Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Breccia]

Hey @Breccia what would you say if there was footage of Roger Stone on Jan 6?

I would say “See you in prison".

[some guy]

Recording there illegal shenanigans. We're obviously dealing real stable criminal masterminds.

[Poopymonster]

Recording there illegal shenanigans. We're obviously dealing real stable criminal masterminds.

They thought they'd get blanket pardons. "Evidence" means shit when the russian dicktaster says "You are forgiven. Go forth, and sin some more my child."

[Breccia]

This just in: Trump still hasn't posted on his own social media platform.

Well, not really.

Truth Social, which bills itself as a conservative-friendly alternative to Twitter, rocketed to the number-one spot on Apple’s free apps chart when it was made available for download in February — days after Trump made his only post on the site, telling fans that “your favorite president will see you soon.”

But many would-be “Truthsayers” who downloaded the app at launch have found themselves stuck in a lengthy waitlist that appears to not have budged.

A Post reporter has been stuck at number 387,392 on the app’s waitlist for more than a week and screenshots on Twitter show other would-be users with waitlist numbers higher than 1 million.

In the meantime, Truth Social has fallen to the 90th spot on Apple’s free chart as of Friday — just below traffic helper Waze and above the Starbucks rewards app.

I relatively recently posted they were #57, which I thought was appropriate because Trump's steaks also failed without sauce.

However, the app did send out a message to some users this week saying that it is “steadily welcoming new users from our temporary waitlist.”

“This phased rollout allows us to identify and remedy errors in real time as we onboard news users,” Truth Social added. “Rest assured, the entire TRUTH team is working around the clock to allow everyone to join us as quickly as possible.”

Yeah, that bolded proves that response is false.

Trump's social media platform has still not been SPAC'd yet, but the merger is due. The stock price is still quite high, which of course is really concerning. Everything about this project so far is an objective failure. In fact, the stock price is near the record set in October when the merger was announced, and after multiple launch failures and million-long wait lists, plus nobody buying the app anymore.

So why is the stock price so high?

This is money laundering. Trump was never going to make this work, everyone here knew it. He couldn't keep a blog going for more than a couple weeks. And we don't know who the shadow backers are, at least, the ones who aren't China. It's a good thing the SEC is on the case, because paying a billion dollars for a knowingly broken product is what meth dealers under laundromats do.

[Elegiac]

So why is the stock price so high?

This is money laundering. Trump was never going to make this work, everyone here knew it. He couldn't keep a blog going for more than a couple weeks. And we don't know who the shadow backers are, at least, the ones who aren't China. It's a good thing the SEC is on the case, because paying a billion dollars for a knowingly broken product is what meth dealers under laundromats do.

Funny you should mention that: Matt Levine called this for what it was last year.

I am not going to pretend to make a business case for [a Trump social media network]—there is a long history of hilarious failure in the “social media for Trump” category—but maybe you can. It is not a sure thing, in any case. Maybe it would work, maybe it wouldn’t. When Twitter Inc. went public, it had never been profitable, and it was, you know, a real social network that people used. Maybe Twitter But Trump would immediately be profitable, but boy, I have some doubts. On the other hand, if Donald Trump launched a company that was like, “I am going to start a social media platform for Trump fans,” could he get people to buy the stock? I think that two fundamental lessons of the last few years are:

1) You can get people to buy any stock; and
2) Donald Trump can get people to buy anything.

So if Donald Trump announced, “Hey, I’m gonna do a social media company, buy some stock,” people would buy some stock. And then he’d get a lot of money. And then if the social media platform did not end up being profitable—as I cannot imagine it would be!—then he would, uh, still have that money? And if the social media platform did not end up being launched—if Trump and his crack team of technologists just couldn’t actually build a well-functioning online social network—then he would, uh, still have that money? And if there was no crack team of technologists at all, if nobody even tried to build the social media platform—then you see where I am going with this, right?

Money laundering AND fleecing your true believers, to boot.

[Breccia]

Trump move in Arizona backfires. By pushing so hard against the state's GOP governor, yes it's still about the election he lost and can't get over, the GOP governor announces he's not running against the Democratic Senator.

Which leaves the GOP with...uh...

(checks news)

Well, I'm sure there's some upstart nobody that will froth Trumpisms at the mouth until Trump puts his dick in it. But there are no big names on the market so far.

At the moment, state Attorney General Mark Brnovich is probably the front-runner, but Trump has attacked Brnovich – he called the AG “lackluster” – for not being supportive enough of the sham election audit conducted in Maricopa County.

There’s absolutely no question that Trump has made it harder for Republicans to beat Kelly in the fall. That doesn’t mean it won’t happen, but with Ducey’s announcement, the climb just got steeper.

[Edge-]

https://www.cbs17.com/news/political...sional-speech/

“Overzealous executives have wrenched away a precious power bestowed upon this body (Congress),” he said. “I am here to remind them Congress declares war, not Joe Biden, not some woke general. Congress.”

Madison Cawthorn, in a speech where he hails Toby Keith as a "great philosopher", apparently unaware that power was not "wrenched" away from Congress in this regard. Congress has freely, voluntarily, and repeatedly given that power to the executive branch. Which is a problem yes, but not for the reason that dumbass, empty-headed Madison Cawthorn thinks.

[Breccia]

Money laundering AND fleecing your true believers, to boot.

Technically there is nothing illegal about asking someone to buy a defective product and pay too much for it. Unless they sign a contract that says "this product works".

You would assume such a contract exists, if it's a real investment group with real aspirations to make money. We don't know who these people are and we don't know if such a contract exists. It is therefore trivial of me to say no such contract exists, knowing I cannot be proven wrong, and the evidence in that camp anyhow. If the sale was contingent on a product that has a whelk's chance in a supernova, the stock wouldn't be near record highs.

What might help? Well, if enough of this is a public trade, then it's likely some kind of pump-and-dump restricted fraud.

If it's a private trade, it could actually be worse. An SPAC isn't supposed to meet with the purchase target and conspire to defraud buyers. That's why they can't meet beforehand. Which they did, incidentally.

And of course, my personal favorite, if China is behind this as we know they are, Trump has a big problem if he ever tries to fund any campaign again. Foreign money can't go to political donations.

Don't get me wrong, I am sure anyone who was willing to hand Trump some money for his non-functioning app will be willing to hand him money just because. Well, except for the Chinese, as listed earlier. But you don't launder your money in public and hope nobody does anything about it.

So far, the investigation hasn't done anything, but then so far the purchase hasn't happened. The SPAC can always change their mind and refund the money to its shareholders, no harm no foul.

- - - Updated - - -

Congress has fWeely, voluntaWily, and Wepeatedly given that power to the executive bWanch.

And when did that happen? Also, how do you feel about weading questions?

[Elegiac]

Technically there is nothing illegal about asking someone to buy a defective product and pay too much for it. Unless they sign a contract that says "this product works".

You would assume such a contract exists, if it's a real investment group with real aspirations to make money. We don't know who these people are and we don't know if such a contract exists. It is therefore trivial of me to say no such contract exists, knowing I cannot be proven wrong, and the evidence in that camp anyhow. If the sale was contingent on a product that has a whelk's chance in a supernova, the stock wouldn't be near record highs.

What might help? Well, if enough of this is a public trade, then it's likely some kind of pump-and-dump restricted fraud.

If it's a private trade, it could actually be worse. An SPAC isn't supposed to meet with the purchase target and conspire to defraud buyers. That's why they can't meet beforehand. Which they did, incidentally.

And of course, my personal favorite, if China is behind this as we know they are, Trump has a big problem if he ever tries to fund any campaign again. Foreign money can't go to political donations.

Don't get me wrong, I am sure anyone who was willing to hand Trump some money for his non-functioning app will be willing to hand him money just because. Well, except for the Chinese, as listed earlier. But you don't launder your money in public and hope nobody does anything about it.

So far, the investigation hasn't done anything, but then so far the purchase hasn't happened. The SPAC can always change their mind and refund the money to its shareholders, no harm no foul.

Regarding the campaign funding: this might be a premature assessment, but I really don't think Trump plans to mount a serious effort in 2024. The reasoning is twofold:

1) Throughout his term we heard nothing but bitching and whining about how much he hated having to be in that position.
2) Everything we've heard since then has been about his massive financial liabilities, and running any sort of political campaign in the year of our lord 2022 is a yugely expensive endeavor.

What I think we're likely to see is a lot of begging for donations which will be mysteriously misappropriated and put towards paying off Trump's debts. Assuming he doesn't get nailed to the wall for his ongoing instances of fraud, first.

[Breccia]

Regarding the campaign funding: this might be a premature assessment, but I really don't think Trump plans to mount a serious effort in 2024. The reasoning is--

Yeah yeah, I agree with you. He's got other problems and just wants the money and attention. But if he plans to donate to other runners, which he kind of is? It's the same problem.

[Fugus]

Regarding the campaign funding: this might be a premature assessment, but I really don't think Trump plans to mount a serious effort in 2024. The reasoning is twofold:

1) Throughout his term we heard nothing but bitching and whining about how much he hated having to be in that position.
2) Everything we've heard since then has been about his massive financial liabilities, and running any sort of political campaign in the year of our lord 2022 is a yugely expensive endeavor.

What I think we're likely to see is a lot of begging for donations which will be mysteriously misappropriated and put towards paying off Trump's debts. Assuming he doesn't get nailed to the wall for his ongoing instances of fraud, first.

I think him running at this point has less to do with him WANTING to and more that he might NEED to just for the legal protection it would give him while in office.

Whether he runs or not really depends on if he is out of jail while still fighting it while it happens.

If he is in prison, he can try to run but won't get far.
If he has beat the cases (Don't underestimate Democrats ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory), he won't run as he has no need to and made money.
If he is still legally free but fighting major court cases, he will run and hope to use that as leverage to force them back on hold.

[Breccia]

I think him running at this point has less to do with him WANTING to and more that he might NEED to just for the legal protection it would give him while in office.

Whether he runs or not really depends on if he is out of jail while still fighting it while it happens.

This is a point that's been touched on before, there's a kind of Mexican rapists stand-off going.

1) If Trump runs, the DoJ can announce charges and arrest him mid-run, making him look guilty, crushing the GOP after they make him the only candidate and then he can't do anything, and of course all the blocks to his funds.

2) If the DoJ presses charges, Trump can quickly announce his run and then claim he can't be arrested despite him saying he'd do it to Clinton in public and being cheered for it.

Basically, whoever makes their move first looks worse. Of course, if neither side flinches, Trump doesn't run...and then the DoJ can just file charges anyhow because he broke the law.

- - - Updated - - -

Also found out that WP subscribers can gift articles when a kind soul did so on twitter.

Indeed, but this article has other interesting stuff because they read the article too.

The Post said it had viewed 20 hours of footage of the political operative that had been shot for a forthcoming documentary. The footage, it said, showed Stone:

Meeting and corresponding with members of a far-right militia since indicted for seditious conspiracy over the Capitol riot on January 6.
Discussing a plan in which Trump would issue a blanket pardon to co-conspirators in the attempt to overturn the election, Senator Ted Cruz and congressman Jim Jordan among them.
Saying Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and close adviser, should be “punished” in a way that would leave him “braindead”.
Suggesting violence against protesters for racial justice would be possible with the election out of the way.

Stone, who has resisted cooperation with the House January 6 investigation, told the Post “any claim, assertion or implication that I knew about, was involved in or condoned the illegal acts at the Capitol on January 6” was “categorically false”.

Later in the same article:

The Post detailed Stone’s activities leading up to 6 January, including staying at the Willard hotel, a “command centre” for Trump associates. Footage, the paper said, showed Stone with members of the Oath Keepers militia now charged with seditious conspiracy.

Whoops. That pesky evidence, huh?

Stone also said the paper employed “a clever blend of ‘guilt by association’, insinuations, half-truths, anonymous claims, falsehoods and out-of-context trick questions” and said the footage could be “deep fakes”.

Stupid thing to say when you can just subpoena the camera crew.

The film-makers also shot Stone as he attempted to broker presidential pardons for money, and as he attempted to secure access to Trump’s rally near the White House on 6 January, but failed.

As the Capitol riot began, the Post said, Stone was unavailable for a short period of time. He then told the film-makers: “I think it’s really bad for the movement. It hurts, it doesn’t help. I’m not sure what they thought they were going to achieve.”

"Hey, that's not so b--"

But he also said: “When you can’t get a fair and honest judicial opinion, when you can’t get a fair, honest and transparent election, when your legislative process is constipated by fear and threat …”

"Oh, well, I mean, you c--"

The Post said Stone then “slightly misquot[ed] former president John F Kennedy”: “Those who make peaceful progress impossible make violent revolution inevitable.”

"Well, shit. At least he didn't advocate violence."

On 20 January 2021, inauguration day, enraged by a pardon on fraud charges for Steve Bannon, a rival for Trump’s attentions, Stone reportedly said Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law, was “going to get a beating. He needs to have a beating. And needs to be told, ‘This time we’re just beating you. Next time we’re killing you.’”

"...clearly he was joking."

Urged to say he was joking, the Post said, Stone said: “No, it isn’t joking. Not joking. It’s not a joke.”

Stone also said Kushner should be “punished in the most brutal possible way” and would be “braindead when I get finished with him”.

"Jaina tap-dancing Proudmoore, that's bad. Only thing worse would be talking about violence against Trump himself."

Stone then turned to Trump

"Of course."

who he said deserved to be impeached and whose presidency had been the “greatest single mistake in American history”.

“A good, long sentence in prison will give him a chance to think about it, because the southern district is coming for him, and he did nothing,” Stone said, referring to prosecutors in New York investigating Trump’s business.

Stone also mocked Trump’s apparent plan to run again, saying: “Run again! You’ll get your fucking brains beat in.”

"Wow. How did he forget the cameras were on?"

He didn't.

He told the film-makers: “Obviously if you use any of that, I’ll murder you.”

Trump's close friend and advisor, ladies and gentlemen. Well...he was until that point, I'm guessing. Who wants to bet if Trump has seen this yet?

- - - Updated - - -

Trump takes credit for victory for backing unopposed candidates.

So much for "tired of winning". Now it's "I will make the sun rise...there! Boom! You're welcome."

- - - Updated - - -

So...Barr's going on TV. This should be fun.

"His first interview, nice! Which FOX News anchor got that?"

Hee hee

"I told him that all this stuff was bulls--- ... about election fraud. And, you know, it was wrong to be shoveling it out the way his team was," Barr said in an interview with NBC News' Lester Holt that is scheduled to air Sunday night. First highlights of the interview aired Thursday on MSNBC's "Andrea Mitchell Reports."

Barr acknowledged that Trump contributed to the image of him as the president's lackey, including by bringing his name up in the 2019 phone conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy that led to Trump's first impeachment. In the call, which Trump would later describe as "perfect," he told Zelenskyy that he would have Barr reach out to him or his "people" concerning two investigations he wanted: one related to an email server tied to Trump’s former political rival Hillary Clinton and the other related to Joe Biden and his son Hunter.

Barr told Holt he hadn't been aware of the scheme and was "livid" when he found out about what Trump had said. "This whole maneuver of trying to get the Ukrainians to investigate Biden — that was a harebrained scheme. It was ridiculous," Barr said.

Trump, he said, "never really had a good idea of, you know, the role of the Department of Justice [and] to some extent, you know, the president’s role."

Barr pointed to his publicly speaking out against Trump's election fraud claims as an instance of his standing up to the president. He said Trump was so enraged that he thought it would be his last day on the job.

"He was asking about different theories, and I had the answers. I was able to tell him, 'This was wrong because of this,'" Barr recounted.

Trump listened, but "he was obviously getting very angry about this."

Barr said he told Trump: "I understand you're upset with me. And I'm perfectly happy to tender my resignation."

Barr said Trump then slapped his desk and said: "Accepted. Accepted."

"And then — boom. He slapped it again. 'Accepted. Go home. Don't go back to your office. Go home. You're done,'" he said.

In a letter responding to Barr's interview, Trump said he was the one who asked Barr to resign that day and said his account was a fabrication.

Barr said Trump had White House lawyers stop him before he left the premises to tell him he wasn't fired, but Trump continued to take shots at him in public.

“He hasn’t done anything. He hasn’t looked” for voter fraud, Trump complained at an event at the White House on Dec. 3. "This is criminal stuff. This is very bad, criminal stuff.”

I'm sure there's more in the interview where Barr defends his record of helping the man who called him incompetent and fired him.

We've seen the Republican Party trying to quietly back away, mostly McConnell and the OG GOP. Now in 24 hours we have two of Trump's closest allies calling him an incompetent shitwaddle, on camera. Leaving aside what court cases he could be in at the time, it's looking more and more like the rabid fanbase will be left in 2024 screaming at motorists from the underpass.

Trump was forced at figurative gunpoint to take Pence as a tether to the Republican Party. That failed. Everyone knows it. Not only did he try to murder them, everyone who worked with him is telling the same story, and Trump is increasingly outnumbered and incredible when he claims "they're lying too". Hopefully for the Republican Party, this will turn out to be a continuing move away from an incompetent unstable failure.

[Breccia]

@Breccia I love the deep fakes part. Disney can barely pull of a young Luke Skywalker but this genius thinks someone's pulling off a flawless Roger Stone.

I've seen your CGI in your 2002 movie. You're not allowed to talk shit about The Mandalukian.

But yeah, maybe that's the new defense they got from Stormfront, a literal Nazi, to use, and it was just Stone's first thought. No, wait, that was a response to WaPo, it was pre-written. Saying "that is a deep fake" is a fucking stupid thing to say when the original cameraman can say, on the stand, "yes he said that, here are the original files". Also, wouldn't you sue if you knew they were deep fakes? Hell, it could even be fraud, you could press charges.

[Edge-]

"'If I do this, what do I have to lose?'" Donoghue told the committee Trump asked.

Trump, making a play on his pitch to Black voters which was - "What do you have to lose?" when aides were attempting to dissuade him from attempting to overturn the legal results of an election.

Hopefully the answer is "his freedom, as he'll live out his days in a prison cell", but probably not.

[Breccia]

"his freedom, as he'll live out his days in a prison cell"

Trump thought he could take a swing at this and have no consequences if he missed. A person jumping out of an airplane without a parachute doesn't hit the ground, until he does. When the consequences hit, hopefully, it'll leave an impact larger than a skydiving fat orange fatass.

The Jan 6th panel is ready to turn over everything to the DoJ and may already have done so. As @cubby has warned us, investigations take time, even with a clearly guilty target you want to 100% lock him up. And while neither Stone nor Barr spoke under oath, their statements should be taken as fact unless they take the stand and say something else. Stone doesn't want to do that. Barr doesn't need to honestly, "Barr told Trump there was no fraud" is public info and for all his faults I doubt he'd recant on the stand.

Trump was taking actions to defraud the people and its government based on what he knew was a falsehood. Unless he's insane.

[Edge-]

“Were this Court to sustain the defendants’ claims, it may be the first formal finding of Presidential criminality by a federal court in United States history,”

What leftist, socialist liberal said this?!

Attorney John Eastman, you know, the guy that created the legal strategy to attempt to overturn the election for Trump. Apparently even he believes Trump engaged in criminal conduct and doesn't want his emails included in the investigation because I guess they're fairly damning.



John Eastman right now.

[Breccia]

John Eastman right now.

It's off-topic, but, MMO-C's second favorite lawyer has a lot to say about that trial.

On topic: Donald Trump looks increasingly like a stray orange hair to be flicked off the nation’s sleeve.

Trump must try to emulate the protagonist of “A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court.” In Mark Twain’s novel, a 19th-century American is transported back in time to Britain in the year 528. He gets in trouble, is condemned to death, but remembers that a solar eclipse occurred on the date of his scheduled execution. He saves himself by vowing to extinguish the sun but promising to let it shine again if his demands are met.

Trump is faltering at the business of commanding outcomes that are, like Twain’s eclipse, independent of his interventions.

We are the sum of our choices, and Vladimir Putin has provoked some Trump poodles to make illuminating ones. Their limitless capacity for canine loyalty now encompasses the Kremlin war criminal. (The first count against Nazi defendants at Nuremberg: “Planning, preparation, initiation and waging of wars of aggression.”) For example, the vaudevillian-as-journalist Tucker Carlson, who never lapses into logic, speaks like an arrested-development adolescent: Putin has never called me a racist, so there.

J.D. Vance, groveling for Trump’s benediction (Vance covets Ohio’s Republican Senate nomination), two weeks ago said: “I don’t really care what happens to Ukraine.” Apparently upon discovering that Ohio has 43,000 Ukrainian Americans, Vance underwent a conviction transplant, saying, “Russia’s assault on Ukraine is unquestionably a tragedy,” and emitting clouds of idolatry for Trump’s supposedly Metternichian diplomacy regarding Putin.

For Trump, the suppurating wound on American life, and for those who share his curdled venom, war is a hellacious distraction from their self-absorption. Fortunately, their ability to be major distractions is waning.

[Edge-]

It's off-topic, but, MMO-C's second favorite lawyer has a lot to say about that trial.

On topic: Donald Trump looks increasingly like a stray orange hair to be flicked off the nation’s sleeve.

He's following Trump, who after a week of praising Putin's genius is now calling this the "holocaust".

JD Vance is really a sad, pathetic little loser of a man who needs to shave those damned pubes off his face.

[Breccia]

He's following Trump, who after a week of praising Putin's genius is now calling this the "holocaust".

Yes, but he's not calling it Putin's holocaust. You saw what he said, and he did not call out Putin by name. Not sure he called out Russia by name.

Incidentally, Deutsche Banke if you're listening, want to know where you can safely and legally get some foreign funds? Calling in Trump's loans. Also if you are listening, um, how? Russia done blocked like everything 60 seconds ago.

[Edge-]

Sure gotta wonder how the Trump family is getting loans now that they can't legally get them from Russian banks anymore, and those were apparently just about the only banks that would touch them. US lenders all know how insanely radioactive they were even well before Trump's latest political aspirations.