Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Huehuecoyotl]

So Trumps latest lawyer, Christopher Kise, is apparently getting sidelined, because of all of the losing. Is there anybody left for him to hire that hasn't already been stiffed by him for payment, or turned him down flat, or proven so incompetent that is isn't even worth pretending that he's totally going to pay him, honest. I just left my wallet in my other pants. I'll get it to you, trust me.

Another attempt to stall the Mar-a-lago case?

[Gorsameth]

So Trumps latest lawyer, Christopher Kise, is apparently getting sidelined, because of all of the losing. Is there anybody left for him to hire that hasn't already been stiffed by him for payment, or turned him down flat, or proven so incompetent that is isn't even worth pretending that he's totally going to pay him, honest. I just left my wallet in my other pants. I'll get it to you, trust me.

Another attempt to stall the Mar-a-lago case?

I'm sure he won't mind being side-lined after being payed 3mil upfront.

Does Trump have another 3mil lying around to pay the next one?

[Breccia]

So Trumps latest lawyer, Christopher Kise, is apparently getting sidelined, because of all of the losing.

Um...that's less than one month, correct?

The obvious read is clear: Kise refused to listen to Trump's lies, criminal direction, and general stupid and/or unfollowable orders, He gave specific, clear advice that followed the letter of the law, and Trump fired him for it.

I'm sure he won't mind being side-lined after being payed 3mil upfront.

I believe there was some discussion of him being paid over time from the PAC which...actually the PAC was changed, that's a lawsuit on the way. Well, imagine my lack of sympathy when this creates strife. Kise and Cohen can go on TV together.

Oh, didn't Kise leave his law firm for this? I mean, I might leave my job for $3 million, but I'm a public school teacher. Kise is a competent lawyer.

[Poopymonster]

Oh, didn't Kise leave his law firm for this? I mean, I might leave my job for $3 million, but I'm a public school teacher. Kise is a competent lawyer.

I'm a Poopy of modest means. I'd take a sure fail for that payout. You gimme 3 million? It would last me the rest of my life. About 40ish years, give or take.

[cubby]

Um...that's less than one month, correct?

The obvious read is clear: Kise refused to listen to Trump's lies, criminal direction, and general stupid and/or unfollowable orders, He gave specific, clear advice that followed the letter of the law, and Trump fired him for it.

I really hope Kise set up the contract so he will keep the $3MM regardless of outcome or length of employment.

However, it seems too early to have fired him. More than likely:

Former federal prosecutor and CNN legal analyst Jennifer Rodgers asked if the shift in Kise's role meant that his team anticipates Trump might be charged soon in a Georgia investigation into his actions following the 2020 presidential election.

"Would make sense for Kise to lead the GA case defense with his state law experience and Trusty to stay on the fed case," Rodgers said, referring to another Trump lawyer, James Trusty.

This would also make sense - although "making sense" has never been part of Trump's modus operandi.

[Breccia]

This would also make sense

Kise's bio doesn't seem to have a firm specialty, but he does seem to lean towards high-profile criminal cases more than "was on the Apprentice once". So, considering he's not working at Mar-a-Lago and not working on the Jan 6th case, Georgia makes sense.

[Beefhammer]

Other than Cthulhu 2020 saying I "seem to think the President's power is absolute?"

A special master is already reviewing the vast majority of the seized documents

Well you must since you use seized, which would assert those documents were Trumps property and not that of the governments.the documents were recovered.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not walking away or back from those comments, they stand as true. However, considering you seem to have struck a different tone on this particular topic, I'd be curious to see your reasoning on Trump and his possession of nuclear secret documents. Trump has objectively broken the law, having in his possession documents that cannot, ever, be declassified (even in his mind), by law. What is your take on that particular issue, ignoring the Executive Privilege and Attorney-Client assertion discussions?

But if you need some more time to recover, I understand.

Let's not forget he broke a law he signed into law.

[beanman12345]

Um...that's less than one month, correct?

The obvious read is clear: Kise refused to listen to Trump's lies, criminal direction, and general stupid and/or unfollowable orders, He gave specific, clear advice that followed the letter of the law, and Trump fired him for it.

Kise is a registered foreign agent working for Venezuela Maduro. I would hope, jeez, with our justice system idk but I would hope that some law exists somewhere that a registered foreign agent would be barred from working as a lawyer in a case involving top secret government files, and this was brought up to them and he was forced to be sidelined for that.

[Gorsameth]

Kise is a registered foreign agent working for Venezuela Maduro. I would hope, jeez, with our justice system idk but I would hope that some law exists somewhere that a registered foreign agent would be barred from working as a lawyer in a case involving top secret government files, and this was brought up to them and he was forced to be sidelined for that.

its not like he would be given the files right? So I don't see why him being a registered foreign agent would matter.

[beanman12345]

its not like he would be given the files right? So I don't see why him being a registered foreign agent would matter.

I feel confident in saying Judge Cannon would give him the files.

[Gorsameth]

I feel confident in saying Judge Cannon would give him the files.

I doubt a judge can hand someone classified material without said person having been given a security clearance, which a foreign agent probably won't get. It would be a crime and would for sure get you arrested, Judge or not.

[beanman12345]

I doubt a judge can hand someone classified material without said person having been given a security clearance, which a foreign agent probably won't get. It would be a crime and would for sure get you arrested, Judge or not.

I don't doubt that at all, considering everything's she done so far regarding this case. And actually if the DOJ actually bring charges, depending on the charges, the DOJ would have to actually present them as evidence, which he would 100% get to see in that case. And it'd be dicey enough with a jury seeing them, but a foreign agent on top.

[tehdang]

Well you must since you use seized, which would assert those documents were Trumps property and not that of the governments.the documents were recovered.

Seizing documents only implies they were not already in the possession of the people doing the seizing. It doesn't make a property allegation. Just look at civil asset forfeiture cases if you need examples.

[Endus]

Seizing documents only implies they were not already in the possession of the people doing the seizing. It doesn't make a property allegation. Just look at civil asset forfeiture cases if you need examples.

No, there's an inherent implication that the property belongs to the one it was "seized" from. Otherwise, you'd use verbs like "recovered".

[Breccia]

Seizing documents only--

Hey speaking of who was holding what piece of paper, remember when @cubby asked you to comment on Trump having government property, namely nuclear secrets, in his possession, and you ad hominem'd a deflection and refused to answer? Well, you're talking about ownership now, so answer the question or admit you're deflecting.

- - - Updated - - -

The University of Chicago reveals a poll in which the percent of Americans who think

"The use of force is justified to restore Donald Trump to the presidency."
Strongly agree = 2%
Agree = 3%

"I would participate in the use of force to restore Donald Trump to the presidency, even if some people are injured or killed."
Strongly agree = 1 or 2%
Agree = 2%

"Use of force is justified to prevent the prosecution of Donald Trump for mishandling classified documents by the federal government, even if some people are injured or killed."
Strongly Agree = 2%
Agree = 2%

Strangely enough, these numbers are actually encouraging. They are lower than I expected, at least. The same poll says Trump has, for example, only 32% "Very Favorable" party support, while the Oath Keepers have 3%.

Is a civil war coming? Not with these numbers, no. 1-5% of the US rising up in arms would get absolutely fuck-rekt into the pavement. Plus we all know there's people who claimed they'd support violence in the poll but would cringe and cower like a disingenuous poster asked a direct question when the time came.

[Endus]

Is a civil war coming? Not with these numbers, no. 1-5% of the US rising up in arms would get absolutely fuck-rekt into the pavement. Plus we all know there's people who claimed they'd support violence in the poll but would cringe and cower like a disingenuous poster asked a direct question when the time came.

I mean, there's pretty reasonable analysis that says for a successful revolution, you need at least 10% of the population willing to take up arms and fight. So the bar's not high. But polls inherently inflate things like this, generally, because it's a hell of a lot easier to support violence on your behalf than it is to grab your AR-15 and get ready to shoot some cops. So yeah; it really doesn't support the shithead domestic terrorists prepping to kill their fellow Americans because they didn't get their political way.

[gondrin]

Hey speaking of who was holding what piece of paper, remember when @cubby asked you to comment on Trump having government property, namely nuclear secrets, in his possession, and you ad hominem'd a deflection and refused to answer? Well, you're talking about ownership now, so answer the question or admit you're deflecting.

- - - Updated - - -

The University of Chicago reveals a poll in which the percent of Americans who think

"The use of force is justified to restore Donald Trump to the presidency."
Strongly agree = 2%
Agree = 3%

"I would participate in the use of force to restore Donald Trump to the presidency, even if some people are injured or killed."
Strongly agree = 1 or 2%
Agree = 2%

"Use of force is justified to prevent the prosecution of Donald Trump for mishandling classified documents by the federal government, even if some people are injured or killed."
Strongly Agree = 2%
Agree = 2%

Strangely enough, these numbers are actually encouraging. They are lower than I expected, at least. The same poll says Trump has, for example, only 32% "Very Favorable" party support, while the Oath Keepers have 3%.

Is a civil war coming? Not with these numbers, no. 1-5% of the US rising up in arms would get absolutely fuck-rekt into the pavement. Plus we all know there's people who claimed they'd support violence in the poll but would cringe and cower like a disingenuous poster asked a direct question when the time came.

Eh, if 1 - 5% of the populace rose up to a violent mob, that is still between 3.5 - 17.5 million people. Not saying that they wouldn't get put in their place but even at 3 million, that is more than enough to overthrow any government. Especially if that group is armed. Percentages make it seem smaller than what it is.

[beanman12345]

Even if the real number was closer to 5%, less than 1% would start an attempt on anything, and when it ultimately failed, the remaining would claim false flag, victimhood and conspiracy. And it would never lead to anything beyond beyond blotches of terrorism all over because of the sheer incompetency.

[gondrin]

So, what do you get when you have a leader that has dementia and gets confused easily? A man who thinks a health official is a military person and starts to want to bomb Mexico because of drug labs.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/oth...8b729cf54b13d6

Washington Post URL(Paywall): https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...e-bomb-mexico/

'Confused' Trump nearly convinced to bomb Mexico by health official wearing military-style uniform: NYT's Haberman

According to another excerpt from the New York Times' Maggie Haberman's new book "Confidence Man," about Donald Trump's administration, the former president seriously proposed conducting bombing raids in Mexico to slow the flow of drugs into the U.S. because he thought a key health official was a military adviser.

In the excerpt from the Washington Posts' Josh Dawsey, Haberman wrote that Trump met with Assistant Secretary for Health Brett Giroir, who was known to wear a military-style uniform while in the White House and during his television appearances, where Giroir suggested going after cartel drub labs.

According to the report, Giroir told the former president, "such facilities should be handled by putting 'lead to target' to stop the flow of illicit substances across the border into the United States."

That, in turn, led Trump to push for a possible bombing solution.

IN OTHER NEWS: 'The entire World is at stake': Trump pitches himself to head up negotiations between Ukraine and Russia

According to the book, "He raised it several times, eventually asking a stunned Defense Secretary Mark Esper whether the United States could indeed bomb the labs," with Haberman writing that aides believe Trump was "confused" because he though Giroir was a military adviser.

Haberman added, "The response from White House aides was not to try to change Trump’s view, but to consider asking Giroir not to wear his uniform to the Oval Office anymore.”

There is more on the WP website but I don't have a sub so this is all I get.

[Breccia]

So Team Trump apparently filed some complaints with their own fucking special master just recently. They were filed under seal, but after checking a few sources, it seems pretty clear what they probably are, based on what the DOJ is saying and of course their current most prominent obstacles.

And no, I'm not skilled enough to come up with these reasons. Well, two of them, anyhow.

1) Team Trump was recently asked to verify the DOJ's list of all the stuff they took. If they verify, that removes "the FBI planted evidence" as a defense. So I think they refused to do that -- not that they said the list is wrong, they just refuse to verify.

In other words, it's the "we won't say it's declassified under oath" thing again.

From what we've seen so far, Dearie won't accept that.

2) Cannon, proving to be even more questionable than we already knew from that ruling that was Will Smith'd by the 11th, passed along a request about "privilege" but did not specify which. Experts seem convinced that this is another issue that Team Trump can use to try to blow smoke when there's no fire. By refusing to say which kind of privilege, the filter process gets unnecessarily bogged down. Well, in theory. I think the FBI correctly separated out all the stuff that wasn't theirs and, as such, nothing else has lawyer-client privilege.

3) Okay the third one seems to be a guess not everyone agrees on, but, apparently Dearie did put up the option for a Rule 44 motion for Trump to get the seized items back. Yes, the government property he wasn't allowed to have, the entire crime he's objectively guilty of, Team Trump filed for a motion to just keep it anyhow.

"Okay, why file these concerns under seal?"

Because they would contradict what Trump is saying in public, in all likelihood. Not only do these lawyers want to keep their "Trump is lying" a secret from Trump's rabid fanbase, who might literally murder them, but they might even want to keep it secret from Trump, who will fire them if they admit, under oath, Trump is a liar.

"Will any of these motions succeed?"

I mean, Team Trump might get the Rule 44 motion heard, but other than that, no, not really. Dearie has already said, damn near literally, that Team Trump can't have their cake and eat it, too. If it's lawyer-client, he has to say that under oath. If they want to accuse the FBI of planting, they have to say that under oath. If it's not WH property but Trump's property, they have to prove why, when it has "WH property" written on it. Dearie so far has been pretty clear about rules and pretty clear about asking Team Trump to follow them. I believe that, based on what we've seen so far, if Trump's remaining lawyers refuse to say on the record what exactly they say is wrong, Dearie will just side with the DOJ who have answered every question so far completely and directly. If the DOJ says it's classified and Team Trump doesn't even attempt to contend that, why would Dearie side with Trump? There's no legal reason to.

Now there was another option. Apparently, Team Trump isn't getting the items back (duh) but to review the items taken are supposed to get a scan of them. Okay, sure, Trump hired a foreign agent but let's give him a fucking scan of fucking nuclear secrets.

But here's the thing...they just...aren't doing that. Team Trump is claiming, apparently this part wasn't sealed...maybe? I hate this case so much...that they asked five qualified document scan/review companies and they all refused.

"Why would they refuse to work for Trump? Oh, right, he never pays them."

Well, also, why would they risk their necks (a) hanging out with nuclear secrets and (b) working for an objectively guilty felon and traitor? The DOJ, this party I actually love, said "give us a day, we'll find a company that will agree, but Trump still has to pay for it".

pay the vendor's invoices promptly when rendered

-- exact fucking quote from the DOJ

The NYTimes' Haberman -- yes, she wrote that book, yes, it's full of really damaging stories, yes, I think they're all true -- has reported that there's infighting amongst Team Trump's lawyers. This is hardly a surprise -- many of Trump's lawyers have had their places searched and/or their phones seized and/or fucked up a filing so bad the DOJ is now investigating them. Nobody wants to be the person to screw this up, but then, they are also representing an objectively guilty traitor and felon. It's not like they were debating which person dropped the Ming vase so much as which person was only hitting the homeless person when they were down instead of kicking them. They all know what they signed up for and my sympathy for them canfitinthiswhitespace.