Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Breccia]

Heard before, and I can believe it, that the GOP paying for his stuff was probably what was keeping him in line with them this long as he was originally talking about leaving the party when he left office and them afraid he would destroy the party in the process.

Surely the Republican Party isn't stupid enough to think Trump could be paid off so cheaply.

[Fugus]

Surely the Republican Party isn't stupid enough to think Trump could be paid off so cheaply.

It worked so far, it kept him from leaving the party and kept him from outright announcing a run so far. The ability to avoid jail for what he did while fleecing millions in tax payer money and billions from other nations to his family.

With THIS one though, his freedom and all that can go out the window but it's also one where if the GOP fund the defense on THIS with this much evidence, would tank them anyways if/when he came out as a full on traitor and they protect him till the end.

[Breccia]

It worked so far

I mean, something may have kept him from leaving the party...but you and I both know, if he announces he'll run as a Republican, the RNC will bend over like a good little Proud Boy and take it. Also, a few million for his previous legal bills didn't stop him from backing the wrong primary candidates and attacking McConnell.

[Fugus]

I mean, something may have kept him from leaving the party...but you and I both know, if he announces he'll run as a Republican, the RNC will bend over like a good little Proud Boy and take it. Also, a few million for his previous legal bills didn't stop him from backing the wrong primary candidates and attacking McConnell.

True, they couldn't control him completely by any stretch, but they did keep him from walking when he left office like he wanted to and has, so far, kept him from announcing a 2024 run already which is really wants to do with it.

They have been keeping a slight handling on a rabid dog this entire time more or less just trying to keep it from taking them down with it. Once he knows they can't (Or in his eyes won't) protect him on this, I could see him actually taking it personally on them.

If he announces he runs, the GOP are stuck between a rock and a hard place as they can't win without his base but can't likely win with Trump against the turn out against him and the rest of their base refusing to go down that path again. And if they actually pay for THIS investigation which looks assured to find some damning stuff, that could bite them as well.

Basically, they made a deal with the devil and are trying to avoid paying the devil his due.

[gondrin]

True, they couldn't control him completely by any stretch, but they did keep him from walking when he left office like he wanted to and has, so far, kept him from announcing a 2024 run already which is really wants to do with it.

They have been keeping a slight handling on a rabid dog this entire time more or less just trying to keep it from taking them down with it. Once he knows they can't (Or in his eyes won't) protect him on this, I could see him actually taking it personally on them.

If he announces he runs, the GOP are stuck between a rock and a hard place as they can't win without his base but can't likely win with Trump against the turn out against him and the rest of their base refusing to go down that path again. And if they actually pay for THIS investigation which looks assured to find some damning stuff, that could bite them as well.

Basically, they made a deal with the devil and are trying to avoid paying the devil his due.

All you need is to go down to Georgia with a fiddle to beat the devil at his own game. At least, that is what I heard.

[Breccia]

True, they couldn't control him completely by any stretch, but they did keep him from walking when he left office like he wanted to and has, so far, kept him from announcing a 2024 run already which is really wants to do with it.

At this point, Trump doesn't know how much he needs the RNC. If he does turn on them, he'll end up with nobody during visiting hours.

[tehdang]

The drivel you're spewing is just one of several iterations of Trump's lying defense - one that continues to change on an almost daily basis.

The only thing that doesn't change with you is accusing me of just repeating talking points that have been given to me, repeated by you in a post this week in fact. If you want to start allowing people their own opinions on politics, stated honestly, this would be a departure for you ... but a welcome one. State it for the record so we're actually talking to each other.

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

I'm not taking a poll of the forum for their assessment of me. If they had better arguments to offer, I'm sure they would've said them by now.

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

I never claimed it was tied up in Republican concern on social issues. You did. Now, apparently, you do not.

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.

The Nunes memo is the most glaring example of a reason not to trust FBI statements on types of classified documents. It's germane to anyone that wishes to speculate on things unknown about the case. And you've mentioned nothing that indicates you know about the claims Democrats and FBI officials made when it was to be declassified. My conclusion is that you have no clue what the Nunes memo said, how many figures stated it would damage confidential sources or national security if it was declassified, and how tame the actual substance is. In fact, it was only embarrassing to the FBI when the truth came out ... and later caused several firings/resignations (and, relatedly, one guilty plea).

So, please, read up if you really think it's distracting from the point. I do consider it to be a cautionary tale to putting blind trust in FBI or DOJ statements before they've seen testing in court or independent investigation.

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.

Again, I'm not taking a poll of who thinks I'm wrong.

Remember, at least one dude actually wanted to lynch a former cabinet member of the president of the United States not ten pages ago. And people listened and only partially disagreed with him. When lynching is not beyond the pale for members, I don't think polling their thoughts on getting real justice for the person they hate to actually revelatory.

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.

I've taken care to provide other factual evidence than certain claims from the hated man in a resort in Florida. If you can't tell the difference between quoting Trump and examining things without citing his claims as facts themselves, then I guess we're really done here. If you really want to make this a case of Trump's words vs everybody else you pay attention to, I'm not going to demand you pay attention to past FBI cases, misconduct, statutes in question, and legal proceedings. It's your choice in the end.

So, you'd be fine with the Obamas having a binder of nuclear secrets in their bookshelf then?

I think the Obamas more preferred the drone strikes, to be honest. They're more a nuclear-free vision, well, excepting Iran.

You haven't in the least bit, but it's super adorable that you believe you have.

I respect your contrary opinion.

The "did what she was supposed to do" was afterwards, but it's no surprise you didn't catch that, where she wasn't trying to hide shit. I love you ignored the investigation into her once again and turns out what she deleted was of no consequence. You keep trying to get that Hillary boogeyman though, one day Trump might notice you.

This is the first I heard that deleting the documents was a real way to not hide them from subpoenas for documents. If you do happen to find a full record of what she deleted, which has not materialized to date, please submit it to the FBI so we can discover if it was "of no consequence."

This part is the most hilarious. Yeah, you're right, he only kept them because they were super declassified and he was keeping them safe. You're smart.

We do agree that your hypothetical was hilarious.

[Breccia]

Remember, at least one dude actually wanted to lynch a former cabinet member of the president of the United States not ten pages ago.

Pence isn't technically part of Trump's cabinet, so, technically your fellow Trump supporters just wanted to lynch an elected official.

[Dontrike]

I respect your contrary opinion.

You can't even tell the truth here, let alone the rest of your response to me.

Perhaps you should ask the FBI why they thought Hillary's emails were of no consequence.

We do agree that your hypothetical was hilarious.

Oh do tell then what Trump was doing with nuclear secrets then. I'm sure what you'll say won't be stupid or insane in the least bit.

[Fugus]

At this point, Trump doesn't know how much he needs the RNC. If he does turn on them, he'll end up with nobody during visiting hours.

Agreed, he doesn't understand just how much they are protecting him out of self preservation right now. But he also doesn't seem to live in reality and thinks its all about him, so wondering if he would be dumb enough to do that if they don't protect him over this as it would be suicide for them if they tried.

[Kaleredar]

I'm not taking a poll of the forum for their assessment of me. If they had better arguments to offer, I'm sure they would've said them by now.

It's not opinions of you. It's opinions on your statements regarding Clinton. And you didn't recant any of their arguments; you just ignored their posts like they didn't happen.

I never claimed it was tied up in Republican concern on social issues. You did. Now, apparently, you do not.

Like I think you willfully misread that part of my post early on. Nobody could otherwise be so dense.

The Nunes memo is the most glaring example of a reason not to trust FBI statements on types of classified documents. It's germane to anyone that wishes to speculate on things unknown about the case. And you've mentioned nothing that indicates you know about the claims Democrats and FBI officials made when it was to be declassified. My conclusion is that you have no clue what the Nunes memo said, how many figures stated it would damage confidential sources or national security if it was declassified, and how tame the actual substance is. In fact, it was only embarrassing to the FBI when the truth came out ... and later caused several firings/resignations (and, relatedly, one guilty plea).

So, please, read up if you really think it's distracting from the point. I do consider it to be a cautionary tale to putting blind trust in FBI or DOJ statements before they've seen testing in court or independent investigation

The investigation into the allegations of the Nunes memo found no political motivation to their potentially misfiled application to look into Trump's ties with Russia. That is what the Nunes memo acquiesced to.

The Nunes memo, above all, alleged that the inquiry was political and therefore not to be trusted. The DOJ review found clerical errors in the way the FISA warrants were submitted. They found no issue with the actual information obtained being fraudulent or false. You seem to be claiming that they made up the information, like you're claiming that they're... making up that Trump had these documents?

Yeah, I'm bringing it back to the documents Trump had. You're trying to whataboutism real hard, but I'm not going to let you.

And regardless, no judgement of misconduct has been made on the FBI's raid on Mar-a-lago, as signed off on by a judge and done legally to the letter, so far as anyone with any insight into how the legal world operates has opined for now. A judge Trump appointed, no less. Just like the conservative judges that approved continued action on the FBI's continued surveillance that the Nunes Memo was so pissy about.

Again, I'm not taking a poll of who thinks I'm wrong.

When it's your analysis vs everyone else's, maybe you're just in the wrong.

Remember, at least one dude actually wanted to lynch a former cabinet member of the president of the United States not ten pages ago. And people listened and only partially disagreed with him. When lynching is not beyond the pale for members, I don't think polling their thoughts on getting real justice for the person they hate to actually revelatory.

And a whole bunch of people stormed the capitol building trying to lynch the former vice president. People died over it.

They were republicans.

Say, while we're at it, what's your opinion on the raid on the capitol building? Was that all just a "democrat overreaction" like Trump having nuclear secrets printed out in a box?

I've taken care to provide other factual evidence than certain claims from the hated man in a resort in Florida. If you can't tell the difference between quoting Trump and examining things without citing his claims as facts themselves, then I guess we're really done here. If you really want to make this a case of Trump's words vs everybody else you pay attention to, I'm not going to demand you pay attention to past FBI cases, misconduct, statutes in question, and legal proceedings. It's your choice in the end.

You're alleging mass conspiracy because of a misfiling of documents four years ago.

And I mean, if you're talking about past cases, misconduct, statute violations and legal proceedings, Trump isn't exactly the poster boy to be rallying behind on the matter.

You also keep harping on about guilty testimonies and firings and the mass shame of the FBI. I can't actually find any sources on that. The only associated "guilty plea" I can find is Trump advisor George Papadopoulos pleading guilty to lying to the FBI which actually began the probe.

I think the Obamas more preferred the drone strikes, to be honest. They're more a nuclear-free vision, well, excepting Iran.

That is, hilariously, not actually an answer to his question.

Is your natural state to default to whataboutism?

This is why I don't think you care what Trump did. Because you'll tell yourself that somewhere, somehow, a democrat might have done something also bad.

...as if I had reason to believe you ever cared about drone strikes anyway.

I respect your contrary opinion.

This is the first I heard that deleting the documents was a real way to not hide them from subpoenas for documents. If you do happen to find a full record of what she deleted, which has not materialized to date, please submit it to the FBI so we can discover if it was "of no consequence."

The FBI themselves decided it was of no consequence.

We do agree that your hypothetical was hilarious.

So why do you think Trump had those documents?

He just plum forgot to return them? He thought he deserved to keep them?

Or... like I've been saying, you really don't care why he had them.

[Muzjhath]

I think the Obamas more preferred the drone strikes, to be honest. They're more a nuclear-free vision, well, excepting Iran.

That wasn't the question.
The question was if you're fine with the Obamas having documents covered by the National Nuclear Security Administration Act in their bookshelf. Or in boxes in their basement.

So, are you fine with the Obamas having those kinda documents at home?

[beanman12345]

"Why are people so mean?"
- Trump


lol

[AntiFascistVoter]

The Trump filings for a Special Master was a self PWN. DOJ has used its response to disclose damning proof of a series of crimes, which it would not otherwise have been able to do. And one very compelling photo.



Kids, check Lawtubes for a prima facie case.

There it is. In black and white.

The false certification by Trump's lawyers on June 3.

Note the yellow highlights (mine) that point directly to trouble for Donald Trump - for obstruction and concealment.https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FbdhVmEX...png&name=small

[postman1782]

The Trump filings for a Special Master was a self PWN. DOJ has used its response to disclose damning proof of a series of crimes, which it would not otherwise have been able to do. And one very compelling photo.



Kids, check Lawtubes for a prima facie case.

There it is. In black and white.

The false certification by Trump's lawyers on June 3.

Note the yellow highlights (mine) that point directly to trouble for Donald Trump - for obstruction and concealment.https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FbdhVmEX...png&name=small

And this picture right here, with SCI clearance, should be enough to fuck Trump a million ways from Sunday. Now we just have to wait for the indictment.

[Kaleredar]

And this picture right here, with SCI clearance, should be enough to fuck Trump a million ways from Sunday. Now we just have to wait for the indictment.

Well, if certain posters are anything to go off of, right wing talking points about this will be thusly:

1) The FBI planted them
2) If the FBI didn't plant them, then they had no right to go into Trump's residence to find them.
3) If they did have the right to go into Trump's residence, then it doesn't matter because Trump had every right to have those documents
4) If Trump didn't have any right to have those documents, it doesn't matter because Hillary had a thing with emails once.

Let's see how that holds up in a court of law.

[postman1782]

Well, if certain posters are anything to go off of, right wing talking points about this will be thusly:

1) The FBI planted them
2) If the FBI didn't plant them, then they had no right to go into Trump's residence to find them.
3) If they did have the right to go into Trump's residence, then it doesn't matter because Trump had every right to have those documents
4) If Trump didn't have any right to have those documents, it doesn't matter because Hillary had a thing with emails once.

Let's see how that holds up in a court of law.

Yeah, I have seen people even claiming that Biden reclassified them after Trump left office, but that wouldn't make sense, because then they wouldn't be in classified folders with classified markings. And yes, there was a guy I literally watched yesterday that ran through all of those excuses, including the reclassification one, and the Hillary bullshit.

[s_bushido]

You forgot about Hunter's laptop. You can NEVER forget about Hunter's laptop!

[Breccia]

Kids, check Lawtubes for a prima facie case.

I think this is worth a CNN point.

US government documents were "likely concealed and removed" from a storage room at Mar-a-Lago as part of an effort to "obstruct" the FBI's investigation into Trump's potential mishandling of classified materials, the Justice Department said in a blockbuster court filing Tuesday night.

More than 320 classified documents have now been recovered from Mar-a-Lago, the Justice Department said, including more than 100 in the FBI search earlier this month.

Tuesday's filing represents the Justice Department's strongest case to date that Trump concealed classified material he was keeping at Mar-a-Lago in an attempt to obstruct the FBI's investigation into the potential mishandling of classified material.

The Justice Department revealed the startling new details as part of its move to oppose Trump's effort to intervene in the federal investigation that led to the search of his Florida resort and his desire for a "special master" to be appointed to the case.

Which is what you were talking about, of course. When you ask the government what proof they have you're a criminal, don't be surprised when they say "here it is".

Trump has pushed an "incomplete and inaccurate narrative" in his recent court filings about the Mar-a-Lago search, the Justice Department said.

"The government provides below a detailed recitation of the relevant facts, many of which are provided to correct the incomplete and inaccurate narrative set forth in Plaintiff's filings," prosecutors wrote.

It presents a strong rebuttal of the criticisms of the FBI's unprecedented search of a former President's residence, laying out clearly how Trump had failed to return dozens of classified documents even after his lawyer attested that he had provided all classified material in his possession.

A picture on the final page of the filing showing classified documents strewn about on the floor of Trump's office -- full of classified markings like "HCS," or human confidential sources -- hammered home how sensitive the material Trump had taken was.

At issue is Trump's compliance with a grand jury subpoena, issued in May, demanding that he turn over classified documents from Mar-a-Lago. Prosecutors said Tuesday that some documents were likely removed from a storage room before Trump's lawyers examined the area, while they were trying to comply with the subpoena. The timeline is essential, because Trump's lawyers later told investigators that they searched the storage area and that all classified documents were accounted for.

"The government also developed evidence that government records were likely concealed and removed from the Storage Room and that efforts were likely taken to obstruct the government's investigation," prosecutors wrote. "This included evidence indicating that boxes formerly in the Storage Room were not returned prior to counsel's review."

In the filing opposing Trump's request, DOJ argues that the former president lacks standing over presidential records "because those records do not belong to him," as presidential records are considered property of the government.

The Presidential Records Act makes clear that "[t]he United States" has "complete ownership, possession, and control of them," the DOJ filing states.

The DOJ's response was surgical. They were clear, specific, precise, and direct. Trump's criminal behavior is objective.

Worth noting, the fat orange text above isn't about the fat orange fuck talking in public. Lying to the American people is not a crime. Lying under oath is.

Trump may have a way out here: selling out his employees. It's really risky, they might turn on him in return to save themselves, but at this point I don't know what choices he has left.

You know what, I'm going to need @cubby on this one. Hey cubby, what happens if:

FBI: we need you to give back all that stuff you stole.
Suspect: Lawyer, tell the FBI I have already given it all back, under oath.
Lawyer: I say, under oath, the Suspect has given it all back.
FBI: We found some of that stuff you stole. You didn't give it all back.
Suspect: My lawyer lied to you. Arrest her instead.
Lawyer: No, wait, I was only saying under oath what you told me.

Now what? If you direct your lawyer to make false statements under oath on your behalf, who goes to jail? We are talking about obstruction here.

- - - Point Regained - - -

It is FOX News' top headline this morning. That's how bad this is.

The warrant was obtained after "the government developed evidence that a search limited to the Storage Room would not have uncovered all the classified documents at the Premises."

So, the video footage?

It continued, "That the FBI, in a matter of hours, recovered twice as many documents with classification markings as the ‘diligent search’ that the former President’s counsel and other representatives had weeks to perform calls into serious question the representations made in the June 3 certification and casts doubt on the extent of cooperation in this matter."

The filing gives the most detailed account of the Mar-a-Lago search so far.

The department argued in the filing that Trump's request for a special master "fails for multiple, independent reasons," saying it's both "unnecessary" and would "harm national security interests."

The filing said Trump "lacks standing" for a special master because the records in question belong to the United States, not him.

It said Trump won't suffer any injury without an injunction "and the harms to the government and the public would far outweigh any benefit" to him.

Oh, and:

The filing added that any materials that could be subject to attorney-client privilege were already separated by the government's filter team.

Yep.

"Furthermore, appointment of a special master would impede the government’s ongoing criminal investigation and—if the special master were tasked with reviewing classified documents—would impede the Intelligence Community from conducting its ongoing review of the national security risk that improper storage of these highly sensitive materials may have caused and from identifying measures to rectify or mitigate any damage that improper storage caused," the filing said. "Lastly, this case does not involve any of the types of circumstances that have warranted appointment of a special master to review materials potentially subject to attorney-client privilege."

Also:

Three classified documents were also found in a "desk drawer" during the search, the DOJ said.

Not the storage room, with or without the new lock.

Not the safe.

A desk drawer.

Now to be fair, the judge in this part of the case doesn't have to take the FBI's word for it, that a "special master" would harm national security or an ongoing investigation. That's their call. She can appoint, let's say, Mueller? Yeah, Mueller. Or someone else that clearly has both unquestionable integrity and also a security clearance. Someone who had a law degree and personal familiarity with the WH and presidential records.

Is Obama free?

[Gorsameth]

Now what? If you direct your lawyer to make false statements under oath on your behalf, who goes to jail? We are talking about obstruction here.

I think the DoJ already answered that by stating that documents were removed from the store room before the laywer looked.
The lawyer answered what he believed to be the truth and Trump lied to his lawyer.