[Draco-Onis]

And just like that Trump boards his plane for Moscow and then…?

Honestly he can run for President from prison can he run for President as a fugitive?

It's highly unlikely that Trump would go to jail also there's nothing barring you from running for president from jail as far as I know.

[CostinR]

It's highly unlikely that Trump would go to jail also there's nothing barring you from running for president from jail as far as I know.

The Espionage Act is no joke, and Trump is likely to actually be convicted.

Whether or not he goes to jail is another matter completely I'd argue. Heck he should be arrested right now.

[Breccia]

From CNN's scrolling news feed:

Donald Trump's attorney Jim Trusty confirmed Thursday night that the former president has been charged with seven counts – and revealed that the charges “break out from an Espionage Act charge.”

"It does have some language in it that suggests what the seven charges would be. Not 100% clear that all of those are separate charges, but they basically break out from an Espionage Act charge," he told CNN’s Kaitlan Collins.

Trusty called the espionage charge “ludicrous,” and added that there are also “several obstruction-based-type charges and then false statement charges.”

He said his team did not get a copy of the indictment but instead received a summons via email. Trusty refused to reveal when his team received the initial letter from the Justice Department that listed Trump as a target of their investigation.

He confirmed that Trump will appear in court Tuesday but would not say which attorneys will be present with Trump.

Yep, that bolded is our good buddy Trusty trying to handwave obstruction of justice and lying to the feds.

[anveena]

It's sad to see the democrats using the doj to go after their political opponents.


Infracted.

[Edge-]

It's sad to see the democrats using the doj to go after their political opponents.

Every accusation is an admission. It's still hilarious.

[Breccia]

It's sad to see the democrats using the doj to go after their political opponents.

When Trump promised, during the presidential debates, to have Clinton investigated, in public, did you applaud like his supporters in the audience did?

Even if the answer is "no" the fact that Trump said he would do that, and his supporters applauded, in pubilc, means Trump has admitted, in public, that what's happening right now is okay.

At best, you can say what Trump said was wrong, too, but it still doesn't defend Trump.

Or, I can imply from your avatar that you're another Trump supporter and, based on this post I'm quoting, a hypocrite.

[beanman12345]

It's sad to see the democrats using the doj to go after their political opponents.

These are people on grand juries. People like me and you. You support a rapist, who commited campaign finance laws, and violated the espionage act. You blaming democrats, is just cope.

[Captain N]

"They should just follow the law!" - Trump supporters every time a black man gets shot by police.

"They're weaponizing the DOJ to go after our President!" -Trump supporters now-

[s_bushido]

It's sad to see the democrats using the doj to go after their political opponents.

Cope and seethe.

[postman1782]

It's sad to see the democrats using the doj to go after their political opponents.

They didn't. Republicans did with Hillary, they even fucking admitted to it.

[Breccia]

Just as @Edge- said, we don't 100% know for sure yet. We have Trump's word, which is...an unreliable source, which is why he's in theory indicted for lying to law enforcement.

From the NYTimes' scrolling news feed:

On CNN, Trump’s lawyer Jim Trusty said that Trump’s legal team had not been shown the indictment itself, but that the summons commanding Trump to appear in court had “some language in it that suggests what the seven charges would be.” He mentioned the Espionage Act, multiple false-statement charges and “several obstruction-based type charges.” Specifically, he mentioned Section 1519 (which relates to obstructing an official effort and was widely expected because it was listed on the F.B.I. search warrant affidavit), but also a new one: Section 1512, which criminalizes witness tampering or other means of obstructing an official proceeding.

This NYTimes OP ED seems to indicate they believe it, and that we are in unPresidented territory. It, like most of us, goes on to talk about how Trump's followers have not flinched at all despite their beloved sexual assaulter and serial adulterer claiming he's going to surrender Tuesday to federal authorities for all those crimes he committed.

But they also mention something that many Republicans, Trump cultists and otherwise have been saying: "Trump's arrest will further divide the country". The NYTimes OP ED does not say that like they believe it.

Mike Pence has.

"I think it would send a terrible message to the wider world. But again, let me be very clear: No one's above the law. And if the Department of Justice chooses to move forward with an indictment, I would hope that it would meet the very high threshold for the unprecedented action of a federal indictment against Trump."

Funny story: since saying that, Pence was dropped from Hannity's upcoming lineup. Hmm.

But that's from today. This is from yesterday.

No. 1, I think it would be terribly divisive to the country. This kind of action by the DOJ would only fuel further division in the country.

And he's been saying it for months.

Former Vice President Mike Pence balked at the idea of a potential indictment of Donald Trump, categorizing any possible prosecutorial actions as “politically charged” and “not what the American people want to see.”

-- March 19

Now Pence, like others we've seen, have not said the following, at least, not often and not recently:

They should not indict Trump because he is innocent

As a reminder, Pence is now actively running against Trump.

I believe that Republicans, even the cultists, know Trump is guilty. I believe they don't want to admit that. I believe instead they want to say, lying to each other and in some cases themselves, that something is happening other than what all objective evidence is saying: Trump stole classified documents, hid them, and lied to law enforcement about it. And he did all of that on purpose, and he did all of that with help (sometimes willing).

The point of law enforcement is to go after people who broke the law, and bring them to trial -- sometimes even justice. If Trump is allowed to say "you can't arrest me for my crimes, because politics" the question that follows then is "why can't everyone else say this?"

[PACOX]

2024 might be the best sequel of all time.

[Edge-]

Orange man possibly indicted on federal charges in Florida on the same day his hometown of New York City is blanketed in orange smoke?

Visual storytelling, ya'll.

[Dontrike]

It's sad to see the democrats using the doj to go after their political opponents.

That's one stupid way to look at it. This has been a long time coming and Trump will only get more of these thanks to him being a dumb ass mob boss that was too stupid to hide evidence appropriately.

- - - Updated - - -

Orange man possibly indicted on federal charges in Florida on the same day his hometown of New York City is blanketed in orange smoke?

Visual storytelling, ya'll.

Doesn't that mean that a new Trump must be picked out since the last one died?

[Draco-Onis]

The Espionage Act is no joke, and Trump is likely to actually be convicted.

Whether or not he goes to jail is another matter completely I'd argue. Heck he should be arrested right now.

He should have been arrested a long time ago even before running for president but these types of people are above the law.

[Breccia]

These CNN points are proving more useful than I would have guessed. In their desperation to dig out from the garbage they buried themselves in, they're breaking a ton of exclusives.

Donald Trump acknowledged on tape in a 2021 meeting that he had retained “secret” military information that he had not declassified, according to a transcript of the audio recording obtained by CNN.

"How do we know they're not making it up?"

Because this isn't the FOX/Dominion thread.

CNN obtained the transcript of a portion of the meeting where Trump is discussing a classified Pentagon document about attacking Iran. In the audio recording, which CNN previously reported was obtained by prosecutors, Trump says that he did not declassify the document he’s referencing, according to the transcript.

CNN first reported last week that prosecutors had obtained the audio recording of Trump’s 2021 meeting at his Bedminster, New Jersey, resort, with two people working on the autobiography of Trump’s former chief of staff Mark Meadows as well as aides employed by the former president, including communications specialist Margo Martin.

The transcript of the audio recording suggests that Trump is showing the document he’s discussing to those in the room. Several sources have told CNN the recording captures the sound of paper rustling, as if Trump was waving the document around, though is not clear if it was the actual Iran document.

“Secret. This is secret information. Look, look at this,” Trump says at one point, according to the transcript. “This was done by the military and given to me.”

Trump was complaining in the meeting about Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley. The meeting occurred shortly after The New Yorker published a story by Susan Glasser detailing how, in the final days of Trump’s presidency, Milley instructed the Joint Chiefs to ensure Trump issued no illegal orders and that he be informed if there was any concern.

By the way, I know we discussed that last part before, but I think it's worth mentioning again. The JCoS told the armed services not to follow any illegal orders Trump issued.

Let that sink in, one more time. Milley was concerned enough that Trump would give illegal orders, that he specifically and directly took steps based on that.

Illegal orders. He's running for office again, y'all.

Obviously, Trump disagreed.

“Well, with Milley – uh, let me see that, I’ll show you an example. He said that I wanted to attack Iran. Isn’t that amazing? I have a big pile of papers, this thing just came up. Look. This was him,” Trump says, according to the transcript. “They presented me this – this is off the record, but – they presented me this. This was him. This was the Defense Department and him. We looked at some. This was him. This wasn’t done by me, this was him.”

"Big pile of papers", everyone. Donald J. 5th-Grade Speaking Trump in the White House.

Trump continues: “All sorts of stuff – pages long, look. Wait a minute, let’s see here. I just found, isn’t that amazing? This totally wins my case, you know. Except it is like, highly confidential. Secret. This is secret information. Look, look at this.”

"Okay, so he's babbling and possibly frustrated. What does that prove?"

The, erm, "big pile of papers" was specifically and directly subpoena'd. Trump stole it.

In related news:

1) Alina Habba said she's ashamed to be a lawyer, but not for the reason you'd think.

What they do is they say, ‘Oh, look at this shiny ball, Jesse. Look at the shiny ball. Let’s go after Trump. Whatever you hear about the Bidens, don’t worry about it. Trump, Trump, Trump.’ It’s called Trump derangement syndrome and now it’s becoming so sick.

I’m embarrassed to be a lawyer at this moment, honestly. I am ashamed. I’m ashamed to be a lawyer.

Only a Trump lawyer would call things like the Espionage Act, obstruction of justice, and lying to law enforcement "the shiny ball". But then, she is working for Donald "big pile of papers" Trump, so she's probably "in the zone".

2) Trump's lawyers are trying desperately to handle "the tehdang case" of their client being a liable sexual assaulter by trying...

(reads story)

Everything.

His lawyers on Thursday said the damages should be reduced to under $1 million, with no more than $400,000 for sex abuse, no more than $100,000 for defamation and $368,000 or less for efforts to improve her reputation.

If the judge does not accept the reduced damages, he should allow a new trial in the case, Trump’s attorneys argued.

"On what grounds?"

That they want to be paid.

"On what legal grounds?"

Based purely on thier track record, nothing that'll last more than a few hours, tops. Simply put, the judge in the case could have cut the awards on the spot. It sounds like Trump is trying a business deal in court -- pay me less, or I'll demand a new trial.

"Isn't he also appealling the finding?"

Honestly this story is based on Team Trump's court filings, I don't even know if this is talking about an appeal or an actual different kind of redo. Maybe more details will come out later, but the way the AP writes it, I think they would have used the actual word "appeal" if that's what they meant, and they didn't. So it's something else.

3) Hey, you guys remember how starting Sept 2015 I kept pointing out in nearly every Politics post that Trump is a big fatty fatass fatty obese McFatson? It was because he made fun of another GOP rival, saying she was too ugly to be elected. I said the same about Huckabee and was called out for it, correctly, I was being an asshole going with guilt by association.

But guess what?

How many times did Chris Christie use the word SMALL? Does he have a psychological problem with SIZE?

Actually, his speech was SMALL, and not very good. It rambled all over the place, and nobody had a clue of what he was talking about. Hard to watch, boring, but that’s what you get from a failed Governor (New Jersey) who left office with a 7% approval rating and then got run out of New Hampshire. This time, it won’t be any different!

"Was he talking about Chris Christie being overweight, or is he suggesting Chris Christie has a small dick?"

Doesn't matter, once Trump starts the body shaming, he invites it on himself, which will be easy to do, there's a lot of himself to invite to.

4) When Tr--

"Did Christie hear about that?"

Yes.

What a child he is.

He’s a baby. If we had a child that acted like that, we’d send him to his room, not the White House.

4) When Trump hires a lawyer, he's looking for body armor. Someone to take the hit for him.

And they know it, as one tells NYMag.

One of the lawyers currently working on Trump’s sprawling legal-defense team drew a sharper, more provocative distinction. “You’re either one of two people as a lawyer for Donald Trump,” the attorney told me. “The ones who say ‘yes’ to everything, who will get sanctioned and get disbarred, who go to courts claiming election fraud that doesn’t exist, or who get put in a difficult position” owing to their service to Trump. “He gets these lawyers who just want to be part of that Trump world.” Others, in this person’s view, are more experienced, professionally secure, and independent minded and do their best to represent Trump within the boundaries of professional rules and norms.

Multiple lawyers working for Trump, however, told me there is no meaningful coordination across the groups. There are no standing meetings or calls — a common feature of large defense teams handling complex matters on behalf of a single client — to provide updates or compare notes among the groups. Even today, some of the lawyers working on Trump’s most important matters have never met or even spoken to one another, and they have little insight into what’s happening in the proceedings they aren’t directly working on. “You do what you do, then we all convene later and find out later what everyone else has done,” as one of them put it.

There are times when different departments working separately makes sense. To pick a random example, different classification levels by security clearance. Or the people working on the car's axles not talking with the people making the car's radio. The depiction above is not one of those. It's a chaotic mess which we should all believe is true, based purely on the results we've seen Trump try in court.

Obviously, the major headlines will be about Trump's second indictment(s) for quite some time. It wil hang over the news like a smoky haze from half a continent on fire. But let's not forget there's plenty of other evidence that Trump is a horrible human being, including a sexual assaulter, and that the people who support his behavior without the common decnecy or balls to explain why (the answer is "because I'm a horrible human being myself") need to be called out and shamed for the person they continue to follow, continue to support, continue to worship even, as evidenced by their silence on Trump's deplorable activities and crimes.

[Edge-]

https://www.vice.com/en/article/wxjj...ning-civil-war

“We need to start killing these traitorous fuckstains,” wrote one Trump supporter on The Donald, a rabidly pro-Trump message board that played a key role in planning the January 6 attack on the Capitol. Another user added: “It's not gonna stop until bodies start stacking up. We are not civilly represented anymore and they'll come for us next. Some of us, they already have.”

Predictably, murderous, violent Trump supporters are taking this news well.

[Breccia]

"they'll come for us next"

I mean, if you commit a crime, then, yes. It'd be wrong if we didn't. I don't want a ticket for running a stop sign, but it'd be the right thing to pull me over if I did. Otherwise, why have laws?

Also, yes, murder seems very on-brand for the terrorists Trump cultivated.

[Edge-]

So the galaxy brains at /r/conservative think this was announced yesterday to distract from the reports on the Biden suspicious activity report the FBI has!

Ignoring that it was broken by Trump himself and not any other sources (they confirmed later)

And that this was being reported as coming today earlier in the week.

And that the reports on that FBI document came well after the Trump reporting.

And that nobody but them thinks those documents matter.