Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Breccia]

Look at Republican lead investigations over the years. They go nowhere. They never have.

"How dare they investigate us for all those crimes we committed!" as a cult dog whistle is concerning. It certainly shouldn't come from the Party of Law and Order.

But, here we are.

[Edge-]

A.) Look at Republican administrations and the number of arrests/indictments/prison sentences over the last 50 years. The gulf between the two parties is MASSIVE.

That's just PROOF the "DEEP STATE" existed even before the concept of the "DEEP STATE" existed!

B.) Look at Republican lead investigations over the years. They go nowhere. They never have. The corruption between the two parties is not even remotely on the same level.

Again, just PROOF of the "DEEP STATE" protecting their own before the concept of the "DEEP STATE" even existed.

Or...that Republicans are more likely to engage in criminal behavior and run a lot of dog and pony show political investigations with no actual purpose.

That too.

I find that Democrats aren't going to back you for very long however.

They won't back you at all, largely. They'll take you out back and shank you. See: Al Franken being pressured to resign over a literal nothingberder.

[SoulForge]

That's just PROOF the "DEEP STATE" existed even before the concept of the "DEEP STATE" existed!



Again, just PROOF of the "DEEP STATE" protecting their own before the concept of the "DEEP STATE" even existed.

Or...that Republicans are more likely to engage in criminal behavior and run a lot of dog and pony show political investigations with no actual purpose.

That too.



They won't back you at all, largely. They'll take you out back and shank you. See: Al Franken being pressured to resign over a literal nothingberder.

Yes but you try to explain to them that Republicans in congress could have referred to the DOJ for indictment and they just don't. But they don't listen to that.

[Edge-]

Yes but you try to explain to them that Republicans in congress could have referred to the DOJ for indictment and they just don't. But they don't listen to that.

You mean to the "DEEP STATE"?

I'm clearly joking here, but this is the kind of thinking that appears to exist on the Republican side. Republican president with a Republican appointed and Republican-Senate confirmed Attorney General? Still the "DEEP STATE". It's only not the "DEEP STATE" when it's doing something they agree with.

[tehdang]

Any Executive Privileged Documents belong to the government, not an induvidual. The DoJ has 100% right to collect any and all of those. Any Attorney Client privileged documents that might have been mixed in along with them, why? Just shows more wrong-doing for a private induvidual keeping government property. But will be sorted out and send back. Any no-privileged things mixed in will be used as evidence of crimes.

So. There. Answered.

I never asked you about their right of collection. In fact, I've stuck close to certain problems in the way they were reviewed after collection. They were detailed in the actual special master order, for god sake (copies of which may be freely found on the interent)! I don't need your services in substituting in questions I didn't ask, and I'm well aware you're just guessing on attorney-client privilege. For the FBI's part, they tried to, and confessed to the judge as having partially failed, to incorporate attorney-client privilege in its review of seized materials. In as much as they made an attempt, they were right to do so. In as much as they documented failure, they were subject to an order for a special master to make sure no further errors were committed and uncaught.

As for hasty? NARA and the DoJ have been asking to get this shit back for ages! This wasn't hasty.

I made this observation as to why the DoJ breached Supreme Court precedent in their review of documents. I am willing to accept hastiness in the review, actual malice, and hopes that no defense lawyer would point it out and ask for a judgement as possible explanations.

You have my questions in my prior post, if you decide to take them up. I didn't ask you your opinion on whether the search warrant was lawful, or a raid was warranted, or if either of those could be considered hasty, if you would review the post.

What documents do you imagine are covered by executive privilege? So far I've heard of no such documents taken during the raid.

The government is under no obligation to leak to the press detailed categories of what was seized. They're more likely to leak only such information as they think will benefit them in public opinion. Until they are going to bring an indictment of Trump, where they may need to produce and defend their exhibits in court before hostile cross-examination and scrutiny, then I have no idea what was caught up in the whatever over eleven thousand documents. I'm not going to speculate on what documents exist, so long as the DoJ was professionally and legally responsible to screen for them prior to handing them over to investigation teams.

AND how do you expect them to screen those? There are no markings associated with that.

You think all communications between lawyer and client are specially marked in storage? The DoJ screened for those (or tried to, and failed in at least two documented occasions).

And thus far he hasn't raised that issue on his legal filings. At least not directly.

Uhh...

https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...special-master

His lawsuit expressly said a special master was needed to preserve the sanctity of executive communications and other privileged materials. It has an entire section entitled "Seized Documents Reflecting Presidential Communications With Advisors Are Presumptively Privileged." This is, like, an actual part of his lawsuit, and he received a favorable judicial ruling on its basis.

[Edge-]

His lawsuit expressly said a special master was needed to preserve the sanctity of executive communications and other privileged materials.

You mean materials he shouldn't have to begin with since they should all be at the National Archives?

It has an entire section entitled "Seized Documents Reflecting Presidential Communications With Advisors Are Presumptively Privileged."

Presumptively? Why doesn't he exert privilege if said privilege exists and it is within his authority to do so?

and he received a favorable judicial ruling on its basis.

One that, as a reminder, has been nearly universally panned by lawyers, legal scholars, and even Trump's former AG Bill Barr.

[Orange Joe]

what's left of /rdonald largely fragmented, mostly going over to /pol/, Youtube, Facebook.

Those are my cited places. And they're not insignificant but a great threat to projecting misinformation on social media.

What sad world you live in that you think reddit and 4 Chan are the internet......

[YUPPIE]

What sad world you live in that you think reddit and 4 Chan are the internet......

actually, they are, along with Twitter and Facebook. Both have had heavy hands in manipulating the democratic elections of the US in line with far-right ideologies. I'm pretty sure 4chan and its subsidiaries are why Trump got elected.

At the least I would not undermine their presence and role in making the cyber-dominated world a worse place.

[Ripster42]

Pepperidge Farm remembers.

NYT needs to get better on their reporting. He charged someone, but the jury acquitted them. Saying "developed cases against two people" and then saying "not charged any conspiracy" leads one into making the wrong conclusion that he didn't charge anyone for anything. Developing cases isn't taking someone to trial. While the statement was factually correct, it's just poor/sloppy reporting.

[Edge-]

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/0...-vote-00056690

Republicans want to push a vote on protecting marriage until after the midterms, they think they'll have more support then and might have enough to overcome a Republican fillibuster threat.

Which is nice way of saying, "We'll ask for another delay, and keep asking for delays while claiming Democrats are rushing every time they bring it up for a vote. This allows us to achieve our ends of discriminating against millions of Americans without having to actually vote on the record that we support discrimination against millions of Americans. It's a win/win!"

[Gorsameth]

NYT needs to get better on their reporting. He charged someone, but the jury acquitted them. Saying "developed cases against two people" and then saying "not charged any conspiracy" leads one into making the wrong conclusion that he didn't charge anyone for anything. Developing cases isn't taking someone to trial. While the statement was factually correct, it's just poor/sloppy reporting.

Indeed, I read that comment and thought I remembered the only case Durham actually had failed.

- - - Updated - - -

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/0...-vote-00056690

Republicans want to push a vote on protecting marriage until after the midterms, they think they'll have more support then and might have enough to overcome a Republican fillibuster threat.

Which is nice way of saying, "We'll ask for another delay, and keep asking for delays while claiming Democrats are rushing every time they bring it up for a vote. This allows us to achieve our ends of discriminating against millions of Americans without having to actually vote on the record that we support discrimination against millions of Americans. It's a win/win!"

wtf are 'religious liberty exceptions' to protecting same sex marriage?
If people's believes are against same sex relationships they are free to not marry a person of the same sex. Don't need an amendment for that shit.

[Edge-]

wtf are 'religious liberty exceptions' to protecting same sex marriage?

I'm curious. I imagine it could be protections for religious institutions who choose not to do same-sex marriage ceremonies which is fine and all as long as they're a private business/institution. But at the same time I imagine same-sex couples wouldn't be flocking to many of those businesses/institutions for their weddings, either.

If people's believes are against same sex relationships they are free to not marry a person of the same sex. Don't need an amendment for that shit.

You do when you need to have largely redundant legislation (since this was already done through previous court cases regarding baking wedding cakes etc.) just to tell your supporters you did something that they'll maybe care about.

When you have no legislative agenda, holding up other legislation or proposing pointless amendments is really all you have left if you want to tell your voters you've actually done anything while being their elected representative.

[Endus]

I'm curious. I imagine it could be protections for religious institutions who choose not to do same-sex marriage ceremonies which is fine and all as long as they're a private business/institution. But at the same time I imagine same-sex couples wouldn't be flocking to many of those businesses/institutions for their weddings, either.

More likely, since as far as I'm aware any private religious organization can refuse to provide services, it's about the Kim Davis religio-fascist bigot types, who want to get government jobs and refuse to issue marriage licenses or act as an officiant for same-sex marriages.

And if you're an agent of the government, you can take your religious views, fold them up until they're all sharp corners, and shove them so far up your ass you choke. These are among the worst kinds of people that exist; just pure, vicious evil in a skinsuit.

[SoulForge]

Uhh...

https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...special-master

His lawsuit expressly said a special master was needed to preserve the sanctity of executive communications and other privileged materials. It has an entire section entitled "Seized Documents Reflecting Presidential Communications With Advisors Are Presumptively Privileged." This is, like, an actual part of his lawsuit, and he received a favorable judicial ruling on its basis.

I said DIRECTLY. He's not objecting saying its under executive privilege. He's doing it in a round about way by asking for the Special Master.

The government is under no obligation to leak to the press detailed categories of what was seized. They're more likely to leak only such information as they think will benefit them in public opinion. Until they are going to bring an indictment of Trump, where they may need to produce and defend their exhibits in court before hostile cross-examination and scrutiny, then I have no idea what was caught up in the whatever over eleven thousand documents. I'm not going to speculate on what documents exist, so long as the DoJ was professionally and legally responsible to screen for them prior to handing them over to investigation teams.

We will never know what was classified that was recovered from Mar-A-Lago. Unless Biden / Future president declassifies it. Those details will never come up in the public trial.

You think all communications between lawyer and client are specially marked in storage? The DoJ screened for those (or tried to, and failed in at least two documented occasions).

Trump is free to have those documents back. He will never get back anything marked classified. Ever.

wtf are 'religious liberty exceptions' to protecting same sex marriage?
If people's believes are against same sex relationships they are free to not marry a person of the same sex. Don't need an amendment for that shit.

I'd agree but then you have people like Kim Davis of Kentucky who refused to issue licenses for those same sex marriages. I believe that is what was being referred to and is 100% Grade A bullshit.

[cubby]

https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...special-master

His lawsuit expressly said a special master was needed to preserve the sanctity of executive communications and other privileged materials. It has an entire section entitled "Seized Documents Reflecting Presidential Communications With Advisors Are Presumptively Privileged." This is, like, an actual part of his lawsuit, and he received a favorable judicial ruling on its basis.

Does the brief have a section titled "I Stole Nuclear Secrets that Cannot Be Declassified".

Because the rest of your argument falls to the wayside when we focus on the important matter at hand. The rest of your position is just what Trump would want it to be, bluster and misdirection.

[postman1782]

Does the brief have a section titled "I Stole Nuclear Secrets that Cannot Be Declassified".

Because the rest of your argument falls to the wayside when we focus on the important matter at hand. The rest of your position is just what Trump would want it to be, bluster and misdirection.

Not to mention the signal documents and the human intelligence sources like spies and informants.

[Gorsameth]

I'd agree but then you have people like Kim Davis of Kentucky who refused to issue licenses for those same sex marriages. I believe that is what was being referred to and is 100% Grade A bullshit.

Ah yes, the "gay marriage is legal but no one in the state will issue you a license" approach.

[postman1782]

https://lawandcrime.com/2020-electio...ce=mostpopular

Dumbass Trump's Assistant Attorney General Jeffrey Clark is claiming he is immune to an ethics investigation, he is being investigated by the Bar Association for ethics violations, and he is under CRIMINAL AND CIVIL investigations for false statements, conspiracy and obstruction, post election for what he did trying to overturn the election.

He and his lawyers claim that the charges should be thrown out, because the Republicans acquitted Trump during the 2nd impeachment hearings after January 6th happened.

[Breccia]

He and his lawyers claim that the charges should be thrown out, because the Republicans acquitted Trump during the 2nd impeachment hearings after January 6th happened.

He should be disbarred for even thinking that's how this would work.

- - - Updated - - -

Burning a CNN point.

Trump's top general feared he would authorize a strike on Iran as his presidency ended. His intelligence chief wondered what Russia had on him. A billionaire friend convinced him to try buying Greenland. A half-dozen top officials considered resigning en masse.

Even his wife, first lady Melania Trump, was "rattled by the coronavirus and convinced that Trump was screwing up," according to a forthcoming book from New York Times chief White House correspondent Peter Baker and New Yorker staff writer and CNN global affairs analyst Susan Glasser set to publish on Tuesday.

In a phone call with former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who maintained ties to the White House despite occasional criticism of Trump, Melania Trump sought help convincing her husband to take the pandemic more seriously.

"'You're blowing this," she recalled telling her husband," the authors write. "'This is serious. It's going to be really bad, and you need to take it more seriously than you're taking it.' He had just dismissed her. 'You worry too much,' she remembered him saying. 'Forget it.' "

Baker and Glasser write that many of the well-known fears about Trump's presidency were in fact closer to reality than previously reported, leading to widespread attempts among those who worked for him to head off disaster.

"We were all the last sane man in the WH", these widespread people said in unison. Funny, we didn't hear how dangerous he was while they were working for him and in power.

The book describes deep concerns among Trump's national security team, led by Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Mark Milley and others, that the then-President would ignite a conflict with Iran in the waning days of his presidency or that he could stumble into nuclear war with North Korea.

One administration official told Trump before the 2020 election that if he lost, he should strike Iran's nuclear program, the authors report. "Milley at the time told his staff it was a 'What the f--- are these guys talking about?' moment," they write. "Now, it seemed frighteningly possible."

The tensions with Iran even permeated the walls of Mar-a-Lago. Trump told guests at a cocktail party over the holidays in 2020 that he was leaving early to return to Washington because of fears Iran may be trying to assassinate him to avenge the US killing of the country's top general a year earlier.

Concerns over Trump's behavior on the world stage began nearly as soon as he took office. More than simply a passing grudge, Trump's desire to withdraw the United States from NATO was in fact a sustained effort that was "much more serious than people realized," one senior White House official said -- an outcome that could have dramatically altered the current war in Ukraine.

Following a 2018 meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Helsinki, Sweden

Finland.

after which Trump sided with Putin over US intelligence agencies who had determined Russia tried to interfere in the 2016 election -- the top US intelligence official was left wondering what Trump's real motives were.

"I never could come to a conclusion. It raised the question in everybody's mind: What does Putin have on him that causes him to do something that undermines his credibility?" Dan Coats, the then-director of national intelligence, reflected to associates afterward, according to the book.

Hey, remember when Trump made everyone sign an NDA? Gee, I wonder why. Oh, right, it's because if this had gotten out he'd have been ejected.

[postman1782]

He should be disbarred for even thinking that's how this would work.

- - - Updated - - -

Burning a CNN point.



"We were all the last sane man in the WH", these widespread people said in unison. Funny, we didn't hear how dangerous he was while they were working for him and in power.



Finland.



Hey, remember when Trump made everyone sign an NDA? Gee, I wonder why. Oh, right, it's because if this had gotten out he'd have been ejected.

So should his lawyer defending him for even entertaining that fucking idea.

- - - Updated - - -

https://twitter.com/Hardees/status/1570190585696292865

Hardee's still throwing shade. If you still have your phone, AKA not Mike Lindell, get a free breakfast sandwich if you are a rewards member.