Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[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?

[VMSmith]

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.

I'm not necessarily going to disagree with anything you've said, but I do find it humorous that so many in this thread dismiss the idea of Cheney on a Democratic ticket as grounds for Democratic voters choosing not to vote at all, because of her politics. But, any time a progressive makes this same claim regarding corporate Democrats we're told we have to "get on board" and vote for "the lesser evil" and we're "not going to get a pony" and we just want "pie in the sky" and "stamp your feet to get your way".

There seems to be a double standard here.

We are told that our very democracy is at stake, but people are stating they would refuse to vote for someone who has sacrificed their political career to protect that democracy because of policy disagreements. I guess that democracy isn't really that important, after all.

[Edge-]

I'm not necessarily going to disagree with anything you've said, but I do find it humorous that so many in this thread dismiss the idea of Cheney on a Democratic ticket as grounds for Democratic voters choosing not to vote at all, because of her politics.

I mean yes? They're voting for a ticket, and having the literal second-in-line to the presidency being someone on the opposite end of the ideological spectrum, with a long record of voting against Democratic legislation and ideas isn't going to get liberals/progressives excited to vote. Nor will it meaningfully sway moderate Republicans, so you're just pointlessly hamstringing yourself.

But, any time a progressive makes this same claim regarding corporate Democrats we're told we have to "get on board" and vote for "the lesser evil" and we're "not going to get a pony" and we just want "pie in the sky" and "stamp your feet to get your way".

That's uh...a very different circumstance, and one largely mirrored when progressives win and moderate Democrats are told to "get on board" as well.

The difference between a progressive and a moderate/liberal Democrat is more a shade of a color - shades of blue let's say. They're still the same general color, but just a different type of color. So while it may not be your preferred shade of blue, it's still blue. Because largely, that progressive Democrat is going to support the key tentpole issues. Just as a moderate liberal would, even if there are exceptions like a minority of anti-choice Democrats. But that works on a district/state level as a reflection of the voters there even if it's out of step with the national party. It would not work in a national election. National and state/district level elections play differently, even if they're all on the same ballot.

Vs Cheney, who is a shade of red. Nowhere near the same.

There seems to be a double standard here.

No, you're just making inaccurate comparisons.

We are told that our very democracy is at stake, but people are stating they would refuse to vote for someone who has sacrificed their political career to protect that democracy because of policy disagreements.

No, because you're functioning on the unfounded premise that such a ticket WOULD inherently win, which isn't a given to start with. Beyond that you're essentially reducing what are fairly complex national politics down to a "Well if they just compromise they'd find all these secret shy voters!"

I guess that democracy isn't really that important, after all.

No, you're just making bad arguments.

[solinari6]

Liz will never be on a democratic ticket. The only reason someone would actually float that as a reasonable idea, is they have some kind of ulterior motive, and are just trying to sow chaos. It's beyond dumb.

[postman1782]

So, now Trump's lawyers are issuing thinly veiled threats to the DoJ and the witnesses that were used to get the warrant to raid Mar-A-Lago.



I hope they fucking get disbarred and serve time right alongside him.

[Gorsameth]

I'm not laywer, and I somewhat doubt she is, but isn't threatening witnesses a crime?
One that courts tend not to think lightly off.

[Edge-]

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle...ed-wave-in-wa/

In the post-mortems from the surprising August primary elections, one word keeps coming up to explain why Republicans had such a lackluster showing.

“Republicans did not address the abortion issue,” state Sen. Ron Muzzall, R-Oak Harbor, told The Herald, of Everett. “What transpired was lots of people who were passionate on the issue, independent and Democrat, showed up and voted. We got it wrong, and we need to change.”

Data shows there was a surge of ballots cast by voters who often sit out primaries, compelled in part by the U.S. Supreme Court tossing out Roe v. Wade in June, both parties say. Nearly 100,000 more women voted statewide than men.

Muzzall’s is a frank confession. It’s the kind that’s welcome to hear in politics, especially if you believe we need two sane, grounded-in-reality parties.

But it also contains a huge helping of denial.

The problem for Republicans wasn’t just that they focused too exclusively on inflation, crime and other issues. The problem is far more acute — it’s what their candidates were out there saying about the issue of abortion.

Republicans continue to realize that their extremist position on abortion, nationally and as a party platform, is not a winning electoral position and is instead energizing Democrats to get out and vote.

Will this be a 2012 Paul Ryan moment where they write a big, sensible post-mortem on their electoral failures and then decide to use the report for kindling while they triple down on extremists positions? Probably.

Granted this is Washington, a more liberal state, but as the article notes this problem keeps popping up for Republicans once they get outside of their "Safe Space" districts.

[Gorsameth]

I do wonder if we will see more Republicans now suddenly pretending to be against abolishing Abortion with the full intent on doing absolutely nothing to fix the reversal of Roe vs Wade.

Because lets be real, they don't think they got the decision itself wrong. Just the 'we won, lets stop talking about it' part.

[postman1782]

I'm not laywer, and I somewhat doubt she is, but isn't threatening witnesses a crime?
One that courts tend not to think lightly off.

Same with threatening the Attorney General or any FBI agents that were a part of said search warrant.

[Twdft]

I'm not laywer, and I somewhat doubt she is, but isn't threatening witnesses a crime?
One that courts tend not to think lightly off.

Trump is a mob boss, so naturally his lawyers use mob tactics.

[Breccia]

So...what else is going on?

1) The NYTimes reviewed Kushner's new book. Oh, you didn't know he had one? You're probably better off.

“Breaking History” is an earnest and soulless — Kushner looks like a mannequin, and he writes like one — and peculiarly selective appraisal of Donald J. Trump’s term in office. Kushner almost entirely ignores the chaos, the alienation of allies, the breaking of laws and norms, the flirtations with dictators, the comprehensive loss of America’s moral leadership, and so on, ad infinitum, to speak about his boyish tinkering (the “mechanic”) with issues he was interested in.

This book is like a tour of a once majestic 18th-century wooden house, now burned to its foundations, that focuses solely on, and rejoices in, what’s left amid the ashes: the two singed bathtubs, the gravel driveway and the mailbox. Kushner’s fealty to Trump remains absolute. Reading this book reminded me of watching a cat lick a dog’s eye goo.

The tone is college admissions essay. Typical sentence: “In an environment of maximum pressure, I learned to ignore the noise and distractions and instead to push for results that would improve lives.”

"Har har. What did they really write?"

Yes, "dog's eye goo" is an exact quote referring to Kushner's writing.

2) DeSantis fired a county-elected prosecutor and replaced him with a racist.

"Can he do that?"

Probably not. The prosecutor is suing DeSantis. Apparently, firing someone for being pro-choice is a bold move DeSantis is taking, but probaby not a legal one.

3) Giuliani made his trial date -- @Edge- already posted that, of course. He's expected to be Giuliani and could say literally anything from "I take the Fifth" to "I want to fuck my niece".

4) Within hours of Pence telling the GOP to stop attacking the FBI over Trump, Pence took the next step and...

(counts CNN points)

Yeah, I can spare one.

Mike Pence says he'd consider testifying before January 6 committee if invited

"Does he have a death wish?"

Wouldn't matter, Trump already tried to kill him, and the threats are increasing. As long as he's under attack, he might as well strike back. What's he going to do, cower in his bunker over some activists? That's something a pussy would do.

Pence made the remarks during a Q&A after a speech here at the New Hampshire Institute of Politics' "Politics & Eggs" breakfast, a common stop for candidates considering a run for office.

"If there was an invitation to participate, I would consider it," Pence said, after calling January 6 a tragic day for all Americans. "But, you heard me mention the Constitution a few times this morning. Under the Constitution, we have three co-equal branches of government, and any invitation to be directed to me, I would have to reflect on the unique role I was serving in as vice president. It would be unprecedented in history for a vice president to be summoned to testify on Capitol Hill. But, as I said, I don't want to pre-judge, so if there's ever any formal invitation rendered to us, we would give it due consideration."

While Pence said it would be "unprecedented" for a vice president to be asked to testify on Capitol Hill, presidents and vice presidents have testified before Congress in the past.

[cubby]

4) Within hours of Pence telling the GOP to stop attacking the FBI over Trump, Pence took the next step and...

(counts CNN points)

Yeah, I can spare one.

Mike Pence says he'd consider testifying before January 6 committee if invited

"Does he have a death wish?"

Wouldn't matter, Trump already tried to kill him, and the threats are increasing. As long as he's under attack, he might as well strike back. What's he going to do, cower in his bunker over some activists? That's something a pussy would do.

Pence made the remarks during a Q&A after a speech here at the New Hampshire Institute of Politics' "Politics & Eggs" breakfast, a common stop for candidates considering a run for office.

"If there was an invitation to participate, I would consider it," Pence said, after calling January 6 a tragic day for all Americans. "But, you heard me mention the Constitution a few times this morning. Under the Constitution, we have three co-equal branches of government, and any invitation to be directed to me, I would have to reflect on the unique role I was serving in as vice president. It would be unprecedented in history for a vice president to be summoned to testify on Capitol Hill. But, as I said, I don't want to pre-judge, so if there's ever any formal invitation rendered to us, we would give it due consideration."

While Pence said it would be "unprecedented" for a vice president to be asked to testify on Capitol Hill, presidents and vice presidents have testified before Congress in the past.

I'm wondering if there is movement within the GQP to stuff Trump under the bus after the results of the FBI raid became clear (both what was seized and the warrant becoming public). If the backchatter is that Trump is going down, they might all want to finally get on the bus that storms over him, before it's too late.

[Gorsameth]

So...what else is going on?

1) The NYTimes reviewed Kushner's new book. Oh, you didn't know he had one? You're probably better off.

I'm still waiting for his pet project of bringing peace the middle east.

[Edge-]

https://www.rollingstone.com/politic...trial-1398303/

Allen Weisselberg, the Trump Organization’s finance chief, will say in Manhattan court Thursday that he conspired with several of the ex-president’s companies when he pleads guilty to state tax crimes, two sources familiar with the case tell Rolling Stone.

As part of Weisselberg’s plea deal, he has agreed to testify against The Trump Corporation and the Trump Payroll Corporation at trial, which is scheduled for October.

If called to the witness stand during trial, Weisselberg will provide testimony that is the same as what he admits to in court this week, the source said. One of the sources said that while Weisselberg is agreeing to testify, that does not mean he necessarily will; it depends on whether prosecutors decide to call him. The New York Times first reported that Weisselberg was expected to plead guilty, and CNN reported he would testify if called.

Weisselberg will not go beyond his testimony to help the criminal probe, one of the sources said. Still, his potential testimony could pose a severe threat to Trump’s companies. This possible testimony, which allegedly implicates Trump’s businesses, could be key to prosecutors’ securing a guilty verdict against these companies. When a company is found to have engaged in criminal conduct, significant fines can pile up quickly — potentially leading to its demise.

Welp, the walls seem like they're continuing to close in around Trump.

I do hope he's in front of cameras when he has his final meltdown. It's gonna be the most epic adult temper tantrum of all time.

[Paranoid Android]

https://www.rollingstone.com/politic...trial-1398303/



Welp, the walls seem like they're continuing to close in around Trump.

I do hope he's in front of cameras when he has his final meltdown. It's gonna be the most epic adult temper tantrum of all time.

Never understood if there was crime why this guy would cover for Trump. Money? Umm, yeah. Let's say Trump promises to pay a certain amount of money to his family to keep quiet and go to jail. Well, #1 you can't trust Trump. My goodness this should be the only reason, but also going to jail for this guy? It would have to be a huge payday I hope and pray that money would never get found.

[Edge-]

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/rcna43376

Boston Children’s Hospital has warned employees about mounting threats and is coordinating with law enforcement after far-right activists on social media began targeting the hospital with false claims about its treatment of young transgender people.

It’s the most recent in a series of attempts to target hospitals for their work with trans youth, adding to an ongoing wave of anti-LGBTQ sentiment that has hit libraries, schools and even a trans-inclusive Los Angeles spa.

The public relations office of Boston Children’s Hospital sent an email to employees with guidance on how to respond to harassment and threats earlier this week, citing an “increase of threatening and aggressive” phone calls and emails sent to the hospital commenting on treatment of transgender patients.” The email was confirmed to NBC News by a current employee.

Boston Children’s Hospital first became the target of activists in recent weeks, when well-followed social media accounts such as LibsofTikTok, which has often promoted “groomer” discourse that falsely linked LGBTQ teachers and parents to pedophilia, began to make a variety of false claims. One allegation said that the hospital offered gender-affirming hysterectomies to children under 18 years old.

Conservative influencers with millions of followers pushed similar false talking points and fanned the flames further. David J Harris, a podcaster and supplement seller, and single-issue activists including Chris Elston, who goes by “Billboard Chris” for the anti-trans statements he wears on sandwich boards, are among the right-wing social media stars who have spread the allegations online.

Last week, fact-checking organizations debunked the claims from right-wing accounts, but many of the same accounts continued to spread the false allegations this week.

In which conservatives are so vile and so far gone that they're harassing health care professionals who are working caring for children.

When the fuck can we ship them off to Kekistan and the fuck outta this country.