Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Breccia]

Whoa, it actually does say that at the end. talk about burying th lead! LOL

I haven't seen that in anything else. So either I missed it dozens of times, KJCL is wrong, or it's a recent development.

By the way, just going to bet any/all people on this thread: Trump won't testify Aug 9th.

[Edge-]

Remember how Republicans all voted against efforts to investigate extremism in the US military? How they were adamant that there are no problems?

https://www.rollingstone.com/politic...krieg-1388238/

Except for Matthew Belanger, I guess. US Marine. What'd he do?

Matthew Belanger was arrested on June 10 in New York and charged with making false statements to a federal firearms licensee in order to make straw purchases of an assault rifle and handgun. Belanger pleaded not guilty to the firearms charges during an arraignment hearing on Monday.

In a July 14 court memo, federal prosecutors say that while a Marine, Belanger plotted far more serious crimes as part of the neo-Nazi group. The memo says Belanger trained with airsoft guns in the woods of Long Island as part of a plot to attack the “Zionist Order of Governments.” The memo also says Belanger was the subject of an FBI Joint Terrorism Taskforce investigation into allegedly plotting to “engage in widespread homicide and sexual assault.” Much of Belanger’s ideology and plotting, the memo says, is based around a desire to lessen the number of nonwhite Americans and to rape “white women to increase the production of white children.”

And uh...the Nazi group he's involved with is pretty on the nose with their name -

Federal prosecutors say a former U.S. Marine plotted mass murder and sexual assault to “decrease the number of minority residents” in the United States as part of his membership in a far-right neo-Nazi group, “Rapekrieg.”

Now to disabuse anyone of any notions that this is all just a simple misunderstanding -

In October 2020, Marine Corps officials and the FBI searched Belanger’s Marine Corps barracks housing and his electronic devices. They found “1,950 images, videos and documents related to white power groups, Nazi literature, brutality towards the Jewish community, brutality towards women, rape, mass murderers,” along with “violent uncensored executions and/or rape” and “previous mass murderers such as Dylan Roof.”

What does his lawyer say?

Belanger’s attorney, Leighton Lee, had argued that his client should be allowed home detention with an ankle monitor. In court documents, Lee claimed Belanger was not a flight risk in part because he had not fled despite being aware that he was under federal investigation for nearly two years.

Eyo fuck that. Nazi's, especially Nazi's with a hunger for rape, can rot in jail, kkthxbai.

- - - Updated - - -

AND THERE'S MORE!

https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/te...ctive/3032288/

More than 20 Republican attorneys general including Texas' Ken Paxton filed a lawsuit Tuesday against President Joe Biden's administration over a Department of Agriculture school meal program that prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

The challenge, led by Tennessee Attorney General Herbert Slatery, claims that the federal government is attempting to force states and schools to follow anti-discrimination requirements that "misconstrue the law."

The coalition of attorneys general are hoping for a similar result to a separate challenge from earlier this month when a Tennessee judge temporarily barred two federal agencies from enforcing directives issued by Biden's administration that extended protections for LGBTQ people in schools and workplaces.

Republicans want to starve LGBTQ+ kids now.

Just a reminder: Republicans hate children and the cruelty is absolutely the point.

[postman1782]

Wait, you can't possibly be suggesting Trump will testify.

Yeah, I dunno, I was just posting what the post said.

- - - Updated - - -

Whoa, it actually does say that at the end. talk about burying th lead! LOL

Wait, you can't possibly be suggesting Trump will testify.

Well, I dunno, the article does say Trump is testifying that day, but a judge has ordered Rudy Guiliani to testify that day.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/20/u...stigation.html

[Ripster42]

I'm pretty sure taking the 5th is grounds for firing them, with cause.

It's not. Literally what the 5th amendment is. The gov't can't punish you, which is what firing them would be, for not testifying. Please stop talking about american law.

[Breccia]

The gov't can't punish you, which is what firing them would be, for not testifying.

They could probably fire you for not following the rules of your job and the direct instructions of your commanding officer. Which would technically not be for taking the Fifth, but for failing to bring evidence when your boss says you have to. SCOTUS has already ruled on that, in 2009, and to the best of my knowledge it hasn't been overturned yet. It's not 100% the same thing, but basically, your boss can ask you to tell them what you did and if you refuse, he can fire you -- even in the government. Now, that still can't be used in a court of law against you.

As a result of the Supreme Court’s ruling, public employees may face discipline for failing to answer the employer’s questions so
long as two conditions are met: (1) the public employee must be advised of the fact that information given in the course of an internal
investigation will not be used in a subsequent criminal proceeding against the employee; and (2) the employee cannot be required to
waive his or her right to the privilege against self-incrimination under threat of job discipline.

To me, this looks like "testify or you're fired". Once you're fired, you can just, you know, still not testify while you're reading the help wanted ads.

[DarkTZeratul]

It's not. Literally what the 5th amendment is. The gov't can't punish you, which is what firing them would be, for not testifying. Please stop talking about american law.

The Fifth Amendment says you can't be compelled to testify against yourself, but it doesn't say that there cannot be consequences for doing so.

- - - Updated - - -

Once you're fired, you can just, you know, still not testify while you're reading the help wanted ads.

Precisely.

[Ripster42]

The Fifth Amendment says you can't be compelled to testify against yourself, but it doesn't say that there cannot be consequences for doing so.

Precisely.

Unless you're in the military, which would mean you've signed those rights away, yes, that's exactly what it means. The gov't cannot punish you for doing so. That's what "being compelled" means.

They could probably fire you for not following the rules of your job and the direct instructions of your commanding officer. Which would technically not be for taking the Fifth, but for failing to bring evidence when your boss says you have to. SCOTUS has already ruled on that, in 2009, and to the best of my knowledge it hasn't been overturned yet. It's not 100% the same thing, but basically, your boss can ask you to tell them what you did and if you refuse, he can fire you -- even in the government. Now, that still can't be used in a court of law against you.



To me, this looks like "testify or you're fired". Once you're fired, you can just, you know, still not testify while you're reading the help wanted ads.

On the contrary, he was truthfully told that, in fact, no criminal use could be made of any answers he gave under compulsion by the employer.

From the cite. They haven't offered immunity to the USSS agents. Until they do, compelling them through job termination is unconstitutional.

Edit: I want to be clear, I'd much rather have them be prosecuted for obstruction for deleting the messages, then forced to testify with immunity attached for any other crimes. Still put them in jail, still fire them for their illegal conduct, still force the testimony.

[Endus]

It's not. Literally what the 5th amendment is. The gov't can't punish you, which is what firing them would be, for not testifying. Please stop talking about american law.

Are you suggesting a federal employee can plead the fifth when it comes to any workplace reporting on their conduct or behaviour and face no employment consequences for doing so? "Why didn't you show up for three months, Tony?!" "I plead the fifth" "oh, okay, that's fine then, I guess, can't fire you if you plead the fifth." This doesn't make sense, dude. Your conduct while on duty and in performing your duties, for instance, your employer has the right to be informed about that and make employment decisions accordingly.

[Ripster42]

Are you suggesting a federal employee can plead the fifth when it comes to any workplace reporting on their conduct or behaviour and face no employment consequences for doing so? "Why didn't you show up for three months, Tony?!" "I plead the fifth" "oh, okay, that's fine then, I guess, can't fire you if you plead the fifth." This doesn't make sense, dude. Your conduct while on duty and in performing your duties, for instance, your employer has the right to be informed about that and make employment decisions accordingly.

Yes. Until they're offered immunity from criminal prosecution, they can't be forced to testify. You can still be fired for the underlying conduct, but not for refusing to testify.

[Endus]

Yes. Until they're offered immunity from criminal prosecution, they can't be forced to testify. You can still be fired for the underlying conduct, but not for refusing to testify.

That's literally what I said, if you read past the first sentence. That the refusal to testify indicated underlying conduct that would make their continued employment untenable.

"Given that any potential self-incrimination would be unethical conduct that would be grounds for dismissal."

Literally the sentence after you quoted.

[Ripster42]

That's literally what I said, if you read past the first sentence. That the refusal to testify indicated underlying conduct that would make their continued employment untenable.

"Given that any potential self-incrimination would be unethical conduct that would be grounds for dismissal."

Literally the sentence after you quoted.

Again, you can't make that conclusion. If they have other evidence that reflects on their conduct, they can be fired for that. They cannot be fired for not testifying. That doesn't lend any weight what-so-ever. The refusal to testify does not indicate underlying conduct that would make their continued employment untenable. Again, that's what the 5th amendment is when you are employed by any level of gov't. Unless you're offered immunity from criminal prosecution, you cannot be fired for not testifying.

[Breccia]

Until they do, compelling them through job termination is unconstitutional.

And it's 100% that the current head of SS knows this, and as such, is taking exactly the steps necessary. By the way, the two SS agents in the spotlight have both hired private lawyers, not SS or WH lawyers. I cited that myself.

So, here's what I think is happening:

SS Boss: Tell me what happened, or you're fired.
SS Agents: We struggled with Trump in the car, but we don't want to tell the world that because it makes Trump look bad, and we're both avowed cultists. So we said in public that no struggle happened, but if we say that under oath we'll perjure ourselves.
SS Boss: Well, the House is going to want to hear about that. Think about your next move. I won't block any subpoenas.
SS Agents: We don't want to say that on the stand. Or in public. Or, at all, to be honest. We only told you because otherwise you'd fire us if we didn't.
SS Boss: Well technically I can't testify on your behalf, but I can say that you've brought shame to this office and I hear Barron, the 16-year-old spoiled rich kid, is looking for different agents to watch his back in school. Pack your bags, you're going to Florida.

- - - Updated - - -

Unless you're offered immunity from criminal prosecution, you cannot be fired for not testifying.

Maybe not, it'll be interesting to watch this case unfold, but if they broke the rules so badly they refuse to testify because they're in that much trouble, that would be the other evidence you talked about. Or, they could refuse to tell their boss -- even with no risk of being prosecuted -- and fired for that.

If their boss wants to cover them, that's one thing, but I don't think that's the current climate.

We'll find out soon enough either way.

[Ripster42]

And it's 100% that the current head of SS knows this, and as such, is taking exactly the steps necessary. By the way, the two SS agents in the spotlight have both hired private lawyers, not SS or WH lawyers. I cited that myself.

So, here's what I think is happening:

SS Boss: Tell me what happened, or you're fired.
SS Agents: We struggled with Trump in the car, but we don't want to tell the world that because it makes Trump look bad, and we're both avowed cultists. So we said in public that no struggle happened, but if we say that under oath we'll perjure ourselves.
SS Boss: Well, the House is going to want to hear about that. Think about your next move. I won't block any subpoenas.
SS Agents: We don't want to say that on the stand. Or in public. Or, at all, to be honest. We only told you because otherwise you'd fire us if we didn't.
SS Boss: Well technically I can't testify on your behalf, but I can say that you've brought shame to this office and I hear Barron, the 16-year-old spoiled rich kid, is looking for different agents to watch his back in school. Pack your bags, you're going to Florida.

And I can guarantee that if he did make that conditional, the firing wouldn't be based on them not testifying, but other evidence they have that would lead the DHS director to believe they conducted themselves in a manner not appropriate for a USSS agent. Like the deleted text messages.

[Breccia]

And I can guarantee that if he did make that conditional, the firing wouldn't be based on them not testifying, but other evidence they have that would lead the DHS director to believe they conducted themselves in a manner not appropriate for a USSS agent. Like the deleted text messages.

Exactly. And once they're on the street, their options become far more limited. It could even be argued that they couldn't take a job from Trump because that'd be witness intimidation.

[Ripster42]

Exactly. And once they're on the street, their options become far more limited. It could even be argued that they couldn't take a job from Trump because that'd be witness intimidation.

In prison. Obstruction of justice is a criminal offense. That's why I don't want them to be offered immunity until they're prosecuted.

[Breccia]

In prison. Obstruction of justice is a criminal offense. That's why I don't want them to be offered immunity until they're prosecuted.

Yeah, that really depends on how badly SS agents who swore loyalty to Trump over country done fucked it up. If they really are just CYAing over Trump throwing a tantrum, that's not obstruction. If they said "Hey fellow SS people, Trump wants to lead an insurrection and we should totes say nothing to anyone about it" then prison's too good for them.

[Ripster42]

Yeah, that really depends on how badly SS agents who swore loyalty to Trump over country done fucked it up. If they really are just CYAing over Trump throwing a tantrum, that's not obstruction. If they said "Hey fellow SS people, Trump wants to lead an insurrection and we should totes say nothing to anyone about it" then prison's too good for them.

Deleting records when it's illegal to do so (national archives law) because they're going to be evidence in a crime is definitely obstruction of justice. There's no plausible deniability there. The conduct is already illegal even if the text messages weren't the subject of an investigation. I just hope the DoJ actually starts prosecuting obstruction of justice unlike how they failed to do so for trump.

[Breccia]

Deleting records when it's illegal to do so (national archives law) because they're going to be evidence in a crime is definitely obstruction of justice.

Ah, yes, that too.

[Lynarii]

Yeah, that really depends on how badly SS agents who swore loyalty to Trump over country done fucked it up. If they really are just CYAing over Trump throwing a tantrum, that's not obstruction. If they said "Hey fellow SS people, Trump wants to lead an insurrection and we should totes say nothing to anyone about it" then prison's too good for them.

I think it's far more likely to be on the serious side of this. Remember, from what we know, Pence's security detail was scared. Like 'Say goodbye to my wife and kids for me' kind of scared. The Secret Service agents don't get that spooked easily, they had SOMETHING that was telling them that it was going to be even worse than it turned out to be. We need to know what they were being told that scared them that badly, because not only was that information gleaned before the riots started, but it takes more than 'a bunch of angry people chanting slogans' to make these people think they could die that day.

[Adam Jensen]

https://www.businessinsider.com/dona...numbers-2022-7

Donald Trump has ended his friendship with Fox and Friends. He doesn't have a new friend to replace them with, this isn't a meme. That's the story, Fox and Friends is no longer his best friend. All because they showed polling showing that DeSantis was more popular than Trump.

Was only a matter of time.

If you're friends with Trump, you best understand it only lasts for so long as you're on his side. Disagree with him even once, you're done. Until he wants something from you again.