Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Kaleredar]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...onal-archives/

National Archives says they're still missing records.

So they've asked for them.

They've subpoena'd them.

They've had the FBI execute a lawful search warrant to retrieve them.

They still don't have them all.

This is the first president I can think of where this problem has ever existed, much less been this severe.

Just how many documents did Trump steal, and why is he so reluctant to give them all back?

the most benign answer is "he's a little crybaby who doesn't like being told what to do by the administration that beat him"

[Breccia]

They still don't have them all.

This is a massive problem. These things are not supposed to go missing.

Simply put, based on what we know -- Trump had 200,000 pages of documents he wasn't allowed to -- the most logical explanation is Trump took them, then either sold, lost, or destroyed them. Yes, it could be someone else, but until there's any hint of another bad actor, we should be looking at the person who took everything else.

I don't know what weight "Trump had them last, now they're gone" will have in court -- probably none. But in the existing cases, this can and should be brought up. In the surely upcoming trial when Trump is confronted with the items we did find, he surely will be asked about the items we didn't find.

The next step is NARA disclosing what the missing items are...not to us, probably. If the DOJ has reason to believe Trump took and then either lost, sold, or destroyed a few pictures and meeting notes, it might not come up again. If more of the missing items are classified (Trump did not declassify them, or he would have said so under oath) for a good reason, the DOJ might have to start kicking in other doors. I wonder if Ivanka and Kushner mistreat their domestic staff? Because that's a good way for their location to get leaked to the feds.

[Fugus]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...onal-archives/

National Archives says they're still missing records.

So they've asked for them.

They've subpoena'd them.

They've had the FBI execute a lawful search warrant to retrieve them.

They still don't have them all.

This is the first president I can think of where this problem has ever existed, much less been this severe.

Just how many documents did Trump steal, and why is he so reluctant to give them all back?

Does explain why they want a list of documents before they claim what was planted. The last thing they want to do is claim the FBI planted something they haven't found yet.

[DarkTZeratul]

Does explain why they want a list of documents before they claim what was planted. The last thing they want to do is claim the FBI planted something they haven't found yet.

They were given a list of documents and asked (by the special master, even) to verify it for accuracy. They could have claimed anything on that list was planted. They refused to engage with it at all.

[Breccia]

They refused to engage with it at all.

I acknowledge that Team Trump has a tough legal route to follow while I also say I have no sympathy for them. They can't repeat Trump's lies on the stand, and they can't contradict him. That leaves a variety of "We refuse to answer" which, as we've seen, only Cannon is okay with.

[Kaleredar]

They were given a list of documents and asked (by the special master, even) to verify it for accuracy. They could have claimed anything on that list was planted. They refused to engage with it at all.

They can't claim on the stand that any of it was planted, because none of it was, and claiming that it was would be them lying.

[Ripster42]

They were given a list of documents and asked (by the special master, even) to verify it for accuracy. They could have claimed anything on that list was planted. They refused to engage with it at all.

Not forcing him to verify the contents, in this case, is actually a ruling I agree with. It's basically forcing him to testify that he committed a crime, as affirming that he had a bunch of classified material he wasn't authorized to have is at the core of the espionage act case.

[Breccia]

Trump launches direct attack on McConnell a month out from midterm elections

UPDATE: WaPo is not having it. This OP ED calls it "a new standard of despicable".

Outrageousness, of course, is Trump’s political brand, and ignoring his rants is usually the best thing to do. His spokesman insisted that his reference to a death wish referred to a political one, rather than literal one.

But to dismiss all of this as just Trump being Trump is to ignore what is really going on here. The Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol by his crazed followers, after a rally in which the then-president urged them to “fight like hell” to overturn the 2020 election result, should have put to rest any doubts that his words can summon violence. (Trump’s beef with Chao is fueled by the fact that she resigned from his Cabinet the next day.)

Knowing all of this, you have to wonder: Where are McConnell’s Republican colleagues in the Senate? Why do they remain silent when Trump does something like this? Is this sort of behavior by their party’s de facto leader acceptable to them, particularly coming fewer than 40 days before an election in which they are trying to pick up the single additional seat that would give them control of the chamber? Their timidity has fostered the free-fire environment in which Trump operates.

Also worth raising is the question of whether the stopgap spending bill was actually what triggered Trump’s eruption. It is probably no coincidence that Trump’s attack came just three days after McConnell threw his weight behind a badly needed piece of bipartisan legislation that would reform the antiquated Electoral Count Act of 1887.

That old law lays out the process for tallying and certifying electoral votes in presidential elections; its language, however, contains ambiguities, which is what Trump and his forces were trying to exploit on Jan. 6 — the day Congress met to certify the tally of the 2020 election. Among other things, Trump pressured Vice President Mike Pence, whose role in the exercise was supposed to be ceremonial, to throw out valid votes; Pence, properly, refused.

McConnell’s honorable decision to support reforming the Electoral Count Act, despite the fact that opposing it has become a litmus test of support for Trump, has greatly increased its chances of passing, because it now appears likely to easily muster more than the 60 votes necessary to overcome a filibuster.

“Congress’s process for counting their presidential electors’ votes was written 135 years ago. The chaos that came to a head on January 6th of last year certainly underscored the need for an update,” McConnell said on the Senate floor. “The Electoral Count Act ultimately produced the right conclusion … but it’s clear the country needs a more predictable path.”

The right conclusion, in this case, was that Joe Biden was legitimately elected president of the United States. But by refusing to accept Trump’s lies to the contrary, McConnell has guaranteed himself a continued place in Trump’s crosshairs.

No doubt Trump will escalate his dangerous and vile attacks on McConnell, because that is simply who he is. But let’s be clear that there is plenty of fault to go around. The Republican Party’s refusal to denounce him for it makes them complicit.

As a reminder, yes, people can admit they were wrong, ask for forgiveness, and try to make amends. All of those are actions. Doing nothing means you either think what you did is the right thing, or know it's wrong and did it anyhow. Neither are redeeming traits.

[Dontrike]

You started with I made no such implication by using seize,

You did

I'm using the First Amendment of an example of the dangers in asserting something wrong or right based on whom it bothers. Any whining you detect is purely fictitious.

You know we can look at your post history and see all of the whining you've done the last month, right? Every "but Hillary", whataboutism, and conspiracy theory of yours is pure whining. Hilarious as it was, and still is, it's absolutely whining.

He retains the ability to make that assertion,

He doesn't.

Perhaps you can explain why Trump hasn't turned over every document? Don't know why I'm asking, you still haven't explained why it was okay for Trump to steal documents to begin with, almost as though your bias is showing.

[Beefhammer]

You started with I made no such implication by using seize, which only implies possession, not ownership. See, for example, improper seizures (evaluating an act that doesn't imply legal ownership, but must be evaluated), or synonym "confiscate" or the meaning of the clause "take possession of."

I never made an ownership claim, so please respond to whatever poster that comes by and makes that claim. You're either trolling on semantics, or not reading the posts you're responding to.


I'm using the First Amendment of an example of the dangers in asserting something wrong or right based on whom it bothers. Any whining you detect is purely fictitious.

I don't believe it, nor ever said it.

He retains the ability to make that assertion, until a judge says otherwise. One just did for the subset of documents that were found to be classified. None have yet for the other twelve thousand. The DOJ acted as if it were the judicial branch with the ability to render court judgments, and now a special master is appointed to do that process for them.

If you really think this has bearing on absolute power, maybe take a little time to reconsider the actual gravity on forcing investigators to wait a little longer to complete a review of documents it seized. Absolute power isn't a fair description of a prosecutorial delay of months. Unless you're really, really anxious.

Yeah you did by using the word seized. But again, you don't understand the meaning of words you use. It's pretty obvious.

[Twdft]

Simply put, based on what we know -- Trump had 200,000 pages of documents he wasn't allowed to

Just for illustration, this is what 200k pages of paper look like:



Together 1100kg.

[Breccia]

Together 1100kg.

Ah....this takes me back. Remember this?

[fwc577]

Ah....this takes me back. Remember this?

These don't look like binders full of women. Are these folders full of his lies for the week? /s

[Breccia]

Trump launches direct attack on McConnell a month out from midterm elections

UPDATE UPDATE: Rick Scott agrees.

"Whoa, he didn't agree. He said this:"

I can never talk about and respond to why anybody else says what they said. But here's the way I look at it is I think what the president is saying is there's been a lot of money spent over the last two years. We've got to make sure we don't keep caving to Democrats, it's causing unbelievable inflation and causing more and more debt.

Did he disagree?

"No..."

Did he condemn the attack?

"No..."

Is Trump the head of Scott's party?

"Yes..."

Silence is consent. Any Party of Trump member who doesn't call out Trump's attack is therefore siding with Trump's attack.

Here's the next part, about McConnell's wife:

As you know, the president likes to give people nicknames. You can ask him how he came up with the nickname. I'm sure he has a nickname for me.

But here's what I know: We've got to watch how we spend our money, we got to stop this inflation

That is also not a disagreement, nor a condemnation. Therefore, agreement.

Oh, he added this immediately afterwards. Like, the very next thing he said.

I don't condone violence, and I hope no one else condones violence.

"Um, Trump didn't say anything about violence."

I know, funny how Scott immediately went from agreeing with Trump, to making a distinction about condoning violence. That seems like an admission Trump incites violence. Here, let me give a completely hypothetical example:

I'm not commenting on Hammerfest. I don't know what's in his head and it's a free country. But I will say, I don't fuck pigs, I don't agree with fucking pigs, and I hope nobody fucks pigs

See the problem? I did not say anything Hammerfest fucking pigs, but I did put those two side by side, creating that impression without saying anything. Of course i don't think Hammerfest fucks pigs, why would anyone? But that side-by-side statement sure makes it sound like I do.

"You know you could get reported for that."

Maybe, but anyone who did so would have to admit that Rick Scott thinks Trump condones violence. Considering I also spelled out it was a hypothetical I didn't believe, they're welcome to make that admission.

[Flarelaine]

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.

Dafuq?

OK, I'm a few days late to the party, but fucking what? This stuff is supposed to have a strict chain of custody. That is impossible if you make digital copies and hand them to the suspect who is under investigation specifically for improper handling of material, to put it mildly.

[The Stormbringer]

What's up with all these sycophants that still call him "the President". Call him what he really is, the FORMER President.

[s_bushido]

What's up with all these sycophants that still call him "the President". Call him what he really is, the FORMER President.

I mean...aside from the whole "we've spent the past 2+ years pretending he won, but that the election was stolen" garbage, former presidents can be referred to as "President [name]" as an honorific. Not "the President," though...

[Breccia]

I'm a few days late to the party

Oh, just you wait.

but fucking what?

It's a reference to Trump hiring a publicly-known foreign agent as a lawyer.

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.

Your concern about the documents being mishandled is, of course, the entire point. Team Trump is also being a giant douchey hypocrite by claiming the FBI's taint team isn't good enough, while he had them in his desk drawer and, like you said, his own legal team could not only have read them during the events in question, but for almost 2 years before that, too (including the NY lawyer who basically tripped over them by accident).

You could make the argument that Trump's lawyers being able to review the documents Trump stole is a far lesser issue than "Trump stole them", but yeah, it's like saying "only the first guy murdered him, the rest only desecrated a corpse".

And then, of course, there's the issue with Team Trump refusing to even say which items are privileged or classified. And their refusal to get a document scanning company to make digital copies in the first place.

If you're a few days late, you have some interesting reading coming your way.

- - - Updated - - -

What's up with all these sycophants that still call him "the President".

Trump will fire them if they don't.

Oh, that's not a valid excuse. They knew what they signed up for.

At best, "the President" is an attempt to refer to actions when Trump was in the WH. It's also a moot point, because again, there's no record Trump actually did any of the actions he claimed he did while in office. He's accused of stealing stuff when he left, and having them while no longer in the WH. So until Team Trump says, under oath, items are privileged or classified -- both of which seem to be irrelevant anyhow -- even that "at best" has zero effect here.

- - - Updated - - -

The Supreme Court is ready to hear Mike Lindell's appeal in the c--

"No."

Um, nevermind.

Yes, that means Lindell is out of options and must face Dominion's lawsuit.

Lindell asserts today, as he did throughout the relevant period, that his statements regarding Dominion, its voting machines, and the integrity of the tabulation were, and continue to be, valid, accurate, and true

-- Lindell's lawyers

Great, here's the address to mail the check

-- Dominion's lawyers

EDIT: I guess I should ask more of @cubby on this. Okay, so, the issue Lindell is going for is, he genuinely believes what he said is true, or at least, that's what his lawyers are arguing in court. If he believes them to be true, it can't be defamation.

Here's where I need an expert. I'm fairly sure I could say, for example, "I believe Donald Trump is, in fact, missing both testicles and his entire penis" and then say "Your Honor, I believe this to be true, and you can't prove I don't believe that". Then, when Trump yells at me, turn and say "when's the last time you saw them, fat boy?" It would be so worth the contempt charge.

But thing is, there is no logical, valid reason for me to have that belief. There's no public evidence Trump was ever castrated. (NYState is trying, but that's metaphorical not medical) Lindell is in the same position with voter fraud, especially Dominion's role in it. No evidence existed at the time, and none exists now, that Dominion was hacked, or that Dominion cheated on purpose. Lindell is trying to push the responsibility of his false claims onto someone else, I'm just going to predict "the media" (hey, remember MyPillowTV? whatever happened to that?) so that he bears no liable fault.

And I don't think it works that way.

It varies by state, but the generally accepted parts of defamation include "a false statement was presented as fact" which Lindell 100% did, but also "the statement was made with intent to damage, or with reckless disregard to its truth". There appears to be a 9-0 SCOTUS ruling on the subject.

Lindell's claims are clearly objectively false. Lindell made a false statement presented as fact, to the public, that damaged Dominion the company's name and standing. And he either did so knowing his claims were false, or he should have, because the only evidence in the context of his claims were that the claims were false. The only people found breaking into Dominion machines were Trump's supporters, and that was after the election. Lindell's motivations don't enter into it.

And not only do I think dodging a lawsuit with a plea of insanity is difficult to impossible, his lawyers aren't saying that anyhow. They are simply trying to handwave the lawsuit with "he believed it and you can't prove otherwise" which in turn should be slapped down with "anyone reasonable wouldn't have".

That defense won't save anyone else, like Powell, either. FOX News might get away with it, if they can prove they only said "XXX said Dominion was hacked, and also Hannity is a circus clown disguised as a reporter".

But that's my uniformed take on the issue. Who here thinks Lindell actually has a shot at this defense working?

- - - Updated - - -

Wow. Speaking of SCOTUS:

Supreme Court declines to hear case on DOJ ‘filter teams’ used in Trump search

The Justices denied a writ of certiorari in Korf v. United States, which questioned the legality of “filter team” protocols that allow teams of federal prosecutors and agents not assigned to a given case to review seized documents claimed to be privileged before the privilege question has been resolved.

Team Trump is dunking on themselves at this point. By refusing to say if the items are privileged, they're handing the DOJ a big flashing go-ahead to read everything.

Simply put, there is no privilege issue here, because nobody is raising it in court. Trump saying "privilege!" on his Chinese Twitter knockoff doesn't count. The highest court in the land has now said "put up or shut up" along with the 11th and Dearie, leaving only the dang poster who brought it up for no reason, was smacked down by literally everyone else on these forums, and moved the goalposts so far they're playing baseball since.

- - - Updated - - -

Bobb lawyers up, says she'll cooperate with the DOJ.

"Did we know some of that before?"

I think so. But

Bobb, a former OAN host who helped push Trump's legal challenges following the 2020 election, has insisted to Trump allies that she believes the document she signed was accurate, according to the Post. But she also told the pro-Trump Right Side Broadcasting Network that she was not acting as Trump's attorney while serving as a custodian of records when responding to the subpoena, according to the report, meaning that the DOJ could compel her testimony more easily than if she were acting as Trump's lawyer at the time.

"I think people were a little bit confused," Bobb said. "I am on Trump's legal team. I do work for him on election issues. I was never on the legal team handling this case, just to be clear on that. Which is why I came in as the custodian of records — because I wasn't on that team."

seems new to me. Yes, if Bobb wasn't acting as Trump's lawyer, just being an employee who happened to have a legal degree isn't enough to invoke privilege. Yes, there is a difference, yes, it is an important one.

[D Luniz]

In other cause Im sure everyone around him wants Trump to lose cause it will open doors that will hurt them more.

Trump sues CNN claiming defamation, seeks $475 million in punitive damages
https://www.reuters.com/legal/trump-...es-2022-10-03/

Cause IF he somehow won this, every democrat for the last 30 years would be lining up RW media and making them turn out those pockets

[Edge-]

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/10/03/trum...box=1664832960

Stern added that the letter that former President Obama left for Trump at that Oval Office when Obama’s presidency ended likewise “has not been transferred” to NARA.

“It is a Presidential record,” and thus must be held by NARA, Stern noted.

He even took a letter from Obama. That's very much a government record and not his document to take. And they had more questions -

“How many records were torn up? Have any records been destroyed or were in a state that they cannot be recovered,” Stern asked. “What steps are taken to recover any records that have been torn up?”