Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[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.

[Milchshake]

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?

[Breccia]

By the way, it was mentioned, but I thought I'd cite, Barr says the ruling was incorrect.

The op--

Oh, he said it on FOX News.

The opinion, I think, was wrong, and I think the government should appeal it.

It's deeply flawed in a number of ways. I don't think the appointment of a special master is going to hold up, but even if it does, I don't see it fundamentally changing the trajectory.

I think the fundamental dynamics of the case are set. The government has very strong evidence of what it really needs to determine whether charges are appropriate.

I mean, at this point, between that and what @cubby just asked, Trump's DOJ is more interested in Trump being a criminal than Clinton being a criminal.

[Jastall]

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.

Appeals exist, and this is also a reminder you still haven't sourced your own claim so far despite both me and others pressing you so I'll assume you're just inventing such a tradition to fit your argument now.

Besides, the idea that the FBI shouldn't have grabbed anything in case executive privilege applied is patently absurd. They had a mandate, they grab everything that remotely looks like it could fit the mandate, then filter out as they go afterwards, that's how it works in such a case. IF the privilege applies (big if as of now), they'd still have to grab the stuff and look at it, same for attorney-client privilege (albeit such documents would be of less interest to the FBI as a matter of course in this case).

[cubby]

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.

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

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

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.

You can't Executive Privilege this issue away, regardless of past rulings. Trump was caught - that's a legal term for seen by LEO's violating a law - with classified documents in his possession as a private citizen - including some nuclear documents that CANNOT be declassified, regardless of Presidential order.

The rest of your arguments are just bluster. This is how Trump will be going to jail. The only issue Garland faces right now is how violent a reaction you and your ilk will have when the law is upheld.

[postman1782]

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.

Then you didn't fucking understand it then. And I was right, the former president DOESN'T HAVE EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE. Only the current president does.

[cubby]

By the way, it was mentioned, but I thought I'd cite, Barr says the ruling was incorrect.

Oh, he said it on FOX News.

The opinion, I think, was wrong, and I think the government should appeal it.

It's deeply flawed in a number of ways. I don't think the appointment of a special master is going to hold up, but even if it does, I don't see it fundamentally changing the trajectory.

I think the fundamental dynamics of the case are set. The government has very strong evidence of what it really needs to determine whether charges are appropriate.

I mean, at this point, between that and what @cubby just asked, Trump's DOJ is more interested in Trump being a criminal than Clinton being a criminal.

If it's possible for Trump to go to jail, this is how it will happen. As you pointed out, even the GoP is ready to be rid of him - at least the sane portions of the GoP.

What worries me is that there will be no remittance for the horror and shame that Trump has wrought on the United States. AND, there are still millions that will not face reality, and believe him to not only be not guilty, but the legitimate 2020 winner.