Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Shadowferal]

Some sort of major announcement later this morning

New York Attorney General Tish James to make “major announcement” tomorrow morning.

[tehdang]

I don't know how many times I must repeat that it doesn't matter who in the executive branch has the documents as long as they're not released outside of the executive and there's a legitimate gov't interest. If you have any further questions, re-read Nixon vs GSA. I'll even quote it, for the 3rd time:

There's absolutely no need to "repeat that it..." anything. Just admit that when you said "You quoted cannon's opinion, not the case she's citing" you now realize we both quoted from the same document. Quoting what government archivists may do is a tangent to what the FBI may do in its criminal investigations.

This is the section detailing how it doesn't matter who in the executive gets the docs. The bit about barring privileges inhering to that branch is about the release of the comms to people outside of the executive.

It's like I quoted, directly from nixon vs GSA:

This has the same fault as before. Namely, it's talking about government archivists, not the justice department and criminal charges. I don't think you really are prepared to address "screening of materials by Government archivists" and "previously performed the identical task," when its neither archivists nor previous performance that are concerned here.

US v Nixon was the criminal case, referenced by nixon v GSA, that allowed disclosure of those comms outside of the executive branch, to both the judicial and legislative branches. Note, this section is separate from the section outlining how it doesn't matter who in the executive branch sees the comms as long as there's a legitimate gov't interest. This section is about how not sacrosanct those comms are, because they can be shared outside of the executive branch during criminal inquiries.

US vs Nixon was regarding the issuance of a subpoena. It was not a criminal case. Also, please admit you were wrong to to reference a previous case in Court opinion that stands in its own right. It's not about "sacrosanct" nor outlining "how it doesn't matter." It's about the performance of the archives, not the FBI. I may be long dead before you admit the federal archivists are not members of the federal bureau of investigations. When I press you on why it applies to the FBI, I'm not asking you to repeat for the third time the Supreme Court's instructions pertaining to archivists. Archivists don't charge crimes and convene grand juries.

You're the one that spent lots of time ignoring directly applicable sections of the case. This is why you're full of shit. That she also ignored those parts of the case is why she's a terrible jurist.

Ignoring? I'm reading them. Stop quoting sections pertaining to archivists in performance of their duties when the documents have not been surrendered to them in full. You'd have me believe Merrick Garland is wearing a wig and costume to pretend he is Kara S. Blond leading her department. How else to interpret sections you're quoting as instructions to NARA, when NARA isn't implicated in parts of the court decision you're up in arms about?

[Kaleredar]

If you really are waiting for what "Trump refuses to say under oath," then maybe don't waste so much time on issues that occur before Trump might even be put under oath? I can wait with you, if all this nonsense is just filler until you get to whatever thing matters to you. It's clear you intend to handwave any criticism until such a point is reached. That much you've established twice or thrice over.

You have no valid criticism. That Trump has "criticisms" does not mean his are valid, either, any more than a thief caught stealing by the police thinks that he was arrested unjustly because he really wanted to get away with it.

You argue a nebulous point of "They can't have the documents because they're executive privileged, but they can only be executive privileged by Trump, because it also falls under attorney-client privilege such that Trump uniquely retains the right to not only view them but to declassify them at his complete leisure" as if Trump did some 5D chess move, all cached in "The FBI overstepped its bounds because they had no right to view any of Trump's documents because of the aforementioned double-privileged status and they overreacted anyway because Trump could declassify them at any time."

That about sum it up?

[masterhorus8]

You have no valid criticism. That Trump has "criticisms" does not mean his are valid, either, any more than a thief caught stealing by the police thinks that he was arrested unjustly because he really wanted to get away with it.

You argue a nebulous point of "They can't have the documents because they're executive privileged, but they can only be executive privileged by Trump, because it also falls under attorney-client privilege such that Trump uniquely retains the right to not only view them but to declassify them at his complete leisure" as if Trump did some 5D chess move, all cached in "The FBI overstepped its bounds because they had no right to view any of Trump's documents because of the aforementioned double-privileged status and they overreacted anyway because Trump could declassify them at any time."

That about sum it up?

Don't forget, another problem they have is somehow that it wasn't NARA themselves that went in and executed the warrant. Instead of, y'know, the people that execute warrants...

[Kaleredar]

Don't forget, another problem they have is somehow that it wasn't NARA themselves that went in and executed the warrant. Instead of, y'know, the people that execute warrants...

...which is tantamount to saying "Sure I stole jewelry from the jewelry store, but why are the cops arresting me? Shouldn't the jeweler be arresting me?!"

[Ripster42]

This has the same fault as before. Namely, it's talking about government archivists, not the justice department and criminal charges. I don't think you really are prepared to address "screening of materials by Government archivists" and "previously performed the identical task," when its neither archivists nor previous performance that are concerned here.

This is why I also quoted the part about lawful gov't purposes:

the claims of Presidential privilege must yield to the important congressional purposes of preserving appellant's Presidential materials and maintaining access to them for lawful governmental and historical purposes.

Again, criminal investigations are a lawful gov't purpose. If the opinion was restricting itself only to archival interests, lawful gov't purposes wouldn't have been included.

US vs Nixon was regarding the issuance of a subpoena. It was not a criminal case. Also, please admit you were wrong to to reference a previous case in Court opinion that stands in its own right. It's not about "sacrosanct" nor outlining "how it doesn't matter." It's about the performance of the archives, not the FBI. I may be long dead before you admit the federal archivists are not members of the federal bureau of investigations. When I press you on why it applies to the FBI, I'm not asking you to repeat for the third time the Supreme Court's instructions pertaining to archivists. Archivists don't charge crimes and convene grand juries.

The US v Nixon referenced here is not about the issuance of a subpoena by congress, but about the special prosecutor's access, and it was while Nixon was still president. The criminal case was derailed by pardon, not claims of executive privilege. It details how the judicial branch got access to the comms, and denied executive privilege applied for criminal investigations even while the president was still in office. Congress' access was through a different case and was decided 8-0 against nixon. The comms are not sacrosanct.

Again, nixon vs GSA does not restrict itself to archivists. If it did, the court would not have included "lawful gov't purposes." That's why I included that section in the first rebuttal post to your garbage.

Ignoring? I'm reading them. Stop quoting sections pertaining to archivists in performance of their duties when the documents have not been surrendered to them in full. You'd have me believe Merrick Garland is wearing a wig and costume to pretend he is Kara S. Blond leading her department. How else to interpret sections you're quoting as instructions to NARA, when NARA isn't implicated in parts of the court decision you're up in arms about?

Yes, ignoring. Stop being deliberately obtuse (full of shit) by denying that the case is speaking more broadly than just about archivists, but about maintaining access for all lawful gov't purposes.

[Gorsameth]

They're trying to reverse-psychology it, but in like an elementary school playground kind of way.

The court: "Prove that the documents were declassified"

Team Trump: "Nuh-UH, YOU prove that they WEREN'T declassified!"

"sure, it says it right here on the cover".

As others have said, even if it was declassified (it wasn't) it would still be considered classified so long as its in a classified folder. The folder would need to be returned and the documents would be reissued without the classified markings for them to actually not be classified.

[Levelfive]

"sure, it says it right here on the cover".

As others have said, even if it was declassified (it wasn't) it would still be considered classified so long as its in a classified folder. The folder would need to be returned and the documents would be reissued without the classified markings for them to actually not be classified.

What is tehdang even arguing at this point. First of all, Trump never asserted privilege. One of his attorneys asked NARA for more time to review the documents and see if any were subject to privilege, and if NARA refused, then to just consider it all privileged (no, honey, doesn't work like that). There is a provision in the PRA for a former president to file a suit asserting privilege, which Trump also did not do. Further, the claim now that it's about the FBI's "process" mistakes is also bullshit as the FBI had a taint team on site who went through everything to separate non-government / any attorney-client privileged documents, etc., and we know there weren't any "executive privileged" documents because Trump never asserted any, despite having ample time to do so. All that's left is his desperate flailing to defend an utterly disgraceful traitorous former president. Gross.

[Belize]

I wonder what the New York AG has to announce later today.

10:30 Eastern time no?

[Levelfive]

I wonder what the New York AG has to announce later today.

10:30 Eastern time no?

Dissolving Trump org, maybe?

[Breccia]

Dissolving Trump org, maybe?

Everything I've read says "no". Articles I've read say that's like asking for the death sentence for stealing a car. However, after substantial penalties, garnishings, and fines, Trump Org might close itself. Leaving Trump, whose sole qualification was "I am a good businessman" to finally snap in half and slip under the waves.

- - - Updated - - -

Hey, you know what? I haven't checked in on DWAC stock price in a while. Hasn't made the news much, it's probably about the same. I think I'll just check while taking a large sip of coffee right over my keybPFTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT

$18.61? It dropped 16.92% yesterday? What happen?

Trump-linked SPAC faces new pressure from investors as merger hangs in the balance

Digital World Acquisition Corp, the company planning to take Trump Media and Technology Group public, is facing investor concerns about a potential failed merger with former President Donald Trump’s company.

The Financial Times reported Tuesday that DWAC Chief Executive Patrick Orlando is negotiating with investors who said they would back the company through a private investment in public equity, or PIPE, deal.

The PIPE investors are hoping to bring down the minimum conversion price for their preferred stock from $10 to as low as $2, the FT reported, citing a person involved in the talks. That would boost their potential profit on the deal, even in the worst case scenario, as it would give the investors more shares and dilute other shareholders’ stakes – including Trump’s.

The negotiation is an attempt to shift risk to DWAC and Trump Media, which owns Truth Social.

I...have little to no idea how that works. I know that a PIPE deal is a special, really shady-sounding situation where an investor buys stock at less than its market price, and it seems to be based on the idea that "if people found out we did this, the stock price would drop, so we're buying it for less because of that drop of people finding out we bought it" which...yeah I just don't get it. And there's federal rules about it and you can only do 20% etc etc.

But what I know in this context, is that the original price was set at $10 and DWAC is looking at $2. Which, I think, please correct me if I'm wrong, but means if the merger fails, they still get $10 back per share, even though they bought it for $2. Because that's the contract that was signed, and being watched by increasingly frustrated and irate law enforcement members. That's what the bolded above means to me -- that DWAC is so desperate for investment to make this go through, they're considering such a massive discount, which in turn, will be a temporarily private until leaked then public and hilarious demonstration that Trump has the business skills of a rotting mammoth corpse.

If I had to guess, and yes I do have to guess this is outside my area of experience, I would say this deal suggests a short sale. And nothing about this suggests the deal is actually going through, and in fact, the reverse.

Which has further evidence.

The $1 billion deal was set to expire Tuesday. If it falls apart, it would mean a lot less money for Trump Media, even if it did end up going public through a merger with DWAC. Orlando was pushing for a 10-day extension, according to the newspaper.

DWAC is a special purpose acquisition company, or SPAC, a publicly traded entity that takes pre-existing companies public. Orlando extended a deadline to merge with Trump Media beyond its early September date with a $2.8 million infusion from his company, the SPAC sponsor, ARC Global Investments II. DWAC is pushing shareholders to approve a yearlong extension of the deadline. The next shareholder meeting is set for next month.

If the merger deadline is not extended, DWAC has warned that the company may have to liquidate, returning shareholders around $10 per share, the initial share price for a SPAC.

The fact that one member of this whole deal is spending their own money and fighting like hell to give it a second/third chance, but nobody else is, speaks very poorly for its odds. If shares drop from $10 to $2, Trump is having an 80% off sale. Also known as a "going out of business sale". Nobody sells at 80% off if they intend to stay afloat, they do it to get at least something for their useless goods.

- - - Updated - - -

What is tehdang even arguing at this point.

More than most, he's trying to defend Trump against a crime he hasn't been accused of yet, with evidence that doesn't exist.
a) the privilege issue would stop something from being given to the grand jury and/or the Jan 6th panel. It would not stop the FBI from taking stolen goods back.
b) while declassification has not been sworn in under oath, at least it's been discussed. Executive Privilege has yet to be brought up in this case in any meaningful way. Dearie sure hasn't mentioned it.

The dang poster you're talking about and Trump's legal team are doing the same thing: predicting, accurately, that Trump was caught with evidence that he helped plan the murderous insurrection, and that they're knowningly backing a traitor against the United States of America. But rather than admit such and admit their mistake, or even just going silent like (long list of names of vanished posters), they have instead chosen to start building their 21st century version of a Civil War Loser monument.

It's not just admission they've lost, it's not just admission they know they backed a lying loser felon, it's admission they will continue to do so even after admitting they're backing a lying loser felon.

- - - Updated - - -

(sighs)

Cocaine addict Mike Lindell sues FBI.

With a team that, apparently, includes Dershowitz, Lindell is suing based on his version of events -- being approached by the FBI who didn't identify themselves, took his phone without a warrant, and told him not to tell anyone. All of which, I'm just going to predict, is bullshit.

In the interview in which this lawsuit was announced, Lindell continued to say the election was fraudulent.

[gondrin]

they have instead chosen to start building their 21st century version of a Civil War Loser monument.

They should just tape Trumps head onto the Nathan Belford Forrest statue. Would fit perfectly with the theme of a loser monument.

With a team that, apparently, includes Dershowitz, Lindell is suing based on his version of events -- being approached by the FBI who didn't identify themselves, took his phone without a warrant, and told him not to tell anyone. All of which, I'm just going to predict, is bullshit.

Didn't he admit on TV that they gave him a warrant but told him not to tell anyone? Here he is saying it in an article on CNN.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/13/polit...low/index.html

On his internet show, “The Lindell Report,” he said, “Cars pulled up in front of us, to the side of us and behind us and I said, ‘These are either bad guys or the FBI.’ Well, it turns out they were the FBI.”

Lindell told CNN the agents presented him with the subpoena and asked for his phone.

On his internet show, Lindell said, “He goes, ‘Well, I got some bad news … he goes, ‘We’re taking your cellphone. We have a warrant for your cellphone.’”

Lindell initially objected, and consulted his attorney, but then relented and provided the device to the agents.

[Breccia]

Didn't he admit on TV that they gave him a warrant but told him not to tell anyone?

Yes, I covered that, and my more recent post should have been more clear...except we're talking about the ravings of Mike Lindell, so my hands are tied.

Lindell is claiming his First, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth amendment rights are being violated. I interpreted that to mean he was challening the legality of the warrant.

[Levelfive]

Breccia's right, seems to be this: https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/21/polit...uit/index.html

"New York attorney general files civil fraud lawsuit against Trump, some of his children and his business "

Little perplexed what's going on with her press conference, though: https://ag.ny.gov/livestream

[Breccia]

"New York attorney general files civil fraud lawsuit against Trump, some of his children and his business "

And they're doing that without Weaselberg. Well, not directly, at least. Apparently, NY pointed out that Weaselberg spent year after year inflating Trump's properties' prices because Trump said they weren't bigly enough. So he added several billion dollars of Fake Value. The term for this is "fraud". And Weaselberg has at least plead guilty to it, just didn't say Trump ordered the hit.

NYState is asking for $250 million, which should be easy to mathematically prove is what they owe in taxes. I guess Trump could say "no no, the properties really aren't worth more value, we just lied to our lenders" which...okay yeah, that's suicide. No, they can't do that.

*ahem*

But.

NYState is also seeking an injunction against any Trump leading a business in New York State. Not a shutdown, just Trump has to hand Trump Org to someone who is not Trump.

Because NYState has basically all of Trump's taxes, listings, and loan records, this is almost assuredly an open and shut case. Trump's best move here is to beg for a settlement, which (a) he'd rather die than do, no I'm not exaggerating by much, (b) I don't think it'd be taken without Trump out of the drivers' seat.

Maybe he should just retire. Clearly, being a failed businessman isn't working for him.

[Kaleredar]

And they're doing that without Weaselberg. Well, not directly, at least. Apparently, NY pointed out that Weaselberg spent year after year inflating Trump's properties' prices because Trump said they weren't bigly enough. So he added several billion dollars of Fake Value. The term for this is "fraud". And Weaselberg has at least plead guilty to it, just didn't say Trump ordered the hit.

NYState is asking for $250 million, which should be easy to mathematically prove is what they owe in taxes. I guess Trump could say "no no, the properties really aren't worth more value, we just lied to our lenders" which...okay yeah, that's suicide. No, they can't do that.

*ahem*

But.

NYState is also seeking an injunction against any Trump leading a business in New York State. Not a shutdown, just Trump has to hand Trump Org to someone who is not Trump.

Because NYState has basically all of Trump's taxes, listings, and loan records, this is almost assuredly an open and shut case. Trump's best move here is to beg for a settlement, which (a) he'd rather die than do, no I'm not exaggerating by much, (b) I don't think it'd be taken without Trump out of the drivers' seat.

Maybe he should just retire. Clearly, being a failed businessman isn't working for him.

Well I mean, isn’t settling trump’s thing?

[CastletonSnob]

The Senate condemned Trump's calls for violence against members of the FBI.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...rk-fundraiser/

(Scroll down to where it says, "The latest: Senate unanimously condemns threats against FBI").

[Draco-Onis]

The Senate condemned Trump's calls for violence against members of the FBI.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...rk-fundraiser/

(Scroll down to where it says, "The latest: Senate unanimously condemns threats against FBI").

Lindsey Graham and Ted Cruz will still get on TV sometime soon and attack the FBI.

[CastletonSnob]

It just keeps getting worse for Trump.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/21/polit...fraud-lawsuit/

[Breccia]

Well I mean, isn’t settling trump’s thing?

I mean, sort of. Yes, he settled with employees who sued him for their paychecks for a partial payment, and yes he walked away from Trump University like it was a salad bar. With Ivanka and Kushner backing away, his wife refusing to touch him, and 2024 rallies likely to be held in prisons, this is basically the only thing he has left. He loses that, he has to admit he's a failure.

Trump is a sociopathic narcisist, and based on his shouting and walking out of things when people ask if he's poor, he might even be a violent one. Trump Org is a loss he won't accept. But, it's still on the way. NYState has him dead to rights, and could probably have "put the company in jail" if they wanted. I have every faith that the information they have, including scared witnesses and Weaselberg's under oath testimony, they can basically destroy the company, but I'm also guessing they want Trump's figurative blood more than the money. Trump could use that, but he won't.