Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Breccia]

Doesn't seem like a very good businessman.

Not even Delaware's shady as fuck corporate laws will help here. Trump starting another P. O. Box company and putting money in it, just like he did in his 2016 campaign by lending millions to himself from a company worth $15,000 might seem like a decent idea in general for a thief like Trump has proven himself to be. But committing fraud to avoid penalties for fraud is a dumb business move, even by Trump standards. And DE and NY are pretty good friends (I-95 between NYC and tax-free shopping does wonders for a relationship). DE owes Trump nothing and, while the letter of the DE laws will probably allow Trump to organize there just like other bastions of morality Twitter and Bill Cosby, they won't sit by while a company in their state commits criminal fraud in another state and do nothing. This is just one example of the states working together.

Simply put, at this point, if Trump tries to pull an Alex Jones then claim he's broke, while public filings prove he's lying, Trump would face criminal charges. NY would be done with his bullshit and just drag him off in handcuffs. Even a shift of the civil case from Trump Org 1 to Trump the fat orange sack of feces "person" would be action that would make this transparent dodge pointless.

[Paranoid Android]

RepKinzinger
on Trump signed order requiring troop withdrawal Afghanistan & Somalia: "Keep in mind the order was for an immediate withdrawal. It would have been catastrophic. And yet President Trump signed the order."

So this seems that Trump wanted to inflict complete chaos in Afghanistan mainly by immediate withdrawal. Now, projecting here, but this would likely have led to more of a disaster than so called Biden's withdrawal. Playing more of political game this shows Trump ordered a withdrawal, not Biden. Semantics and this has been argued but still.

[Edge-]

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/10/13/jan-...g-hearing.html

Jan. 6 Committee planning to subpoena Trump today, or at least hold a vote on it. We'll see what happens. Doesn't seem to be anything super spicey in today's hearing so far otherwise.

- - - Updated - - -

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/3...t-we-lost/amp/

Former President Trump told his then chief of staff “this is embarrassing,” and “I don’t want people to know that we lost,” after the Supreme Court ruled against him on a key 2020 case about the election, former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson told the Jan. 6 panel.

Lol, Trump is a fuckin loser. What a sensitive, delicate snowflake. I thought Republicans hated snowflakes?

- - - Updated - - -

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/sup...m_npd_nn_tw_ma

The Supreme Court handed former President Donald Trump a loss Thursday in his dispute with the Justice Department over documents seized from his Mar-a-Lago residence, rejecting his request that a special master be allowed to review classified papers.

The justices denied Trump’s relatively narrow emergency request in a brief unsigned order. There were no noted dissents.

The decision does not affect the Justice Department’s access to the same documents as part of a criminal investigation. The more than 100 documents marked as classified are just a small portion of the 11,000 records seized by federal agents in August amid concerns that Trump had unlawfully retained official White House records after leaving office.

The high court left in place part of a Sept. 21 decision by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that barred the special master, federal Judge Raymond Dearie, from reviewing the documents. Trump had not contested the separate part of that ruling allowing the Justice Department to use the documents.

Color me pleasantly surprised!

Is anyone keeping track of Trump's court losses? They have to be in the hundreds by now.

[Paranoid Android]

JUST IN: The Supreme Court DENIES Trump's request to intervene in the dispute over documents with classified markings taken from Mar-a-Lago. The court offers no explanation for its decision (as is common for actions on the shadow docket), and there are no recorded dissents.

So the last, possibly frightening hurdle is over. The chance of Clarence Thomas somehow ruling on 11th Circuit or just SCOTUS as a whole giving Trump some unquestioned Presidential powers. I'm still a cynic but this can now proceed I guess(?).

[Breccia]

"in a brief unsigned order."

Those fucking pussies ah, I get it. The nine are looking out for each other. If nobody says anything, then it comes collectively from the group without any one/five being singled out.

[Zan15]

As a regular connoisseur of the bell from the southern border, I will tell you what I would buy if someone handed me $28 and said, spend it all now and give me back change, all food is yours:

2 Grilled Cheese Burrito Box Deluxes

--2x Grilled Cheese Burritos
--2x Chalupa Supreme
--2x Doritos Loco Taco
--2x Nachos w/ Cheese
--2x Baja Blast

2 Cinnamon Twists

12 Pack of Cinnabon Delight Combos

The total for me would be $27.45

If anyone was wondering, that's about 4,500 calories.

I'd spend the whole 28 on Grilled Cheese Burritos!!

[Ausr]

I'd spend the whole 28 on Grilled Cheese Burritos!!

People like the Grilled Cheese Burritos?

Just get like 20 Cheesy Fiesta Potatoes if you want something good.

[Drutt]

Just get like 20 Cheesy Fiesta Potatoes if you want something good.

If you want something good, you don't go to Taco Bell.

[Shadowferal]

This thread is giving me gas.
I see Trump was subpoenaed...

[Gorsameth]

I look forward to the many court cases as he tries to weasle out of it. And for him to refuse to answer literally anything if/when he shows up.

But lets start the speculation, will the committee order Trumps arrest when he inevitably ignores this subpoena and gets held in contempt?

[Edge-]

But lets start the speculation, will the committee order Trumps arrest when he inevitably ignores this subpoena and gets held in contempt?

The committee doesn't have that authority. I believe they can criminally refer him to the DoJ if he fails to respond to the lawful subpoena, at which point it would be in Merrick Garlands very non-confrontational hands.

[Gorsameth]

The committee doesn't have that authority. I believe they can criminally refer him to the DoJ if he fails to respond to the lawful subpoena, at which point it would be in Merrick Garlands very non-confrontational hands.

details details. Will the committee refer his arrest to the DoJ when he inevitably fails to show up.

[Edge-]

details details. Will the committee refer his arrest to the DoJ when he inevitably fails to show up.

I mean, he can just delay until after the elections if Democrats don't keep the House, then the subpoena dies.

Otherwise if he shows up he pulls a Donald Trump/Roger Stone and pleads the Fifth in response to every question.

Because according to Trump, only mob bosses who are guilty plead the Fifth.

- - - Updated - - -

https://www.baltimoresun.com/politic...pla-story.html

In a move that elections experts say could further erode confidence in the voting process, a group of Maryland voters aligned with Republican gubernatorial nominee Dan Cox’s campaign plans on challenging the legitimacy of ballots across the state immediately after Election Day.

Republicans aren't even waiting. They're just preemptively arguing that fraud happened.

Fuckin pathetic, anti-democratic losers. It's wild watching a formerly semi-functional political party go full on authoritarian in real time.

- - - Updated - - -

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/tru...-investigation

According to an anonymous source close to Trump, Fox News is claiming Trump "loves" the idea of testifying to the committee so he can talk about Pelosi and the corrupt election.

Now I don't entirely disbelieve this, it sure sounds like something Trump would say!

But I'll note that Fox News as an organization has been pretty down on other media outlets use of anonymous sources, and their readers have been vocally opposed to believing any reporting based on "anonymous sources". Yet nobody seems much to mind this "anonymously" sourced report.

Curious!

[Poopymonster]

The committee doesn't have that authority. I believe they can criminally refer him to the DoJ if he fails to respond to the lawful subpoena, at which point it would be in Merrick Garlands very non-confrontational hands.

Maybe I'm optimistic about this, but Garland is non confrontational because he does not have the air tight slam dunk you would need to arrest a former president. Close every loophole you can, do everything by the goddamn book. Somehow holding a job for 4 years and being fired by over 70 million people makes you harder to arrest.

I hope that once Garland has it locked down perfect, then "non-confrontational" becomes "goddamn combative".

[Edge-]

Maybe I'm optimistic about this, but Garland is non confrontational because he does not have the air tight slam dunk you would need to arrest a former president.

No, he's just a spineless loser who is so terrified of the appearance of political bias that he's doing nothing about multiple Trump administration officials who are slam-dunk cases for lying under oath to congress or lying to law enforcement during an investigation.

He desperately wants to avoid being called partisan in his actions, which is stupid and pointless because Republicans are doing it anyways. All he's doing is letting criminals from within the Trump administration get away scott-free.

I hope that once Garland has it locked down perfect, then "non-confrontational" becomes "goddamn combative".

He's not primarily overseeing the investigation. He signed off on the warrant and all, but last I recall he's very much letting the team handling the investigation run with it and is doing his best to appear neutral throughout the matter. As if that matters worth a shit.

[postman1782]

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/10/13/jan-...g-hearing.html

Jan. 6 Committee planning to subpoena Trump today, or at least hold a vote on it. We'll see what happens. Doesn't seem to be anything super spicey in today's hearing so far otherwise.

Looks like you were wrong, Ronna McDaniel, RNC chair, said that Trump was behind the fake electors, no one else has said Trump as far as I know, most of them were saying it was Eastman.

[Blur4stuff]

I would be glad for Trump to answer questions under oath in private. Anything else would just be giving him a platform to spew more lies.

[Breccia]

I would be glad for Trump to answer questions under oath in private. Anything else would just be giving him a platform to spew more lies.

I look forward to Trump spewing more lies under oath. But his lawyers would probably rather Trump die than be caught perjuring himself on the stand. He'll claim he wants to testify, but he can't, his lawyers won't let him and the whole thing is rigged, he's already done that.

[Edge-]

https://www.businessinsider.com/kevi...expert-2022-10

Business Insider reporting on political professors, and even Trump himself, about Andrew McCarthy's tactical error in now putting any of "his" Republicans on the Jan. 6 Committee.

His strategy seemed to be trying to invalidate the Committee as a partisan affair, one purely of his own making, but the results have been that the committee has been able to pursue their investigation unimpeded and concluded with a unanimous vote to subpoena a former president.

And the man wants to be Speaker of the House.

[beanman12345]

JUST IN: The Supreme Court DENIES Trump's request to intervene in the dispute over documents with classified markings taken from Mar-a-Lago. The court offers no explanation for its decision (as is common for actions on the shadow docket), and there are no recorded dissents.

So the last, possibly frightening hurdle is over. The chance of Clarence Thomas somehow ruling on 11th Circuit or just SCOTUS as a whole giving Trump some unquestioned Presidential powers. I'm still a cynic but this can now proceed I guess(?).

So fucked up that this kind of chance of happening is on most people's heads as a very real possibility, but nah these looney toons giving speeches. "Whatcha mean? durrr there is no credibility issues here."