Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Adam Jensen]

"Why do I have to walk?"

"Because the front doors are in this direction, sir."

Man, I like that officer. She's got zingers for this manchild throwing an adult temper tantrum.

"Is there a reason proudboys aren't allowed here"

Is there a reason you're not listening you collossal dipshit? No one said you couldn't be there, they said you can't display that logo. Poor persecuted proud boy.

[beanman12345]

- - - Updated - - -

https://www.thedailybeast.com/spanis...julian-assange

Well this wasn't on my Bingo card -



Pompeo needing to testify in Spanish court over allegations of a US government plot including the CIA, which he lead at the time, to assassinate Assange. They're investigating the firm that allegedly worked with the CIA.

- - - Updated - - -
?

You think his legal counsel will tell him he won't be able to claim executive privilege? I know the immediate answer would be, but think about the administration we are dealing with.

[Fugus]

https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/...pt-of-congress

Edited out the previous commentary.

Basically, the DOJ is refusing to go after Meadows and Scavino for contempt of congress.

But seriously, @cubby does the committee still have the option for their Sargent at Arms to grab them or what?

[cubby]

https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/...pt-of-congress

Edited out the previous commentary.

Basically, the DOJ is refusing to go after Meadows and Scavino for contempt of congress.

But seriously, @cubby does the committee still have the option for their Sargent at Arms to grab them or what?

They do, but they probably won't. The reason is more than likely bad, and will further push our country over the edge. It's also possible the United States won't fail, but will slowly slide into a full blown fascist republic. We're almost there now.

[Fugus]

They do, but they probably won't. The reason is more than likely bad, and will further push our country over the edge. It's also possible the United States won't fail, but will slowly slide into a full blown fascist republic. We're almost there now.

I can see the GOP trying for the fascist republic, but they are trying for that route because they are to the point they lose all power on the national stage otherwise in short order as they are stretching as far as they can trying to hold onto power by screwing with the system as is so all they can do is break it for power.

But, the fact remains, the majority of the nation are against them and growing with their main supporters dying off due to age and the supporters that survive have no monopoly on firearms either. If they try and break the system like that, not sure they can hold onto power that way. You will see states passing more and more laws bypassing them like they are doing with pot laws and even the abortion laws now which aren't out yet.

The fascist state would be on borrowed time if it managed to take hold. That fascist state would quickly devolve into a civil war and the main people supporting the Republicans would be the same ones the republicans have spent generations vilifying while the majority would be against them and their supporters would be coming from basically the same majority of the world that is siding with Ukraine now and have a bone to pick with the GOP and Trump voters already.

If this nation goes full fascist, it will either have a bloody fight out of it or it will die and will deserve to die if it allows it to take hold.

[Breccia]

Elon Musk continues to stomp all over Twitter's stock prices by announcing over and over in public that he doesn't have to if Twitter doesn't supply, basically, blackmail info he can use to lower his offering price.

The letter from Musk is ostensibly about a dispute over data. Musk wants Twitter to provide him with information that will help him "facilitate his evaluation of spam and fake accounts on the company's platform."

While we know he's "worried" about bots (yeah he's either feigning indignation or legit too stupid to be that rich if he didn't think Twitter had bots) I am not sure what other "evaluation" he wants. I do know, that if he ripped up his contract right now and just bought shares on the open market, he'd already have saved enough money to cure cancer.

Of course, Twitter would say "we had a contract" and Musk would say "did you read the fine print, like Twitter users don't?" and also of course go full Trump and just not follow through regardless.

Oddly enough, this announcement did not raise DWAC stock price. Well it did for an hour, tops. Still sub-50 and now only slowly falling. Twitter's dropped like 5%.

[Gorsameth]

Obv Twitter has bots, the question is how many bots. Is 50% of the engagement on the platform just bot spam? Is it 10%? 30? The answer obviously would have a big impact in what someone is willing to pay for the service.

Now whether or not Mush is legit worried about this or if hes just trying to start trouble I don't know. I would not be at all surprised if this entire offer and buying process was just to find out just how bot infested twitter is and then publicly blow up the deal to collapse the stock price with the notion that its a very high %.

[Breccia]

Obv Twitter has bots, the question is how many bots. Is 50% of the engagement on the platform just bot spam? Is it 10%? 30?

That's a valid question.

But the target is 5% so even your most generous estimate is double what Elon Musk used as an escape clause.

My offer was based on Twitter's SEC filings being accurate. Yesterday, Twitter's CEO publicly refused to show proof of <5%. This deal cannot move forward until he does.

-- Musk, May 17

It seems we agree on the possibility Musk might be driving down the stock price, either to let him buy it for less if he's serious or to just fuck with them if he's not. Of course, since I'm sure Twitter at least believes if not is counting on Twitter having more than 5% bots, they can either renegotiate for a lower but still acceptable price, or more likely, rip the contract up and continue making lots of money even if their stock price staggers a bit. Yeah, their stock price is lower now than it was a year ago, but it's the same as 2 years ago.

And it looks increasingly unlikely that Musk will buy Twitter just to let Trump back on, and even at Twitter's current price, Twitter's worth 12x Trump's last Forbes value, even if he could and chose to liquidate everything just for the purchase.

[Edge-]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...y-email-shows/

A staffer for Donald Trump’s presidential campaign instructed Republicans planning to cast electoral college votes for Trump in Georgia despite Joe Biden’s victory to operate in “complete secrecy,” an email obtained by The Washington Post shows.

“I must ask for your complete discretion in this process,” wrote Robert Sinners, the campaign’s election operations director for Georgia, the day before the 16 Republicans gathered at the Georgia Capitol to sign certificates declaring themselves duly elected. “Your duties are imperative to ensure the end result — a win in Georgia for President Trump — but will be hampered unless we have complete secrecy and discretion.”

The Dec. 13, 2020, email went on to instruct the electors to tell security guards at the building that they had an appointment with one of two state senators. “Please, at no point should you mention anything to do with Presidential Electors or speak to the media,” Sinners continued in bold.

Man, faschy liars being all secretive and faschy and lying.

[Breccia]

As Team Trump continues to deny the Jan 6th insurrection was planned, the documentary filmmaker who filmed the Proud Boys planning will testify and likely turn over proof of the Proud Boys' planning.

The target in this specific case are the Proud Boys literally charged with sedition. Oh, and apparently the Oath Keepers. The filmmaker was with both leaders Jan 5. While testifying before Congress and/or the public isn't the same thing as the court case which these members could face, (a) there could be more to the story we don't know and (b) when there's evidence and testimony this public and this damning against you, you tend to plead out.

- - - Updated - - -

So let's talk about Alex Jones.

He's fucked.

Oh yeah, you forgot there were still cases against him, didn't you? Well maybe you didn't, but I did and I'm projecting.

On May 9 and then again on May 31, Jones’s notorious lawyer Norm Pattis moved to withdraw his firm from the case claiming that “Pursuant to Connecticut Rule of Professional Conduct 1.16(a)(3), the undersigned and his colleagues’ withdrawal is mandatory.” They also indicated that they’ve filed similar motions in Texas.

“We are in an untenable position — our communication with our client has broken down,” Pattis’s associate Cameron Atkinson told the judge last week. “We have not had direct communication with our client in over a month.”

You know you done fucked up when you're Too Trump For Texas.

For those of you not following these cases, you're missing a comedy show of the ages. The highlight so far was when the same lawyer Atkinson told the judge Jones was too sick to testify, only to have the opposing lawyer open his laptop and start playing Jones' live podcast. So, yeah, no wonder they want out.

And even those of you following closely probably missed...this.

“The most appropriate pathway is to have a hearing on the motion to withdraw (our representation) first and proceed with a new (trial) schedule from there,” he argued. “I appreciate your honor’s repeated statement that the trial date is going to hold firm, but I believe with these developments in the case, it is not practically feasible at this point.”

“I am not surprised, attorney Atkinson, that is your position,” Judge Bellis responded. “I am going to deny it, and if you want to file a formal written motion … I will consider it.”

Judge Bellis then posted a minute order documenting both the procedural defects in the attorneys’ withdrawal motions and the 13 other times Jones swapped out his counsel, or tried to do so, since this case was filed in 2018.

I lack the context to know what changing lawyers more often than Trump commits adultery means, but my first instinct is "holy fucking shit, this guy is so clearly guilty as hell and also broke". Perhaps @cubby can comment, but just saying it, I'm going to predict that even he has not only never met, but never heard of, a client with a baker's dozen different legal teams in a span that could fit between Rick and Morty seasons.

Oh, and added to that, that this team that wants to get to the escape pod and jettison was literally too incompetent to do it. (This is Midvale School for the Gifted here)

I looked at a few other articles, apparently June 15 is the showdown date. Yep, next week. One of three things will happen:
1) The judge postpones the main trial. Based on the judge's comments so far, "highly unlikely" is probably being cautious.
2) The motion succeeds, these lawyers bail HARDEE HAR HAR on Jones, who has to find a replacement team, sorry, 14th replacement team up and running by September 1.
3) The motion fails, and these lawyers who intentionally took on a case from an obviously guilty and broke client are stuck with an obviously guilty and broke client.

And!

Nothing will be more appropriate than for Jones to walk into that courtroom, possibly being marched in handcuffs (dare to dream, dare to meme) to face down the consequences for claiming a mass shooting was a hoax. In Texas. Soon. There's bad optics, there's horrible optics, there's "who green-lit the Elektra movie?" and there's this.

[Gorsameth]

I wonder if repeatedly switching lawyers and having the new lawyer need time to read up on the case is just another delay tactic. Delay to what is obviously a giant? but my guess is the heat death of the universe.

[Breccia]

I wonder if repeatedly switching lawyers and having the new lawyer need time to read up on the case is just another delay tactic.

Pfft. You sound just like the judge in that case. Who's tired of this shit.

Jones is due back in court Sept 1. Genn, wherever you are, if you can read this, I need a popcorn shipment by August 31.

- - - Updated - - -

Recently, in another thread, it came up that dishonorable discharge could limit gun ownership. News to me.

Is it retroactive? Four out of the five indicted Proud Boys are vets.

That's indicted for sedition, by the way.

[PhaelixWW]

Recently, in another thread, it came up that dishonorable discharge could limit gun ownership. News to me.

Is it retroactive? Four out of the five indicted Proud Boys are vets.

That's indicted for sedition, by the way.

Does it really matter?

People under indictment for a felony are subject to 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(1) and (n) and cannot purchase, ship, or otherwise transfer a firearm. And once they're convicted, they'll be subject to (g)(1) and won't be able to possess firearms at all.

All in all, they face 9 charges. I'm not sure how many of them are felonies, but I feel confident that they'll be convicted on at least one of the felony counts each.

[Masark]

Recently, in another thread, it came up that dishonorable discharge could limit gun ownership. News to me.

Dishonourable discharges have prohibited firearm (and ammunition) ownership since the 60s.

A dishonourable discharge is effectively a felony conviction for most purposes.

[Breccia]

A dishonourable discharge is effectively a felony conviction for most purposes.

Yeah, I had always just assumed they were seperate but equal. Live and learn.

[Lanrefni]

Fun fact, seditious conspiracy is also a felony. So it’s kinda irrelevant.

Another fun fact,they could all have their service reactivated and be charged and tried under the UCMJ if the military felt like sending a message.

[PhaelixWW]

Another fun fact,they could all have their service reactivated and be charged and tried under the UCMJ if the military felt like sending a message.

No, they couldn't, because they were discharged.

[Masark]

Another fun fact,they could all have their service reactivated and be charged and tried under the UCMJ if the military felt like sending a message.

I'm pretty sure that's only applicable to officers, not enlisted.

[PhaelixWW]

I'm pretty sure that's only applicable to officers, not enlisted.

It applies to both, I think, but only to active-duty retirees and some reserve retirees, and not discharges.

Basically, if they're receiving "retainer" money before the normal retirement benefits at 60, they can be called back into active service.

[Lanrefni]

It appears I was both right and wrong,the real answer is it depends-


Active-duty veterans who retired from the Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, Space Force, or Coast Guard and are entitled to immediate retirement pay

Navy-Marine Corps Fleet Reservists (those who retired from the Navy or Marine Corps between 20 and 30 years of service)

If they meet those two points of criteria they can be,otherwise no.

https://www.jordanucmjlaw.com/2021/1...ter-discharge/