Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[cubby]

https://www.newsweek.com/eric-trump-...r-lago-1733965

Eric Trump says they'll apparently reveal video of the FBI raid. I look forward to it, seriously. Let's see if they really were planting evidence or if they simply executed a lawful search warrant.

He's the dumbest blowhard in a family of idiot blowhards...so whatever he has to offer will be nonsense, and then get worse.

Garland probably took a full month to put this together, with Staff Attorneys in the National Security Division of the DOJ, along with 20+ year veterans of high profile search warrants. Planned it out step by step, including prepared answers to questions, from Trump and USSS officers. Made each search team was staffed by 3 FBI agents, ensuring no bias or "conspiracy". And at some point, brought in the Director of the USSS to let him know it was happening, so the USSS agents on the property would know.

There almost literally couldn't be a more text book warrant search than in this case. Because one mistake, and the whole case is gone.

[Edge-]

https://archive.ph/mypU3

Archive link for WashPo but...

Former president Donald Trump and close aides have spent the eight days since the FBI searched his Florida home rushing to assemble a team of respected defense lawyers. But the answer they keep hearing is “no.”

The struggle to find expert legal advice puts Trump in a bind as he faces potential criminal exposure from a records dispute with the National Archives that escalated into a federal investigation into possible violations of the Espionage Act and other statutes.

“Everyone is saying no,” said a prominent Republican lawyer, who like some others spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss confidential conversations.

Trump is no stranger to legal proceedings, and his scramble to hire lawyers in the face of an ominous federal probe recalls his predicament in the summer of 2017, when he was under scrutiny from special counsel Robert S. Mueller III in the Russia probe. Once again, Trump is struggling to find a veteran criminal defense lawyer with a strong track record of dealing with the Justice Department in a sprawling, multipronged investigation.

Longtime confidants and advisers of Trump have grown extremely worried about Trump’s current stable of lawyers, noting that most of them have little to no experience in cases of this type, according to two people familiar with the internal discussions.

Who could have ever guessed that given Trump's long streak of losing pointless legal battles and screwing over his lawyers, that competent, qualified lawyers might not be inclined to work with him. And that's aside from the general dumpster fire that is everything related to Trump.

[cubby]

https://archive.ph/mypU3

Archive link for WashPo but...

Former president Donald Trump and close aides have spent the eight days since the FBI searched his Florida home rushing to assemble a team of respected defense lawyers. But the answer they keep hearing is “no.”

The struggle to find expert legal advice puts Trump in a bind as he faces potential criminal exposure from a records dispute with the National Archives that escalated into a federal investigation into possible violations of the Espionage Act and other statutes.

“Everyone is saying no,” said a prominent Republican lawyer, who like some others spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss confidential conversations.

Trump is no stranger to legal proceedings, and his scramble to hire lawyers in the face of an ominous federal probe recalls his predicament in the summer of 2017, when he was under scrutiny from special counsel Robert S. Mueller III in the Russia probe. Once again, Trump is struggling to find a veteran criminal defense lawyer with a strong track record of dealing with the Justice Department in a sprawling, multipronged investigation.

Longtime confidants and advisers of Trump have grown extremely worried about Trump’s current stable of lawyers, noting that most of them have little to no experience in cases of this type, according to two people familiar with the internal discussions.

Who could have ever guessed that given Trump's long streak of losing pointless legal battles and screwing over his lawyers, that competent, qualified lawyers might not be inclined to work with him. And that's aside from the general dumpster fire that is everything related to Trump.

I would bet there is another element to the series of "no" he's received lately - that of violent threats and actions against the legal team when they lost. Most lawyers wouldn't mind taking on a losing criminal case for exorborant fees, and at this late stage, they could request a Yuge retainer (for those that don't know - a retainer is a fee paid up front in which legal fees are extracted as they are incurred - it's a mechanism to make sure defendants can pay their legal fees), and get draconian escrow releases on it if/when Trump fires them. Defense attorneys make their bread and butter on hourly fees - sometimes in the range of $1,000/hr+.

Trump would garner those kind of extreme fees and circumstances.

However, the future threats of violence would be a major deterrent. Most attorney's love the fanfare, but not the fans throwing Molotov Cocktails (yes, I went there) at them while they lose motion after motion.

And I would be a great deal of money that Trump loses this if it goes before a judge/court. I know I keep saying this, but continuous reflection on the facts still has me seeing Garland ready to literally jail Trump.

[postman1782]

https://www.newsweek.com/eric-trump-...r-lago-1733965

Eric Trump says they'll apparently reveal video of the FBI raid. I look forward to it, seriously. Let's see if they really were planting evidence or if they simply executed a lawful search warrant.

You know damn well they aren't going to show the video.

[VMSmith]

I think it would be very interesting to see a Democratic ticket in 2024 that included Liz Cheney for Vice President. If the right person were at the top of the ticket I feel like with her onboard they could utterly crush Trump or any Republican in the election.

[Breccia]

Who could have ever guessed that given Trump's long streak of losing pointless legal battles and screwing over his lawyers, that competent, qualified lawyers might not be inclined to work with him.

I would bet there is another element to the series of "no" he's received lately - that of violent threats and actions against the legal team when they lost.

Indeed, it's amazing what happens when your track record of being a shitty human being is visible from space.

So remember DWAC, the company that said it would buy CyberTrump 2077 and take it public? They missed a filing deadline.

In a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Tuesday, DWAC said it was unable to file its second-quarter earnings report "because additional time is needed to prepare the financial statements."

DWAC noted it would file its earnings report within the five-day grace period allotted by the SEC.

Asked in the filing whether the company anticipates "any significant change in results of operations from the corresponding period for the last fiscal year will be reflected by the earnings statements" that would be included in the report, DWAC checked a box that read "Yes."

The company said it lost roughly $4.7 million last quarter and around $6.5 million total for the first half of the year, but that those figures are still being reviewed by its accounting firm and could be subject to change with the official earnings report.

The Elon Musk thing is kinda falling apart, and I haven't checked the stock price recently...oh wow, still basically unchanged at $30. I used to say "they're still below $50"...I remember it like it was June 10.

DWAC has asked its own investors to extend the deadline before it buys CyberTrump 2077, can't remember who is and who isn't on its own board, is under investigation and being sued for fraud. Somehow, I doubt they missed their earnings deadline because they were too busy counting all the money. Even all the extra traffic Trump's posts are generating isn't helping the stock price.

Who would have guessed? Oh, right, everyone. Well, maybe 2022 election season will help.

In related news, Jenna Elfman has been orderd to testify. Most recently known for Fear the Walking Dead, the actr...hold on.

(checks article)

Jenna Ellis has been ordered to testify. Best known for Fear the Walking Trump, the lawyer has been ordered to testify about her (and one assumes others') role in organizing Georgia Fake Electors.

Judge Gregory Lammons in Fort Collins, Colorado, made the decision after holding a hearing on a request from Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis to compel testimony from attorney Jenna Ellis. Prosecutors are interested in Ellis’s role in helping to coordinate and plan legislative hearings in Georgia and others states where false allegations of election fraud were pushed, according to testimony in court.

Willis last month filed petitions with the judge overseeing the special grand jury seeking to compel testimony from seven Trump associates and advisers, including Ellis, U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, and former New York mayor and Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani. Because they don’t live in Georgia, she had to use a process that involves getting a judge in the state where they’re located to order them to appear before the special grand jury in Atlanta.

In the petition seeking Ellis’s testimony, Willis identified her as “an attorney for the Trump Campaign’s legal efforts seeking to influence the results of the November 2020 election in Georgia and elsewhere.”

Ellis appeared with Giuliani at a Dec. 3, 2020, state Senate committee hearing at the Georgia Capitol during which false allegations of election fraud were made, Willis wrote. She also wrote at least two legal memos to Trump and his attorneys advising that then-Vice President Mike Pence should “disregard certified electoral college votes from Georgia and other purportedly ‘contested’ states” when Congress met to certify the election results on Jan. 6, 2021, the petition says.

Remember, lawyer-client confidentiality does not work in a criminal conspiracy. Giuliani is fighting the subpoena, but based on the number of his associates who either didn't or couldn't, his odds aren't great.

[Kaleredar]

I think it would be very interesting to see a Democratic ticket in 2024 that included Liz Cheney for Vice President. If the right person were at the top of the ticket I feel like with her onboard they could utterly crush Trump or any Republican in the election.

That'd probably do a lot more to dissuade democrats from voting for Biden than it would encourage republicans to vote for him. Trump is a symptom of the GOP that every single one of them, at some level, is complicit in some part of, even if they personally disapprove of his shenanigans. I actually think most of the GOP establishment greatly dislike Trump, but most of them are too chicken shit to do anything about it.

As always, Trump's chances aren't zero if he runs in 2024, but I think he faces a tremendous uphill battle. The only real negatives the GOP has against Biden that independent voters care about are inflation and gas prices... and if those things aren't issues in 2024 (gas prices have already started to decline) then they basically have nothing, because banging the drum of Hunter Biden's laptop and pet issues with the price of hamburger or lumber or whatever isn't going to make Trump's dumpster fire of a presidency seem "better," especially with all of the very visible civil and criminal proceedings breathing down Trump's neck . More liberal democrats might not approve of Biden's presumed lack of progressive drive (though dunking on the GOP to pass the climate bill and similar legislation is probably a huge step in the right direction for most) but they sure as hell aren't going to sit back and let Trump back in.

Trump's hardcore cultists aren't electorally a concern. They'll vote for Trump no matter what, but they aren't, by themselves, large enough to matter.

[s_bushido]

I think it would be very interesting to see a Democratic ticket in 2024 that included Liz Cheney for Vice President. If the right person were at the top of the ticket I feel like with her onboard they could utterly crush Trump or any Republican in the election.

Given recent events, I have no idea why you think putting this on the ticket that's the only option for Democratic voters would do anything but make them not vote...

[VMSmith]

Trump is a symptom of the GOP that every single one of them, at some level, is complicit in some part of, even if they personally disapprove of his shenanigans.

36% of Republicans in Cheney's district voted for her and not the Trump-endorsed candidate. That's one-third of registered Republicans who will happily vote for a Republican who's not part of the Trump-induced lunacy. They care about the country more than one person or party.

Given recent events, I have no idea why you think putting this on the ticket that's the only option for Democratic voters would do anything but make them not vote...

Not every Democrat is on board with the right to an abortion. There are many differences within the party, e.g. see Joe Manchin and AOC. Real life is not an MMOC echo chamber where everyone who votes is required to toe the line on every iota of orthodoxy. At least, so I'm told every time I state that I expect candidates to support my values or I won't vote for them, even if they put a D next to their name.

If Democrats would not vote for Biden/Cheney simply because she's a Republican and would be happy instead to see Trump 2.0, then why are these threads constantly filled with "lesser evil" discussion? If losing to Trump is preferable to winning with Cheney then how can any one of you ever bitch about "Bernie Bros" again?

[Captain N]

36% of Republicans in Cheney's district voted for her and not the Trump-endorsed candidate. That's one-third of registered Republicans who will happily vote for a Republican who's not part of the Trump-induced lunacy. They care about the country more than one person or party.

Until the actual election comes along and those 36% toe the party line with "Better Red Than Democrat" because that's what they always do.

[Kaleredar]

36% of Republicans in Cheney's district voted for her and not the Trump-endorsed candidate. That's one-third of registered Republicans who will happily vote for a Republican who's not part of the Trump-induced lunacy. They care about the country more than one person or party.

That's because they were choosing between Republicans.

The GOP has proven they will with very few exceptions (and Trump isn't an exception) congeal around whomever their party puts up against a democrat, because they've been made to fear democrat boogeymen. Quite effectively.

Even were Cheney to be selected as VP, the GOP would instantly set on painting her as an ousted, failed RINO who's secretly being controlled by AOC and Bernie Sanders and who unfairly targeted the saintly and innocent Trump. Any appeal she would have to GOP voters would be immensely reduced.

Not every Democrat is on board with the right to an abortion. There are many differences within the party, e.g. see Joe Manchin and AOC. Real life is not an MMOC echo chamber where everyone who votes is required to toe the line on every iota of orthodoxy. At least, so I'm told every time I state that I expect candidates to support my values or I won't vote for them, even if they put a D next to their name.

The democrats were content not to challenge established constitutional ruling on the matter. Which clearly wasn't "good enough" now that the GOP is wielding the supreme court as quasi-legislation as they find themselves ousted from every chamber and the presidency. But democrat politicians overall aren't ones to try and abrogate the rule of law based on personal religious beliefs.

If Democrats would not vote for Biden/Cheney simply because she's a Republican and would be happy instead to see Trump 2.0, then why are these threads constantly filled with "lesser evil" discussion? If losing to Trump is preferable to winning with Cheney then how can any one of you ever bitch about "Bernie Bros" again?

I'm not saying I wouldn't vote for Biden in that scenario.

But inspire confidence it does not. If someone's primary interest in the 2024 election is working to codify the right to an abortion, and they see Biden pick someone like Cheney... what reason to they have continue being interested?

People do sit out elections for single-issue reasons, and I imagine that a republican's platform violates a good number of those. Cheney is an active reason for democrats to not vote for Biden.

[Edge-]

If Democrats would not vote for Biden/Cheney simply because she's a Republican and would be happy instead to see Trump 2.0

On abortion, that's literally a major tentpole issue for the Democratic party. Your Manchin's exist, but they're the extreme minority and that plays well with their voters, not at all with national Democrats.

That's not why people wouldn't want to vote for that ticket on the Democratic side. They wouldn't want to because, despite Liz Cheney being one of the only Republicans actually standing up to Trump's shit, she's an ideological conservative to her very core.

https://heritageaction.com/scorecard...rs/C001109/117

That's an arm of the Heritage Foundation, a very conservative think-tank scoring her pretty favorably as a modern conservative.

So no, telling Democrats, "The next person in-line for the presidency is on the near total opposite end of the ideological spectrum, but at least she's not a cultist." isn't going to excite them.

Similarly, it's not going to sway Republican voters who recognize her extremely limited authority as VP. We're seeing vanishingly few of these "reasonable Republicans", and they tend to either grit their teeth and vote for shit, or vote write-ins.

It's that the whole "There's a huge group of Americans who would just get behind the notion of compromise under any banner!" which isn't born out via current polling. It's the kind of thinking that Yang and co. have for "Forward" which is similarly ideologically empty, because compromise is not a political ideology. That's something politicians do.

If there is Trump 2.0, it's going to have nothing to do with the Democrats not picking Cheney as the VP to whoever the nominee ends up being.

- - - Updated - - -

Until the actual election comes along and those 36% toe the party line with "Better Red Than Democrat" because that's what they always do.

Not to mention that's taking what is a single state (since her district is the whole state) and attempting to extrapolate that voting pattern into national trends. On top of the whole "voters vote differently in primary vs. general elections" bit.

[RaoBurning]

If Democrats would not vote for Biden/Cheney simply because she's a Republican and would be happy instead to see Trump 2.0, then why are these threads constantly filled with "lesser evil" discussion? If losing to Trump is preferable to winning with Cheney then how can any one of you ever bitch about "Bernie Bros" again?

Last Cheney in the VP chair got a little trigger happy so my feelings are not warm and fuzzy about this idea.

[Dontrike]

https://www.newsweek.com/eric-trump-...r-lago-1733965

Eric Trump says they'll apparently reveal video of the FBI raid. I look forward to it, seriously. Let's see if they really were planting evidence or if they simply executed a lawful search warrant.

He'll reveal it right after the tax returns and the healthcare plan.

[gondrin]

He'll reveal it right after the tax returns and the healthcare plan.

Well, he did share something, the wifi network and password of the Fox News studio where he was taping at.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...8377b16496c008

https://twitter.com/Out5p0ken/status...rance-20220816

- - - Updated - - -

Well, I guess Trump is a Kleptomaniac now too.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...003b1dbfae7004

‘It’s not theirs, it’s mine’: Trump resisted advisers’ calls to return White House documents

Donald Trump was warned that the records he was holding on to were illegally retained, but the former president refused to give them back because he disagreed with that assertion, a new report claims.

The New York Times reported on Tuesday that Mr Trump flat-out refused to return boxes of documents, including some that apparently were marked classified, when approached by his former deputy White House counsel, Patrick Philbin.

And he wasn’t alone – multiple other aides to the president reportedly told him the same thing. But Mr Trump resisted, telling them “it’s not theirs, it’s mine” on several occaisions, referring to the stash of documents.

The new reporting could help the Justice Department prove its case if charges are brought against him for the retention of classified materials, as it demonstrates that Mr Trump could or should have known that what he was doing was criminal in nature.

The former president has rolled through a number of conspiracies and thin defences since the raid at his estate last Monday. He has baselessly accused his predecessor, Barack Obama, of doing the same thing, while also speculating that FBI agents will plant incriminating evidence in the boxes seized from his residence.

His escalating rhetoric against the bureau has led to a dramatic rise in threats, according to officials, since the Mar-a-Lago search including an armed protest in front of a Phoenix FBI building and a gunman attacking a FBI headquarters in Cincinnatti before dying in a shootout with police.

Over the weekend the FBI and Department of Homeland Security issued a joint memo detailing the enhanced threat environment, and a statement to The Independent about the threats they have seen on social media and other platforms.

"The FBI is always concerned about violence and threats of violence to law enforcement, including the men and women of the FBI. We work closely with our law enforcement partners to assess and respond to such threats, which are reprehensible and dangerous. As always, we would like to remind members of the public that if they observe anything suspicious to report it to law enforcement immediately,” a spokesperson for the agency said on Monday.

And Cohen thinks Trump was also going to try and use said documents as a bargaining chip to stay out of jail.

https://www.businessinsider.com/mich...g-chips-2022-8

Michael Cohen says Trump likely kept classified documents at Mar-a-Lago as a 'bargaining chip' to avoid any potential jail time

Michael Cohen, who was once former President Trump's personal lawyer, believes Trump kept top-secret documents at his Mar-a-Lago residence as potential bargaining chips that he could leverage if he were ever at risk of going to jail.

"My belief is that he was going to use it as a bargaining chip, as a get-out-of-jail-free card," Cohen said on CNN. "The second that they put him in handcuffs, he'll turn around and say, 'You don't seem to understand. I have the documentation showing, for example, where our nuclear launchpads are, or other information — sensitive national security information."

Cohen painted a scenario in which Trump would threaten to have his "loyal supporters" release the classified information he had kept to Russia, Iran, or "whoever it might be." He added that he didn't believe Trump "cared about this country."

CNN host Alisyn Camerota also asked Cohen if thought any of the documents Trump kept at his Florida home were mementos.

"I'm sure some of it was Kim Jong Un love letters, or a letter he may have received from Vladimir Putin about his Miss Universe pageant, something that he can show off if he ever felt he needed to have that document," Cohen said.

"But I believe that the sensitive information that's there was used or was going to be used by him as a get-out-of-jail-free card," he added.

While executing a search warrant on the property last Monday, the FBI removed 11 sets of classified documents — some of which were marked top secret and concerned nuclear weapons. According to the warrant, the Justice Department is looking into whether Trump broke three federal laws, including the Espionage Act.

For his part, Trump has denied all wrongdoing and claimed without evidence that he declassified all the documents found at Mar-a-Lago. If Trump is convicted of violating the Espionage Act, he faces a 10-year prison sentence.

Following the FBI raid, Cohen publicly rejoiced over how Trump was finally being "held accountable." He has also speculated that the possible informant within Trump's ranks who tipped off the FBI about the documents at Mar-a-Lago could be one of the former president's children or his son-in-law, Jared Kushner.

On Monday, Cohen also speculated that Trump's next move in the Mar-a-Lago probe would be to find a scapegoat and suggested that this person would likely be Rudy Giuliani, another of Trump's former personal lawyers.

When contacted for comment, a Trump spokesperson told Insider: "Michael Cohen is a disbarred felon who was found guilty of nearly a dozen charges, inclduding lying to a congressional committee, which makes him the perfect guest for CNN."

Cohen was Trump's lawyer and close confidante for a decade. In 2018, he was the subject of a search of his home and office, as part of an investigation into illegal hush-money payments to adult-film star Stormy Daniels.

Cohen pleaded guilty in 2018 to felonies including tax evasion, campaign finance violations, and bank fraud. He was sentenced in December 2018 to three years in prison and was disbarred in February 2019 by the New York Supreme Court.

[Breccia]

And Cohen thinks Trump was also going to try and use said documents as a bargaining chip to stay out of jail.

That's interesting, because my Option C was Trump using stolen documents the FBI didn't find to avoid jail time for the documents the FBI did find. Cohen is suggesting Trump would use stolen documents to avoid jail for some other crime -- which in turn, means Trump knew he was guilty of something so foul that he'd need nuclear secrets as a bargaining chip. Sounds like treason to me.

I still love the way Team Trump tries to handwave Cohen. "You can't believe that man who was Trump's most trusted employee for decades and had access to all his secrets, because that man Trump hired was convicted of a felony that he committed following Trump's direct orders!" It's pathetic.

[gondrin]

Ok, I believe Trump found a couple of attorneys that are going to "defend" him. Names are Jim Trusty and Evan Corcoran. Nothing says quality lawyer then with the name Trusty.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...2aaaf89300003c

“Everyone's saying no”: Trump hires Florida insurance lawyer as top attorneys refuse to work for him

Former President Donald Trump and his team have spent days since the FBI raid on Mar-a-Lago trying to assemble a "team of respected lawyers" but keep getting rejected, according to The Washington Post.

"Everyone is saying no," a prominent Republican lawyer told the outlet.

Trump is scrambling to find an experienced team of attorneys to defend him amid mounting legal crises. The Justice Department is investigating him under the Espionage Act after he took classified records, including some labeled "top secret," to his Mar-a-Lago residence. He also faces legal scrutiny in the DOJ's investigation into the deadly Jan. 6 Capitol riot, as well as a state civil probe in New York and a Fulton County, Ga., criminal investigation into his efforts to overturn his loss in the state.

Jon Sale, a former Watergate prosecutor who is now a prominent Florida defense attorney, told the Post he turned Trump down last week.

"You have to evaluate whether you want to take it," he said. "It's not like a DUI. It's representing the former president of the United States — and maybe the next one — in what's one of the highest-visibility cases ever."

Trump spokesman Taylor Budowich defended the quality of the former president's legal team, noting that it also includes former federal prosecutors Evan Corcoran, who represented former Trump adviser Steve Bannon in his losing battle against the DOJ, and James Trusty, who was behind Trump's letter threatening a highly dubious defamation lawsuit against CNN for describing his election lies as lies.

"The President's lead counsel in relation to the raid of his home, Jim Trusty and Evan Corcoran, have decades of prosecutorial experience and have litigated some of the most complex cases in American history," Budowich told the Post. "President Trump is represented by some of the strongest attorneys in the country, and any suggestion otherwise is only driven by envy."

While Corcoran and Trusty submitted filings in the case, Trump's other attorneys have been tasked with making his case to the public in media appearances.

The most visible Trump attorney has been Christina Bobb, a former anchor at the right-wing outlet OAN, where she pushed election conspiracy theories that got the network sued by defamation by Dominion Voting Systems. Bobb's federal legal experience is largely limited to a "handful of trademark infringement cases on behalf of CrossFit" while she worked for a law firm in San Diego, according to the Post. Bobb has already undermined Trump's baseless claim that the FBI may have "planted" evidence during the search while no one was looking, revealing that Trump and his family were able to watch the entire raid through CCTV.

Trump's other Florida-based lawyer is Lindsey Halligan, a Florida insurance lawyer that handles residential and commercial claims but has never handled a federal case.

Trump's other attorney in the documents investigation is Alina Habba, who has a small practice near Trump's Bedminster, N.J., golf club. She previously worked as general counsel at a parking garage company. Habba has also represented Trump in his dubious lawsuits against the New York Times, Hillary Clinton, the Democratic National Committee and his niece, Mary Trump.

The New York Times' Maggie Haberman noted that this is Trump's seventh or eighth legal team since he became president.

"Finding a new one has been a challenge amid his desire to treat this as a short term PR issue as opposed to a longer term legal one," she wrote.

The New York Times reported last week that one of Trump's lawyers signed a statement in June certifying that Trump had returned all classified documents to the National Archives after a grand jury subpoena was issued in the case. Investigators subsequently learned from inside sources that there were still classified documents at the resort. It's unclear which of Trump's attorneys signed the document.

"You get these guys who just live to be around him, and mistakes get made," an unnamed attorney told the Post. "These guys just want to make him happy."

"Either the attorney acted in good faith on what turned out to be false factual representations made by Mr. Trump or someone else communicating on his behalf, in which case Mr. Trump or his proxy would have criminal jeopardy for false statements or obstruction of justice, or the attorney knowingly gave false assurances to the government," David Laufman, the former head of the DOJ's counterintelligence division, told the Post. "And it's hard to believe that a lawyer knowingly would have lied to the government about the continued presence of classified documents."

Trump, who has faced myriad legal scandals from two impeachments to local criminal investigations, has repeatedly struggled to find elite attorneys to represent him.

"In olden days, he would tell firms representing him was a benefit because they could advertise off it. Today it's not the same," former Trump lawyer-turned-critic Michael Cohen told the Post. "He's also a very difficult client in that he's always pushing the envelope, he rarely listens to sound legal advice, and he wants you to do things that are not appropriate, ethically or legally."

Another attorney recalled Trump's legal team urging him to avoid tweeting about the Mueller investigation early in his presidency only to see a tweet about it before they even got to the end of the White House driveway. "Several people said Trump was nearly impossible to represent and that it would be unclear if they would ever get paid," the Post reported.

"This is not good," one Trump confidant told the outlet. "Something big is going to pop. Somebody needs to be in charge."

[Breccia]

"Finding a new one has been a challenge amid his desire to treat this as a short term PR issue as opposed to a longer term legal one,"

To be fair, whatever lawyer going in for this job will also treat it as short-term. They should also not expect to be paid. Simply put, from the evidence we've seen, Trump is objectively guilty. Unless he has oterh stolen documents hostage ("Option C") he's going to jail. Trump will not pay these people when he loses, and will likely fire them for not being able to do the impossible.

[Canpinter]

I know it's not going to happen but please please let trump have to use a public defender.

[Edge-]

https://www.rollingstone.com/politic...dling-1398128/

Giuliani testifying in GA today. Not expecting anything to come of this in the immediate, but maybe he'll try to out-plead the Fifth on Trump's what, 440 times he plead the Fifth last time?