Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[cubby]

They ran out of ways to defend Trump actually having the documents so they are running to find anything else to use as a distraction.
I don't even get why the filter team looking at documents under potential Executive Privilege is relevant unless Trump supporters expect some of the stuff the FBI took to be used in other cases running against Trump.

The contents of the documents is not relevant to the current FBI action, Trump having them at all is what matters. The filter team only needed to separate official government files, regardless of their content, from Trumps personal effects.

This is basically the situation now. They are ignoring the major issues of Trump in possession of SAP/SAC documents just lying around his office, and other situations where he has empty classified folders with documents unaccounted for. The National Security Office is already doing a Risk Assessment, which is right before they do a Threat Assessment.

At this point, the only thing keeping Trump from being indicted is his profile as a former President, and his legion of violent insurrectionists threatening any legal action against him.

(notice how @tehdang still can't even answer the simplest questions? )

[Edge-]

Speaking of the election and lawsuits and money and stuff. Y'all remember the Dominion lawsuit against Fox for $1.6B?

It's still going on and has some twists - https://www.npr.org/2022/09/06/11211...-lawsuit-pirro

The November 2020 email from an anguished Fox News news producer to colleagues sent up a flare amid a fusillade of false claims.

The producer warned: Fox cannot let host Jeanine Pirro back on the air. She is pulling conspiracy theories from dark corners of the Web to justify then-President Donald Trump's lies that the election had been stolen from him. The existence of the email, confirmed by two people with direct knowledge of it, is first publicly disclosed by NPR in this story. Fox News declined comment.

Pirro was far from alone in broadcasting such false claims. In the weeks that followed Election Day 2020, other prominent Fox stars, commentators and their guests heavily promoted them.

This email is likely pretty disastrous for Fox's case if it truly exists, as it shows that the lies were known internally, warned against, and ignored anyways. I'll let real lawyers correct me if I'm wrong here, but this is exactly why you see career criminals like Trump intentionally not using emails and notes that can be archived and referenced. Because paper trails are damning when you're facing lawsuits over what you knew and when you knew it.

- - - Updated - - -

https://www.axios.com/2022/09/06/rep...nt-health-care

So we've already gone over how many Republicans running for office this midterm are frantically trying to scrub their extremist views on girls and womens bodily autonomy from their websites and everything.

Well, that's not the only thing - https://www.axios.com/2022/09/06/rep...nt-health-care

Republicans in tight congressional races are going silent on health care, scrubbing campaign websites of anti-abortion language and in some cases distancing themselves from past criticisms of the Affordable Care Act.

...

Axios contacted Republican campaigns in 10 of the closest House and Senate races. Only Nevada's U.S. Senate hopeful Adam Laxalt responded. And a review of candidates' websites and past statements found that even hard-liners endorsed by former President Trump have dialed back language on social media channels and eschewed positions like repealing the ACA.

Laxalt campaigned against the ACA while running for Nevada Attorney General in 2018. He softened his stance two year later when running for governor, saying he supported protections for patients with preexisting conditions. Now, as he challenges incumbent Democrat Catherine Cortez Masto, the only health care issue on his website is investigating what he terms public health failures of the government's COVID-19 response.

His press secretary, Brian Freimuth, wouldn't elaborate on Laxalt's position on the ACA, but said if elected, he would "prioritize reducing costs, expanding choices, and allowing patients to keep the doctor they prefer while protecting those with pre-existing conditions."

Ohio Senate candidate J.D. Vance also hasn't laid out a health care agenda on his website, though he said at a February campaign event that "Obamacare was a disaster" and needed to be repealed and replaced by "something with substance."

Georgia Senate hopeful Herschel Walker hasn't spoken much about health care, but his website said he wants to increase "competitive market options to ensure that every Georgian has access to quality, affordable healthcare."

North Carolina Senate candidate Ted Budd also isn't showcasing policy points or saying much on health care since April, when he lamented on a podcast that an Obamacare repeal and replace bill he backed as a congressman in 2017 died in the Senate.

Pennsylvania Senate hopeful Mehmet Oz, a retired cardiothoracic surgeon, has said he'd expand access to private short-term health plans former President Trump championed as an alternative to ACA coverage. CNN reported in March that Oz previously supported federal health insurance mandates and promoted the Affordable Care Act, though his campaign told CNN that stance had changed.

Ohio's Madison Gesiotto Gilbert, who's running for the 13th congressional district, told an Ohio Trump rally in April that she backs eliminating Obamacare but has since confined her positions to opposing Medicare for All and backing "patient-centered health care that removes the role of the federal government."

Between the lines: This kind of distancing makes sense, said Republican strategist Brendan Buck.

"Republicans have been talking about health care for the last decade almost exclusively around repeal and replace. We found out the hard way that it’s not a winning issue anymore and backed off of that entirely."

Just a reminder that the Republican party is literally the, "Do-nothing" party. They have no platform. No vision. They're purely regressive and reactionary, with no forward-thinking vision beyond, "Maybe we should cut taxes once more?"

To highlight that point -

The big picture: The difficulty has been coming up with a distinctly Republican take on health care, said Larry Levitt, executive vice president of the Kaiser Family Foundation.

"When Republican candidates have talked about health care, it's generally in opposition to Democratic plans," Levitt said. "That leaves Republicans in a bit of a box in this campaign since the ACA is now as popular as ever."

Recent KFF polling shows the Affordable Care Act has a 55% approval rating, one of the highest ratings on the law since it was implemented.

[Breccia]

They have no platform.

Every Democrat running against an incumbent Republican needs to throw their ACA vote in their face. They don't want people to remember? Remind them.

[Edge-]

Every Democrat running against an incumbent Republican needs to throw their ACA vote in their face. They don't want people to remember? Remind them.

It does require context in many states, including that their Republican governments are often unwilling to take federal funding for expanded coverage. You know, reminding people that not only do Republicans still not have a replacement for the ACA over a decade after they began the "Repeal and replace!" campaigning, and that in the interim that Republicans are intentionally rejecting federal dollars that could help people in their state.

Weird that many, if not most, of the moves from Republicans are specifically designed to harm people.

- - - Updated - - -

https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/s...76546730708992

Why the fuck doe Ted Cruz keep talking about Mickey Mouse and Pluto having a gay relationship?

Does Rafael Cruz really just wanna see an anthropomorphic cartoon mouse and a cartoon dog raw dogging each other or something? Someone should probably introduce him to Rule 34 (DO NOT GOOGLE THIS) because I'm fairly certain this absolutely exists.

[cubby]

Speaking of the election and lawsuits and money and stuff. Y'all remember the Dominion lawsuit against Fox for $1.6B?

It's still going on and has some twists - https://www.npr.org/2022/09/06/11211...-lawsuit-pirro

The November 2020 email from an anguished Fox News news producer to colleagues sent up a flare amid a fusillade of false claims.

The producer warned: Fox cannot let host Jeanine Pirro back on the air. She is pulling conspiracy theories from dark corners of the Web to justify then-President Donald Trump's lies that the election had been stolen from him. The existence of the email, confirmed by two people with direct knowledge of it, is first publicly disclosed by NPR in this story. Fox News declined comment.

Pirro was far from alone in broadcasting such false claims. In the weeks that followed Election Day 2020, other prominent Fox stars, commentators and their guests heavily promoted them.

This email is likely pretty disastrous for Fox's case if it truly exists, as it shows that the lies were known internally, warned against, and ignored anyways. I'll let real lawyers correct me if I'm wrong here, but this is exactly why you see career criminals like Trump intentionally not using emails and notes that can be archived and referenced. Because paper trails are damning when you're facing lawsuits over what you knew and when you knew it.-

If this is the case, and that email does contain the "lies" reference in there, then yeah, that's some pretty bad shit for Fox (not denying you or the NPR story, just to be clear - just whether the courts will "see" the email.

If the case keeps going south for Faux, they might end up settling.

[Edge-]

If the case keeps going south for Faux, they might end up settling.

Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if Dominion wasn't interested in settling unless it's for a massive amount. They seem to have a fairly strong case here, especially if there are any more internal emails along the lines of this one. The safer money is on taking the settlement if an offer is made, but I'm hoping that Dominion is out for blood and doesn't just want a payday.

[Poopymonster]

Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if Dominion wasn't interested in settling unless it's for a massive amount. They seem to have a fairly strong case here, especially if there are any more internal emails along the lines of this one. The safer money is on taking the settlement if an offer is made, but I'm hoping that Dominion is out for blood and doesn't just want a payday.

This is our offer to settle.
Hmm, seems a bit low. How about *mumble*
What? Please repeat that.
I said that *mumble mumble*
...did you just say you like the sound of Dominion News?

[Jastall]

For us both understanding each other, you know what the judge meant when she crossed from attorney-client privilege to executive privilege? When she said "the Court is notconvinced that similar concerns with respect to executive privilege should be disregarded in themanner suggested by the Government?"

I understand what she meant, even if I think it a flawed comparison as the attorney-client privilege is a about decidedly private matters that have been legislated on at length while executive privilege is something else entirely. I also know team Trump tried to use the attorney-client privilege to allege some documents shouldn't have been seized or inspected, which fell flat on its face last I recalled. This may not be the victory you believe it is.

You're also really going to source your claim about executive privilege meaning any former President is free to take whatever documents he or she wants with them so long as they think said document(s) might make them look bad. That's a rather bold claim as to how transition of power works. Let us see evidence such a tradition exists.

[Ripster42]

I understand what she meant, even if I think it a flawed comparison as the attorney-client privilege is a about decidedly private matters that have been legislated on at length while executive privilege is something else entirely. I also know team Trump tried to use the attorney-client privilege to allege some documents shouldn't have been seized or inspected, which fell flat on its face last I recalled. This may not be the victory you believe it is.

You're also really going to source your claim about executive privilege meaning any former President is free to take whatever documents he or she wants with them so long as they think said document(s) might make them look bad. That's a rather bold claim as to how transition of power works. Let us see evidence such a tradition exists.

Taint team did say that some material was likely protected by attorney client privilege.

[TACOshake]

Reminds me, I gotta email my fantasy league commissioner.

<rename team> "The Taint Team".

[Jastall]

Taint team did say that some material was likely protected by attorney client privilege.

Unsurprising. The FBI nabs everything that isn't nailed down in searches like this, typically. They got no time on-site to sift through piles and piles of documents, that comes after and inadmissible/confidential ones will be returned where appropriate. Of course Trump and co. will see any document being returned as proof the entire thing was a hoax and bigly false and whatnot, but let them, this saga might be quite long.

For the record I actually doubt Trump will be indicted unless the FBI has a truly ironclad case against him. Nobody in power actually wants to see Trump clapped in irons, no matter what one thinks of the man that's just too much of a bad optic both internally and externally.

[postman1782]

The filter team failed to remove documents potentially protected by executive privilege in clear contradiction of past supreme court precedent. They invented a novel legal theory as to why they didn't need to. That one crashed and burned.

You'll have to update your understanding of 'reserving judgement' one of these days.

Stopping you right here. I make no assumptions. I speak of what has been introduced at court and examined by judges. The DoJ was negligent in its filter team. This negligence invited the appointment of a special master and temporary pause in its investigation.

The DoJ may have legal theories of criminality that they wish to advance. We shall see those when they're required to prove it at court. Not with these incessant media leaks and rumors.

Yes yes we all must pronounce citizens guilty prior to indictment on charges. I love the new era of partisanship.

I know the judge's order was inconvenient, but really you should start getting on board with "I think he's guilty, I think you should think he's guilty at this moment in time, but what you say has grounding in the facts of the case."

It would, you know, avoid having to call judges ruling on process (not criminality, mind you) partisan or hacks or all that stuff. The more you have to call court decisions and supreme court rulings "lies," the less people will believe you have good insight into what's going on.


Uhh, wrong.

Here's a reminder. Trump failed in his exertion of executive privilege in that case because the privileged communication at issue was the narrow subject of a special congressional committee pursuant to its lawful exercise of power. Secondly, and importantly, Trump asserted his executive privilege, and no action was possible on the covered documents until it had been denied by the high court. Bad instructions to filter teams denies him that right in the current case.

But as long as we're in the argument-by-links phase, here's one.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/...be-into-chaos/


Gee whillickers, you may get one, or even two, court rulings on exactly this point of contention. All you have to do is hold your horses a tiny bit. And, maybe, avoid dismissing such matters outright, since they're the subject of court decisions and likely appeals. You could even avoid calling judges dumb by implication, in their court orders that don't dismiss possible executive privilege claims outright.

I've been saying this is about executive privilege claims by the former president from the outset. Maybe this is one voice against calling me a Trumpster? Nah, I bet it'll get reduced to "some Trumpsters" or "most Trumpsters."

You didn't read what I fucking posted. You saying nuh uh doesn't negate that the supreme court said that Trump doesn't have executive privilege anymore.

And your link is from a fucking moron that literally sucks Trump's cock as much as he can, and the judge is wrong. Even Bill Barr said the judge is wrong. And even he said that the DoJ will appeal and it will probably get overturned.

- - - Updated - - -
@Breccia @Edge-

https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/06/polit...gia/index.html

This article shows one of the fake electors in Georgia that the DA in Fulton County is investigating, let in operatives right before the voting machine breach in Georgia. The operatives were working for Sydney Powell.

In the surveillance video, which was obtained by CNN, Cathy Latham, a former GOP chairwoman of Coffee County who is under criminal investigation for posing as a fake elector in 2020, escorts a team of pro-Trump operatives to the county's elections office on January 7, 2021, the same day a voting system there is known to have been breached.

The two men seen in the video with Latham, Scott Hall and Paul Maggio, have acknowledged that they successfully gained access to a voting machine in Coffee County at the behest of Trump lawyer Sidney Powell.

Text messages, emails and witness testimony filed as part of a long-running civil suit into the security of Georgia's voting systems show Latham communicated directly with the then-Coffee County elections supervisor about getting access to the office, both before and after the breach. One text message, according to the court document, shows Latham coordinating the arrival and whereabouts of a team "led by Paul Maggio" that traveled to Coffee County at the direction of Powell.

Three days after the breach, Latham texted the Coffee County elections supervisor, "Did you all finish with the scanner?" According to court documents, Latham testified she did not know what Hall was doing in Coffee County. But when confronted with her texts about the scanner, she asserted her Fifth Amendment rights.

[Breccia]

This article shows one of the fake electors in Georgia that the DA in Fulton County is investigating, let in operatives right before the voting machine breach in Georgia. The operatives were working for Sydney Powell.

Indeed, the reason this is getting so much attention is because of how directly felonious it is. You're not allowed to do this, and the hypocrisy knows no bounds.

[postman1782]

Indeed, the reason this is getting so much attention is because of how directly felonious it is. You're not allowed to do this, and the hypocrisy knows no bounds.

Yep, Sydney Powell should be looking at charges for this, because she directed them to do this in multiple states.

[tehdang]

I understand what she meant, even if I think it a flawed comparison as the attorney-client privilege is a about decidedly private matters that have been legislated on at length while executive privilege is something else entirely. I also know team Trump tried to use the attorney-client privilege to allege some documents shouldn't have been seized or inspected, which fell flat on its face last I recalled. This may not be the victory you believe it is.

You're also really going to source your claim about executive privilege meaning any former President is free to take whatever documents he or she wants with them so long as they think said document(s) might make them look bad. That's a rather bold claim as to how transition of power works. Let us see evidence such a tradition exists.

You're really going to make the case that executive privilege hasn't been debated in public and in courts at length? Look at Nixon and Clinton. 1974 vs 1997. A comparable time period would be from today until year 2045. Not enough time period for you?

You didn't read what I fucking posted.

I read and responded to you. You said a Supreme Court case said the former president does not have executive privilege. I corrected you, from the case you cited. So as much as your ideology demands certain people "[suck] Trump's cock as much as he can," I suggest you stick to the record. Unless you wish to submit video evidence of the cock-sucking you're so enthusiastic about.

- - - Updated - - -

(notice how @tehdang still can't even answer the simplest questions? )

You had trouble responding to my answers to your questions without casting them as some talking points, so maybe you should try repudiating your past conduct and proceeding towards accepting answers. Usually, the questioner seeks answers. Sometimes, the questioner just wants to say any answers are just copies of some other speaker. In which case, I would suggest to you that you submit your question to your local politicians. Their answer would be better described as talking points.

[Jastall]

You're really going to make the case that executive privilege hasn't been debated in public and in courts at length? Look at Nixon and Clinton. 1974 vs 1997. A comparable time period would be from today until year 2045. Not enough time period for you?

I read and responded to you. You said a Supreme Court case said the former president does not have executive privilege. I corrected you, from the case you cited. So as much as your ideology demands certain people "[suck] Trump's cock as much as he can," I suggest you stick to the record. Unless you wish to submit video evidence of the cock-sucking you're so enthusiastic about.

- - - Updated - - -

You had trouble responding to my answers to your questions without casting them as some talking points, so maybe you should try repudiating your past conduct and proceeding towards accepting answers. Usually, the questioner seeks answers. Sometimes, the questioner just wants to say any answers are just copies of some other speaker. In which case, I would suggest to you that you submit your question to your local politicians. Their answer would be better described as talking points.

Anywhere near as much as attorney-client privilege, such that a solid consensus was formed and that there's clear precedent for the current case? No, I won't make that claim at all, considering Barr himself theorized that the privilege doesn't apply to Trump and he's neither a novice on the matter nor particularly partisan against Trump by any sane metric. And what you quoted definitely doesn't give Trump, or anyone else, the leeway to do whatever they want with any and all White House document the second they think it makes them look bad.

Speaking of which, still waiting on actual evidence on that one.

[Breccia]

Look at Nixon and Clinton. 1974 vs 1997.

So it turns out, Jan 21st 2009 was actually pretty important.

As we noted earlier today, President Obama issued an order rolling back the former administration's restrictive FOIA policies. And now, we learn President Obama has signed another order (PDF) reversing President George W. Bush's controversial order that gave ex-presidents and their heirs broad authority to stop release of White House records.

Although, and surely an honest, genuine poster like yourself knows this, Trump is the first to ask for a current US President to be blocked from reading older records. Your claims that it's been discussed in the courts, therefore, is false in this context. Until is has, the rule remains that Trump can't overrule Biden. Plus, I personally posted a long list of reasons why you were flat-out wrong on the topic, other than we agree that Trump is a criminal. Don't know why you keep admitting that by saying Trump has WH property, which is what the FBI came looking for with their subpoena, and Executive Privilege documents would 100% apply.

Until that time, the idea of privilege isn't really the current issue. The FBI might not be able to read the documents they're taking, but they're still required to take them, because Trump was subpoena'd, lied about having them, and threw them in random boxes with non-classified stuff like his passports and medical records -- his admission on both, by the way. For now, the Executive Privilege thing is irrelevant, and only not off-topic because Trump still faces those Jan 6th problems. Just, you know, not today.

Speaking of off-topic:

Unless you wish to submit video evidence of the cock-sucking you're so enthusiastic about.

Huh. Don't think this is the right thread for that. Maybe we should ask. Hey @Rozz and @Flarelaine a poster here is asking for videos of men performing sexual acts on each other to be posted on your forums. Which thread should that be? Because while I think @cubby was being metaphorical, tehdang clearly wasn't, or he wouldn't ask for a video. So, which thread should the videos of men performing sexual acts on each other be posted?

On your forums?

Which tehdang non-hypothetically asked for?

[tehdang]

Anywhere near as much as attorney-client privilege, such that a solid consensus was formed and that there's clear precedent for the current case? No, I won't make that claim at all, considering Barr himself theorized that the privilege doesn't apply to Trump and he's neither a novice on the matter nor particularly partisan against Trump by any sane metric. And what you quoted definitely doesn't give Trump, or anyone else, the leeway to do whatever they want with any and all White House document the second they think it makes them look bad.

Speaking of which, still waiting on actual evidence on that one.

They can assert the privilege and have it tried in court. The DoJ ... well, they tried to theorize such an assertation wasn't possible. Their loss.

So it turns out, Jan 21st 2009 was actually pretty important.

In terms of the depth of executive privilege jurisprudence, yes. In terms of your specific citation, it's a very small addition.

Although, and surely an honest, genuine poster like yourself knows this, Trump is the first to ask for a current US President to be blocked from reading older records.

Assertion of executive privilege isn't so simple, come on now.

Your claims that it's been discussed in the courts, therefore, is false in this context. Until is has, the rule remains that Trump can't overrule Biden. Plus, I personally posted a long list of reasons why you were flat-out wrong on the topic, other than we agree that Trump is a criminal. Don't know why you keep admitting that by saying Trump has WH property, which is what the FBI came looking for with their subpoena, and Executive Privilege documents would 100% apply.

Until that time, the idea of privilege isn't really the current issue. The FBI might not be able to read the documents they're taking, but they're still required to take them, because Trump was subpoena'd, lied about having them, and threw them in random boxes with non-classified stuff like his passports and medical records -- his admission on both, by the way. For now, the Executive Privilege thing is irrelevant, and only not off-topic because Trump still faces those Jan 6th problems. Just, you know, not today.

Rule is that past executive cannot be so simply dismissed as having genuine claims of executive privilege. The current judge trying the dispute said as much. I suggest you read the order.

Huh. Don't think this is the right thread for that. Maybe we should ask. Hey @Rozz and @Flarelaine a poster here is asking for videos of men performing sexual acts on each other to be posted on your forums. Which thread should that be? Because while I think @cubby was being metaphorical, tehdang clearly wasn't, or he wouldn't ask for a video. So, which thread should the videos of men performing sexual acts on each other be posted?

On your forums?

Which tehdang non-hypothetically asked for?

A poster, postman1782, claimed "a fucking moron that literally sucks Trump's cock as much as he can." He has made an assertion of fact that I don't think survives scrutiny.

If mods want to make a determination on saying a moron that literally sucks Trump's cock as much as he can., I totally invite their ruling.

[Breccia]

If mods want--

Now now, that's off topic. Your literal -- you seem to be fond of that word, so we'll use it -- public request for men performing sexual acts on each other on MMO-C can wait until the mods tell you which thread you should look in. This thread is about Trump!

Now I did note that you did talk about "past privilege can't be waived" and, you know what, let's just say that's true. Problem is, Trump never cited privilege over the documents he stole from the WH. There's no record of that -- NARA would have that record, and file those documents with all the others. Under their control, not a hotel basement.

Plus, again, it doesn't matter when the crime is "taking WH property". Executive Privilege belongs to the WH, not to Trump. But that's only what I got from the articles I've posted from actual legal scholars.

[cubby]

You had trouble responding to my answers to your questions without casting them as some talking points, so maybe you should try repudiating your past conduct and proceeding towards accepting answers. Usually, the questioner seeks answers. Sometimes, the questioner just wants to say any answers are just copies of some other speaker. In which case, I would suggest to you that you submit your question to your local politicians. Their answer would be better described as talking points.

See...still no solid answers on even the most simple answer. You can keep gaslighting us with your responses, but it all boils down to the same thing.

Why didn't Trump's DoJ bring charges against Hillary? I promise here and now, whatever answer you provide to this question, it will not be labeled as a "talking point" or other wise varnished. I just want to know why, if Hillary's email actions were such obvious legal violations, she wasn't charged?