Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Kaleredar]

You can answer it too, if you like. No need to reference Trump in your answer, or make it a central part of your answer.

This thread is about Trump. If you're asking people to talk about someone that isn't Trump, or is in no way related to this case, you're asking people to be off topic.

[Strange One]

The feeling is very often mutual.

You can answer it too, if you like. No need to reference Trump in your answer, or make it a central part of your answer.

He's looking forward to a future when Trump is under oath. It's fine for him to do. I don't understand what point you're trying to make here. I might as well say that I'm interested in whether the DOJ decides to bring criminal charges against Trump after November. Purely speculating on the future, no need to get all in a huff.

Are you sure you don't have a learning disability? Coz I can see your extra chromosome from here.

[Breccia]

So Cannon ruled, the DOJ asked the 11th for help, and they got it.

Can Trump appeal? This article quoting multiple experts says "not really, no".

At the core of it seems to be some legal technicalities I didn't know about. From the looks of things, the 11th's ruling isn't the problem. It's that the ruling was so eviscerating that Cannon changed her own order.

Some legal experts, like NYU Law Professor Ryan Goodman, say that Cannon's revised order essentially "erased Trump's chance to appeal to Supreme Court."

Steve Vladeck, a federal courts expert at the University of Texas School of Law, explained that Cannon's amendment doesn't "formally" kill Trump's ability to ask the court to vacate the stay — since the stay is still out there — but in practical terms, it makes it impossible.

"Cannon's amendment moots DOJ's appeal, and means Trump can't show any harm — let alone irreparable harm — that the Eleventh Circuit's stay is causing," he explained on Twitter. "So there's still *technically* a stay for #SCOTUS to vacate, but no possible legal justification for asking the Court to do so."

Former appellate lawyer Teri Kanefield agreed that "changing the order moots Trump's appeal to SCOTUS."

"I suspect that [Cannon] doesn't like being overturned on appeal and wants to avoid more appellate thrashings," Kanefield said.

Even if Trump does appeal, legal experts say he will likely lose.

"I know some justices have stunned us before, but I see no way they overrule 11th Circuit on this issue," tweeted Barbara McQuade, a former U.S. attorney and law professor at the University of Michigan.

Vladeck agreed that the odds of there being five votes to override the ruling — even on a court stacked with Trump appointees — are "exceedingly close to zero."

Former US Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal explained that Trump can attempt to go to the US Supreme Court but "it's a loser every day of the week." He added that the former president got "obliterated" by the appellate court and that they confirmed what legal experts have been saying, "the whole declassification thing is a red herring."

Basically, every legal expert who isn't on Trump's "pay"roll is saying that Cannon's order doesn't make sense, and yes, that now includes Cannon. They're not his documents and they could contain evidence of a crime. He's not getting them hidden, and he's not getting them back.

Speaking of legal experts, this one cited by Business Insider says, basically, the "special master" is baiting Trump's legal team into lying for him.

In court hearings this week, Dearie has challenged Trump's attorneys to present evidence to support two of Trump's key claims: that he declassified the documents kept at Mar-a-Lago, and that the FBI planted evidence there.

Though Trump has repeatedly made those assertions in public, his lawyers have steered clear of repeating it in court, where arguments are more closely scrutinized.

Trump's lawyers have argued that defending his declassification claims at this stage could damage their defense in a potential trial, drawing an unimpressed response from Dearie.

In an appearance on CNN Thursday

Fuck! There goes one of my points.

legal analyst Elie Honig, a former federal prosecutor, said that Dearie was seeking to expose Trump's falsehoods.

"The power of our courts is they have a way of bringing out truth. Perhaps a person can get away with fudging the truth in their public statements, in the media, in their private life, in their business. But when you step into a court, ultimately, the judge or the jury will say, fine, that's your allegation, now prove it," said Honig.

"And you can see the tension in Donald Trump's legal team because they will not say the things in court about declassification and planting that he is saying because lawyers have an ethical obligation."

"You cannot make a false statement to a court. You can argue aggressively for your client, you could try to poke holes in what the other side is doing, but you cannot lie. This is really a test for Donald Trump."

"But that's good, right?"

Seems to be grey area. Team Trump is still saying things like "declassifying them would--" and I imagine, once this case reaches a jury, they'll try "I'm not saying they were declassified, but they were declassified". But for now, the "special master" isn't having any of that, and the DOJ can always press Team Trump in court on the issue -- even bringing up the "special master".

Again, until Trump takes the stand (or signs a form that has the same effect) and says either "I declassified them" or "they are covered by privilege" then the answer is "no". The 11th's ruling makes that even more secure. There is no privilege Trump can assert anymore, and there's no proof he did when he could -- and half the articles I've cited say it wouldn't matter if he tried anyhow. It's a non-issue, a deflection by people so desperate to admit they were wrong that they'd rather literally ask for man-on-man porn in public.

[Corvus]

https://www.thedailybeast.com/house-...quote?ref=home

"Never believe everything you read on the internet." - Abraham Lincoln

What does this quote have to do with the article linked above? Much like this quote, the quote that the GOP rolled out in their "Commitment to America" that is attributed to Lincoln is similarly fake.

"Commitment is what transforms a promise into reality." - Abraham Lincoln

No to be fair, if you google it you get a LOT of results! Problem is that a bunch of sites and social media posts saying that Lincoln said it doesn't actually mean he did. I'm doing a bit of digging on my own and not turning up any historical records showing that he actually said this, though my search is far from exhaustive so far.

I've seen some mentions of the quote being from a Lehman's Brothers ad.

[Breccia]

Meanwhile, the grand jury into Trump's role in Jan 6th continues. Forbes reports what we already know: any issues with privilege are really about that.

Now we know some of the big names in that: Eastman of course, Giuliani, and Cipollone, some of whom have already gone to court and lost. Unlike the current issue with the Mar-a-Lago search (and I'm reluctant to believe Trump took evidence of his Jan 6th crimes, but then didn't destroy it) where Trump is objectively guilty, this one seems to be more of a toss-up. Yes, Executive Privilege and lawyer-client confidentiality are important, but neither applies when a crime is being planned, which is exactly the matter at hand. And that's why a lot of Eastman's emails are now up for grabs. Once it's known that some communications were part of a crime, it seems pretty reasonable to check the rest. So, expect more filter teams to show up.

We know Team Trump was pushing the blatant lie that there was mass election fraud. We know Team Trump was at least a little involved in setting up the Fake Electors. We know Trump riled up a riot of murderous insurrectionists and then didn't answer the phone for hours while they kicked in the door of the Capitol chanting "HANG MIKE PENCE!" And now, we know the WH called a rioter on Jan 6th.

"Wait, I thought the WH call logs had a massive hours-long blank period?"

Yes, but, the traitors didn't. I'm willing to bet that every single one that was arrested had their phones searched.

Grand juries are fickle things and operate under seal. We might not hear anything for a while. But what evidence we have so far leans slightly in the direction of "these WH communications are going to be looked through for evidence of crimes".

Trump's actions regarding the search of the unlocked room where he put this country's most secret information may simply have been a test run. If so, he should be horrified at the results, because he got bitchslapped so hard the judge felt it.

[tehdang]

This thread is about Trump. If you're asking people to talk about someone that isn't Trump, or is in no way related to this case, you're asking people to be off topic.

We were talking about lawsuits that directly concerned Trump, and his presidential opponent speaking specifically on his electoral legitimacy fall under that banner. I won't needle people on talking about Cannon's partisanship or nonpartisanship is inappropriate in a Trump thread. I won't and wouldn't start some sideline of Hillary after you had answered, even if your only opinion on illegitimate elections was normalizing those comments by comparison to Trump. Take care.

[Breccia]

illegitimate elections

We didn't have one. Please post constructively.

[Shadowferal]

When was there an illegitimate election?

[Kaleredar]

We didn't have one. Please post constructively.

He's conflating Hillary's comments about Trump being an "illegitimate president" with making her as bad as Trump making false claims about why the FBI raided his home to recover top secret and otherwise classified documents Trump stole.


Which, as I've said before, he can't pick an example of Hillary "doing something wrong" that Trump didn't do 10,000 times worse, seeing as Trump actually attempted to act on his claims that the election were "illegitimate" by coercing rioters to storm the capitol building in addition to engaging in scads of attempts at orchestrating election fraud.

[Breccia]

He's conflating Hillary's comments

Ah, so he's both deflecting, and also posting off-topic? It's like he's not being a genuine poster, or something.

Hey, we haven't checked up on Trump's Chinese knockoff Twitter today.

Oh dearie me, someone backed out of the deal and took $100 million with them. That doesn't sound good. And another 2.5% drop in the stock price today.

"Blank-check" company Digital World Acquisition said in a Securities and Exchange Commission filing on Friday that some backers were pulling a total of $139 million they had planned to put into the deal. Digital World had previously announced funding commitments of $1 billion.

The investors who signed up for the deal about a year ago were able to back out if it was not completed by September 20.

The investors who walked away were not disclosed in the filings, but Reuters reported that Sabby Management, which planned to put in $100 million, is one that had bowed out.

Sources told the news agency that more investors may also withdraw their commitments now that the deadline has passed and were awaiting more favorable terms to be put to them by Digital World.

Digital World has faced difficulty in getting sufficient shareholder approval for the merger and could be forced to liquidate and return investors' cash if the deal is not completed. It said earlier this month it had extended the deadline for completion by three months.

Everyone remembers the scene from Sneakers where--

"Dude, that movie's old enough to run for President."

Shush, you. The scene where

People think a bank might be financially shaky.
Consequence: People start to withdraw their money.
Result: Pretty soon it is financially shaky.

What happens when a deal based on removable investments looks like it's going to fail? People start to remove their investment. Pretty soon, it's going to fail.

I have been looking for some time and, yes I'm biased against Trump and other traitorous felons, but I have honestly yet to see any promising news. The best I've seen are some investors adding more money to keep the chance the deal goes through alive. That's it.

Someone is still going to benefit here. Trump might view the world with the view that, in order for him to win, everyone else must lose. Normally, that's false. But in the case of an investment like this one with a forced payout per share, it actually kinda works. A lot of people have lost money buying DWAC stock, watch it do nothing but decline, and eventually sell off out of frustration or the growing realization it would only drop more. And some people who managed to buy early at $10 will get their $10 back and only break even.

Where is the money going? Who's winning?

My take is, Trump Social is tired of winning. Everyone who is going to make money already has. The winners have already left, having eaten their steak dinner and left everyone else with the check. I think the people who are going to walk out with money are those who got in early ($10 shares at launch) and sold them when the price spiked. In other words, an economic situation that no longer seems possible to repeat. Everyone left in the deal is now fighting for who can lose the least amount of money. And that's assuming the SEC doesn't do something drastic and take what turns out to be illegal money from an illegal deal.

But I'm not a financial expert. Perhaps someone with more practical knowledge can help? Let me know what your take is.

[Endus]

When was there an illegitimate election?

2000? Where a recount showed it should've gone to Gore, but the judge declared it for George W. Bush anyway?

[fwc577]

When was there an illegitimate election?

2000 when the SC ruled to stop counting votes in Florida and Gore lost.

[Shadowferal]

Okay! Gotcha.

[Kaleredar]

Okay! Gotcha.

Like I said, Tehdang was talking about Hillary Clinton's comments on Trump's presidency being "illegitimate" in a not-so-cunning attempt to pull some sort of "gotcha" by comparing those statements to Trump saying that the FBI was probably actually raiding Mar-a-Lago for Hillary's emails,. Tehdang apparently thinks that Hillary using a figure of speech is equivocal to Trump straight up lying about why a government law enforcement agency raided his home to cart away secret intel he stole, and if the former doesn't bother you then you're a hypocrite by being bugged by the latter.

[Santti]

We are still talking about Hillary? It's been years since she was relevant.

Like the Trumplodytes like to remind us; she lost, get over it. Leave the buttery males alone.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Guess who just said this on Sean Hannity?

Also, guess who doesn't know that a declassification process even exists?

I mean, Republicans treat the (Republican) president like they're a king. They want them to have king-like powers. Conservatives especially those like @tehdang seem to think the President's power is absolute, when there's numerous checks and balances against unilateral presidential action. In fact, one of the bigger problems of the issue of the presidency is that it clearly has more power than it did at founding. The deification of past presidents, and the worship of current presidents and granting them more power has overall been detrimental for the nation imo.

Trump is not a politician, and that is precisely why he sucked as a president. He didn't know any of the laws, restrictions, and other legalities when it comes to being president. And he never wanted to learn, because it meant he couldn't be king.

Message to Republicans: The president is not above the law. And as much as you think no laws were broken, you just simply believe Trump is immune to all consequences and above the law. This is not a debate about whether or not Trump broke the law. He broke the law. It's whether or not people think he should not answer for his crimes.

[Kaleredar]

We are still talking about Hillary? It's been years since she was relevant.

Like the Trumplodytes like to remind us; she lost, get over it. Leave the buttery males alone.

Trump is still talking about Hillary. She's their go-to boogeyman.

[Breccia]

Trump is still talking about Hillary. She's their go-to boogeyman.

It must eat at Trump every day that he didn't win the popular vote the first time, either. You hear it when he says he won with more votes than any incumbent ever (because that's how population growth works) but refuses to say that someone else's number was higher.

But enough about Trump. Let's talk about Trump.

Trump declares war on DeSantis.

Sources familiar with the pair's interactions told The Washington Post the two haven't spoken in months, despite Trump once saying DeSantis would make a good Vice President if he changed up his ticket in 2024.

Privately, Trump now lambasts the man he once referred to as his "great friend," calling the Florida governor "ungrateful" for his earlier endorsement, The Washington Post reported.

"I made him," The Washington Post reported Trump told his aides while monitoring DeSantis' public appearances and polling numbers.

Seems to be a theme this evening. Trump refusing to believe anyone else can get more votes than him. This is privately/behind closed doors, so I don't think it's an act. He must really be that insane.

Though neither has officially announced a 2024 presidential run, the two politicians are widely regarded as expected frontrunners in the upcoming race, which Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell predicted would feature a "crowded" primary.

"I don't understand what happened here," The Washington Post reported Trump said of DeSantis' diminishing support. "I don't understand why he doesn't appreciate me more."

Trump has made similar comments before, criticizing DeSantis for his "dull personality."

"I mean, bigly, he's never even cheated on his wife once."

In response, DeSantis has taken steps to distinguish himself from the former president on the campaign trail, though he hasn't explicitly criticized Trump. His recent decision to fly asylum seekers to Martha's Vineyard sent the former president into a rage, according to a report from Rolling Stone, spurring political analysts to argue that DeSantis was taking the spotlight off of Trump and furthering their rivalry.

The strategy appears to be working: DeSantis has out-fundraised the former president this year to the tune of $43 million, according to data collected by OpenSecrets. Polling also suggests the governor has an advantage over the former president in a hypothetical primary match-up in 2024.

I said earlier DeSantis wouldn't run if Trump did. I...might need to qualify that. I think DeSantis will recognize a Trump "run to avoid being arrested" candidacy announcement and will treat it with the lack of respect it deserves. Other than that, I'm sticking with my choice, but I'm not as sure as I was two DOJ investigations and a NYState lawsuit ago.

Speaking of Republicans who can fuck Trump over, Cheney says Trump will only be allowed to interact with the Jan 6th panel under oath.

She also went on to say she would not vote for anyone claiming Trump won in 2020, and would leave the party itself if Trump was nominated. Which would guarantee her a win, of course, as she'd retain the classic Republican vote for her overall policies and service while Democrats would vote for her out of Trump spite.

[Ripster42]

Which would guarantee her a win, of course, as she'd retain the classic Republican vote for her overall policies and service while Democrats would vote for her out of Trump spite.

What? I'm not sure what you're talking about. For her house position? She lost her primary, badly. Unless WY gets ranked choice, that doesn't seem like a likely scenario. She running for some other office in 2024? She'd have to move states. Again, I don't know what you're talking about, so I'm just confused by what you're saying.

- - - Updated - - -

2000? Where a recount showed it should've gone to Gore, but the judge declared it for George W. Bush anyway?

Recount was stopped before it was finished. There was nothing akin to it showing it should've gone to gore. @fwc577's post #86022 is what happened.

[Endus]

Recount was stopped before it was finished. There was nothing akin to it showing it should've gone to gore. @fwc577's post #86022 is what happened.

Which is why Democrats quickly moved the fuck on with their lives. But it's the closest to a potentially illegitimate election the USA's had in over a century. Yes, it's a bad claim, but it's still better than the nonsense pushed by Republicans about the 2000 election, or 2008.