Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Demolitia]

He's insane. As the article quotes:



That's right: just declare him the winner. That's what he wants. To be declared the winner.

What's puzzling is how such bullshit can be drawn out in courts for so long.

[Kaleredar]

I know that's not a useful or constructive comment, but from an EU perspective, "how the fuck is this possible" is what comes to mind. And we include Hungary and Poland.

If it’s any consolation, trump’s protesting won’t amount to anything. He’s just a sore crybaby. He has no way to affect a re-election or recount or anything of the sort.

[Breccia]

What's puzzling is how such bullshit can be drawn out in courts for so long.

We're America, not Cuba or Russia. Even the guilty get every posisble chance.

[Demolitia]

We're America, not Cuba or Russia. Even the guilty get every posisble chance.

Still, the amout of possible ludicrous legal alleys he's able to exploit is mind boggling.

[Breccia]

Still, the amout of possible ludicrous legal alleys he's able to exploit is mind boggling.

Oh, agreed. Remember that, next time the alt-right suggests hanging someone (a vice president, perhaps) without a trial.

[Demolitia]

Oh, agreed. Remember that, next time the alt-right suggests hanging someone (a vice president, perhaps) without a trial.

I'll try. I'm not the mob. I often forget stuff.

[Breccia]

I'll try. I'm not the mob. I often forget stuff.

We'll find out who's in the mob when Trump is arrested and Graham's riots happen

[gondrin]

He's insane. As the article quotes:



That's right: just declare him the winner. That's what he wants. To be declared the winner.

They can declare him the winner.....the winner of a big orange thing that looks like a onesie after this is all and done.

[Demolitia]

They can declare him the winner.....the winner of a big orange thing that looks like a onesie after this is all and done.

Please, please, make him "honorary president" of Orange County.

[gondrin]

If it’s any consolation, trump’s protesting won’t amount to anything. He’s just a sore crybaby. He has no way to affect a re-election or recount or anything of the sort.

Here soon if he doesn't pay his provider, they will have to cut off his social media network and then he'll have to go back to his, um, I don't know what he would go back to.

[masterhorus8]

Please, please, make him "honorary president" of Orange County.

Please not Orange County, California....

[Demolitia]

Please not Orange County, California....

Play it right and you might ironically generate disaster tourism off it.

[Paranoid Android]

"There is no possible way this ends for them other than political persecution": Ben Collins examines responses from far-right Trump supporters to release of redacted copy of Mar-a-Lago search affidavit.

Vid in link.

Most of us get this cause we are knee deep in politics. It's about grievance, revenge and punishing the Left, Dems, whoever they don't like. Collins uses the analogy of if they found a dead body in vid (remember Trump saying I can shoot someone). It's not about rule of law or governance. They want fascism.

This is full 3 minutes of interview.

[tehdang]

You've demonstrated you really don't understand what occurred with Clinton. Multiple posters have pointed out such, and I've yet to see you actually refute them.

You should stop conflating this with something you clearly don't understand. And yes, it was YOU that brought up Clinton.

I've described the context and record well enough in depth for any unbiased reader. I'll leave it at that.

I'm not going to reframe it until you "understand" the rather simple premise I created from the outset.

So I'll extrapolate it thusly: Trump's actions don't bother you because you feel what democrats are doing is more harmful to America, and that he and any malfeasance he may commit is worth keeping them out.

Is that an accurate statement?

I think any claims that Trump's actions aren't important for the reason of Democrats on social issues is wish-casting on the part of Democrats is utterly absurd. The FBI raid on Trump is justified or unjustified on its own terms.

So yes, you're accusing the FBI of a grand overarching conspiracy, all on the word of Trump.

And you can't exactly claim that he "didn't have the documents." He very clearly did. It boils down to whether you care that he took the documents. Which you are then giving yourself a pass on caring that Trump had unsecured top secret and otherwise classified documents by claiming "Clinton did something like that."

Instead, I pointed to documented evidence. I'm glad to hear the previously classified Nunes memo is just another "word of Trump" to you. Which other FBI controversy involving several Republicans, FBI agents or higher-ups, are also another "word of Trump?" Are FISA applications "word of Trump." I want to see how far this extends. To remind you, you're already at FISA applications and memorandum summarizing them being just the word of Trump. But maybe by "word" you meant "public documents" and by "Trump" you meant "multiple FBI agents, a congressman, and a judge."

Again, you haven't demonstrated you understand the difference between Clinton and Trump's situation. On multiple fronts. By multiple posters. Letting alone the FBI literally saying that their decision with Clinton should not be taken to be universally applicable to someone else who might do something similar.

I've spoken at their similarities, and dismissing them won't get you out of them.

Because they asked nicely for the documents that Trump had no right to retain and were denied.

Because they then issued a subpoena for the documents that Trump had no right to retain and it was ignored.

So then they raided his home for the documents. Because all other means of obtaining them had failed, and because Trump, former president or not, had no right to have them.

And nothing Hillary did or Obama did or anyone else did, or your flagrant misunderstanding of what they did, gave him that right.

So either you're asserting that Trump didn't have the documents in question, or, by merit of being a former president (yes, former, as he's not the "rightful president" regardless of his claims, which I'm sure is a whole other can of worms from Trump you're ignoring,) should have been able to retain them for however long he wanted in any way he saw fit, and he should have expected no recourse for having done so.

Those are your only two options here.

This is a narrative that needs confirming in antagonistic court hearings. You're still harping on the logic of "The FBI acted appropriately, which is confirmed because the FBI said it acted appropriately."

Let me say, that is a very poor defense to "We don't know enough whether or not the use of a raid was justified."

I don't think you'll care what Trump did no matter what happens.

Thanks for your opinion.

- - - Updated - - -

No, it's not a "decision" it's just plain reality that showed she obviously did less than Trump in this instance, one because she actually did what she was supposed to do and second because once an investigation was done it cleared her. The very fact you keep claiming what she did was worse is solely based on the fact that you're a fan of Republicans and their brand of illegal doings.

"Did what she was supposed to do" is a really weird way of saying "deleted emails that were the subject of an active subpoena"

Even if what she did was found to be illegal it still doesn't come close to stealing nuclear secrets and other information that likely got people killed, and that's not even mentioning the casual treason that comes with it.

For someone that seems to hate analogies you sure have no problem with whataboutism and "but Hillary" for the last week.

"Even if you're right about everything you just wrote, I'm going to assume that Trump is selling nuclear secrets to foreign adversaries to make this much worse in my fever dream hypothetical."

[Edge-]

https://apnews.com/article/donald-tr...2a660001b633a2

A May 25 letter from one of his lawyers, attached as an exhibit to the search affidavit, advances a broad view of presidential power, asserting that the commander-in-chief has absolute authority to declassify whatever he wants — and also that the “primary” law governing the handling of U.S. classified information simply doesn’t apply to the president himself.

The arguments weren’t persuasive enough to the Justice Department to prevent an FBI search of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate this month, and the affidavit in any event makes clear that investigators are focused on more recent activity — long after Trump left the White House and lost the legal authorities that came with it. Even so, the letter suggests that a defense strategy anchored around presidential powers, a strategy employed during special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation when Trump actually was president, may again be in play as the probe proceeds.

Trump's legal team essentially wants to argue that "It's not illegal when the president does it."

Problem is...

“When someone is no longer president, they’re no longer president. That’s the reality of the matter,” said Oona Hathaway, a Yale Law School professor and former lawyer in the Defense Department’s general counsel’s office. “When you’ve left office, you’ve left office. You can’t proclaim yourself to not be subject to the laws that apply to everyone else.”

Because yeah, as ex-president you're basically a regular Average Joe again...just one with a protection USSS protection detail. You can't claim "Presidential Immunity" as an ex-president.

[Breccia]

"As a Trump supporter who never decried Trump for promising to prosecute Clinton, I therefore must support the raid on Mar-a-Lago. Anything else would be to self-identify as a hypocrite and therefore troll."

You don't have to keep saying it. We heard you the first time. It is good to see your continued support.

[Kaleredar]

I've described the context and record well enough in depth for any unbiased reader. I'll leave it at that.

And many people have pointed out that your assessment is anything but unbiased

I think any claims that Trump's actions aren't important for the reason of Democrats on social issues is wish-casting on the part of Democrats is utterly absurd. The FBI raid on Trump is justified or unjustified on its own terms.

...and yet you wont separate it from the FBI's actions against Hillary Clinton.

Instead, I pointed to documented evidence. I'm glad to hear the previously classified Nunes memo is just another "word of Trump" to you. Which other FBI controversy involving several Republicans, FBI agents or higher-ups, are also another "word of Trump?" Are FISA applications "word of Trump." I want to see how far this extends. To remind you, you're already at FISA applications and memorandum summarizing them being just the word of Trump. But maybe by "word" you meant "public documents" and by "Trump" you meant "multiple FBI agents, a congressman, and a judge."

You're conflating unrelated things with the raid on Trump's illegitimately held documents.

First and foremost the Nunes memo was decried as partisan drivel that was bitter that they were digging into Trump's ties to Russia. Upon review, the inspector general in Trump's DOJ found no political motivation for the inquiry, and the subsequent wiretaps were approved by four conservative justices.

But once again, you're moving goalposts. Avoiding talking about Trump. Conflating other things.

Because you don't have a defense for this. You want a reason to believe it isn't true, or, as I've asserted, a reason for you not to care.

I've spoken at their similarities, and dismissing them won't get you out of them.

And multiple people have pointed out why you continuing to claim this is a fundamental misunderstanding.

I'm sure they'll be here to remind you. Again. Maybe try recanting their assertions directly, instead of just pretending like you don't see them.

This is a narrative that needs confirming in antagonistic court hearings. You're still harping on the logic of "The FBI acted appropriately, which is confirmed because the FBI said it acted appropriately."

Let me say, that is a very poor defense to "We don't know enough whether or not the use of a raid was justified."

Let me know when someone other than the guy that got raided claims things weren't done appropriately. And I don't mean feckless congressmen, I mean... people with actual legal, judicial experience. Because while Trump's bloviating has been quite loud, I've yet to hear a peep of dissent from anyone who actually matters.

[Edge-]

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/0...oting-00054089

So remember how DeSantis made a big to-do about the 20 people arrested for "voter fraud" because they didn't realize they were not legally allowed to vote given their prior convictions? And remember how DeSantis tried to basically local election officials?

“Through no fault of your own, records demonstrate that the convicted felons listed in the attached Exhibit A were registered to vote and voted in your county during the 2020 general election,” Antonacci wrote in the letter.

That's Pete Antonacci, who runs the new office overseeing investigations into voter fraud. Why did he write this letter? It might have something to do with this -

Though Antonacci had told local elections officials they did nothing wrong, the governor’s communications office pinned blame on them Friday evening in a statement and in a series of tweets defending the administration’s performance.

“Supervisors should not encourage people to commit voter fraud, and you’ll have to check with the supervisors to verify the claims you’re referencing,” Taryn Fenske, the governor’s communications director, said in an email. “If supervisors are telling convicted murderers they can vote, they should be held accountable.”

Fenske did not return requests seeking comment Monday when asked about Antonacci’s letter.

Just a reminder of how dangerous Ron DeSantis and his complete lack of care for the truth or following laws, even the Constitution, is and will be if he ever makes it into higher office.

- - - Updated - - -

So...remember how one of the boxes of materials the FBI took from Trump's "house" included materials on Macron?

https://www.rollingstone.com/politic...aid-1234582465

Specifically, Trump has bragged to some of his closest associates — both during and after his time in the White House — that he knew illicit details about the love life of French President Emmanuel Macron, two people with knowledge of the matter tell Rolling Stone. And the former president even claimed that he learned about some of this dirt through “intelligence” he had seen or been briefed on, these sources say.

It’s not clear whether the Macron-related document the FBI seized during the raid had anything at all to do with the French president’s personal life. Nor is it clear whether the information on Macron seized from Mar-a-Lago is derived from U.S. intelligence collection or even classified.

So...it's very possible he took intelligence that included information on Macron's sex-life. Why would he do that? Who knows, but I don't think Macron liked him very much and we all know how Trump feels about his "enemies".

[Xyonai]

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/0...oting-00054089

So remember how DeSantis made a big to-do about the 20 people arrested for "voter fraud" because they didn't realize they were not legally allowed to vote given their prior convictions? And remember how DeSantis tried to basically local election officials?

That's Pete Antonacci, who runs the new office overseeing investigations into voter fraud. Why did he write this letter? It might have something to do with this -

Just a reminder of how dangerous Ron DeSantis and his complete lack of care for the truth or following laws, even the Constitution, is and will be if he ever makes it into higher office.

So I'm trying to parse this together in my head, but pretty much folks under DeSantis okay'd these folks to vote - despite the laws in place - and then went out to arrest them for voting? Isn't that entrapment or am I crazy?

[Captain N]

So a man named Toby Morton has created a website listing the epic failures of Texas Governor Greg Abbott -- Needless to say Abbott supporters are none to pleased with the domain name that Mr. Morton chose: https://www.governorgregabbott.com/