Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Shadowferal]

A Letter to the DeSantis Fan-Boys From a Real Never Trumper

Rupert has dubbed him DeFuture. Republican hedge fund donors have taken their Trump tax cut and run. National Review is indistinguishable from a DeSantis Fanzine, lavishly extolling his virtues and wagging their finger at anyone who dares challenge their precious. Ben Shapiro’s Daily Wire is not any less effusive and is already cashing in on the new bell cow.

To be honest, I understand this calculation. DeSantis is the golden ticket. He’s the one weird trick that will make all their Trump Troubles go away without their having to suffer any additional political pain or consequences from having made a deal with the devil. DeSantis 2024 will let them be members in good standing on the team again. He will eradicate any nagging doubts about whether they were empowering a man who might bring the constitutional republic they claim to love to its knees.

For most of them, the desire for this trick to succeed is a refreshing change from the last 7 years, because it’s completely authentic. It’s in their bones. The sight and sound of a cherubic, nasal-voiced Ivy Leaguer giving local journalist “elites” the what-for gives them a Matthewsian thrill up the leg. For them, the highlight of 2022 was seeing the triggered libs complain about how Ron had tricked desperate Andres into getting on a plane to Massachusetts as part of an Andover-style prep school prank at the expense of the haughty Martha’s Vineyard librarian who canceled Alan Dershowitz.

That is their shit. Reagan’s revolutionaries had the air traffic controllers, Ron controls his human trafficking by air.

--------------

Article is longer than this...
But my sarcasm-meter kept spiking hard...I think I need another.

[Belize]

Walking contradiction Mike Pence says Trump should apologize for willfully inviting Holocaust denier and white nationalist Fuentes to dinner...but not for trying to murder him.

Don't kink shame Pence, he got excited when he saw the rioters with zip ties and rope

[gondrin]

...a white nationalist and anti-semite...and color blind apparently, which I should applaud in that regard.

A gay white nationalist and a black anti-semite at that. Sounds like an 80s sitcom that lasted for 1 season.

[Breccia]

Trump has not been having a good day.

Again.

1) The "special master" canceled a meeting with lawyers of both sides.

This ties into

2) Trump is desperately trying to defend the appointment of the "special master" in the first place and citing, as evidence, Giuliani.

It should be noted that the cases are in no way similar, as the DoJ pointed out in court. Giuliani is a lawyer fuck was a lawyer at the time, and privilege was a legit concern. Trump never was.

Almost every expert cited says that Cannon's order was on shaky ground before and on dust now.

The oral argument by prosecutors, who are now under the direction of the newly appointed Special Counsel Jack Smith, shows that the 11th Circuit may be close to reversing Cannon's process. The three judges on the panel — two of whom are Trump appointees — shared their skepticism that Cannon had jurisdiction to take action before an indictment, and that even if she did, she had no factual predicate to appoint a special master.

Judge Britt Grant, who was appointed by Trump, asked the former president's legal team whether they tried to appeal Cannon's finding that the Justice Department did not demonstrate a "callous disregard" for Trump's rights. Trump's attorney, James Trusty, said that they did not appeal the finding and Grant responded that the finding required a reversal of Cannon's order.

Judge Andrew Basher also confronted Trump's attorneys with two questions that stumped them: whether there was any precedent to prevent the DOJ from using the seized materials in its investigation before any indictments and whether there is any reason that Trump should be treated differently in the case than other defendants other than his status as the former president.

Trump's attorneys were unable to give a satisfactory answer to the judges. After hearing the oral argument Trusty tried to keep the special master appointment by disparaging Cannon's injunction against the DOJ. He argued that the DOJ was not harmed by the injunction because of an order issued by the 11th Circuit that allowed the department to use the 100 documents that were originally labeled "classified" in the investigation.

It seems increasingly likely that Dearie will not need to do his job anymore. He might be stalling until the ruling comes down dismissing him.

3) Recent court rulings have put Trump in further trouble with regards to Jan 6th, as even judges Trump appointed are not preventing people like Cipollone and Graham from testifying.

“Favorable rulings by judges on issues like executive privilege and the crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege bode well for agencies investigating Trump,” said Barbara McQuade, a former US attorney for eastern Michigan. “Legal challenges may create delay, but on the merits, with rare exception, judges are consistently ruling against him.”

4) The ACLU is suing the CIA and the NSA, which apparently they do fairly often, but specifically FOIA requesting Trump's declassification order. Which Trump admitted to with a "tweet" last week.

"But no such order exists."

I think the ACLU knows that, too. The lawsuit is to force the goverment to say, on the record, under oath, "no such record exists". Of course, if it did exist, the ACLU has already taken steps to say "he took sensitive info and threw it in a hotel basement".

5) Things aren't looking great for Trump in the Trump Org case either. The defense rested almost immediately, but took a step I need @cubby to weigh in on.

The defense rested Monday in the five-week-long Manhattan tax-fraud trial of Donald Trump's international real-estate empire — but not before getting a tongue-lashing from the judge over an 11th-hour evidence dump.

"It's inconsiderate at a minimum," New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan scolded defense lawyers, who at midnight Sunday had filed 18 new exhibits they'd hoped to show jurors on the last day of their case.

"There's simply no justification," for the last-minute introduction of a stack of journal entries, reports, and emails, Merchan said, likening it to "good old-fashioned sandbagging."

"I won't accept it again," the judge warned the defense, while their witness, the Trump Organization's longtime accountant Donald Bender, and jurors waited outside the courtroom for the last day of testimony to begin.

"It's almost as if you really don't want me to rule on the issue," he said. "It's almost as if you don't want me to get it right," the typically mild-tempered judge said in an angry voice.

"I'm not going to allow you to show a bunch of exhibits that the people haven't had a chance to look at," the judge added.

In another blow to the defense, the judge denied a defense request to have Bender declared a hostile witness, a status that would have given them more leeway in asking leading questions.

My question to cubby is: if Trump Org tried to throw a bunch of previously unmentioned exhibits into the court, then immediately rests, is that being done to try to confuse the jury? It sounds like the prosecution didn't know these were coming or have a chance to question them, or at least not much. To me, this looks like an attempt to create some amount of doubt by sheer volume of materials, rather than a valid defense.

Speaking of which, the judge doesn't seem to think Trump Org has one.

On Monday, defense lawyers told the judge that during summations, they'll tell jurors that although McConney and Weisselberg know now that they broke the law, they didn't know it at the time.

For the Trump Organization to be criminally liable in the payroll-tax scheme, prosecutors must prove that the two executives knowingly conspired and schemed to dodge payroll taxes, and did so to benefit not only themselves but the company as well.

The defense will try to shift blame away from Trump and onto Bender, the high-priced accountant they'll say should have blown an early whistle on the scheme.

Defense lawyers are also expected to tell jurors that the leadership at the very top of the company — meaning Donald Trump and his three eldest children, who have all served as vice presidents — were in the dark about the 15-year payroll scheme, though dozens of memos, invoices, and other documents bear a Trump signature.

The defense is also expected to tell jurors that Trump was just being generous and had no idea that his C-suite was cheating on taxes when he signed off on bonuses, raises, and tax-free perks like personal cars and apartments.

Yes, that's the "ignorance is a defense" defense. Somehow, top CEOs of a company that claims to be successful didn't know they were asking the accountants they hired to break the law, and are horrified to learn these accountants broke the law just because they asked them to. And that the various Trump family signatures on the related documents are just coincidences. Yeah, no.

6) Trump is also being sued by the NAACP, regarding his actions Jan 6th and of course before. Trump claimed absolute immunity, that claim was deemed absolute bullshit. The judge said that Trump's actions in terms of his re-election don't count as Executive Time.

7) Trump had the chance to campaign for Walker but chose not to. It might have to do with the fact that Walker told him not to show up. Can you imagine being so toxic that a Republican caught having an abortion doesn't want to be seen next to you?

[Poopymonster]

7) Trump had the chance to campaign for Walker but chose not to. It might have to do with the fact that Walker told him not to show up. Can you imagine being so toxic that a Republican caught having an abortion doesn't want to be seen next to you?

In his defense, Walker heard "Run off" and ran the same play as last time.
Run away, ignore it, don't talk about it, and if it gets brought up lie.

[cubby]

My question to cubby is: if Trump Org tried to throw a bunch of previously unmentioned exhibits into the court, then immediately rests, is that being done to try to confuse the jury? It sounds like the prosecution didn't know these were coming or have a chance to question them, or at least not much. To me, this looks like an attempt to create some amount of doubt by sheer volume of materials, rather than a valid defense.

In my opinion, that's exactly what the Trump Org attorneys are trying to do. Throw so much random and useless information at the jury they will be confused and take the easy way out, that being the simple story of Trump Org not knowingly breaking the law, therefore not guilty of fraud.

However, this isn't the prosecutor's first rodeo, and they will be prepared for this kind of contingency. Trying to confuse the jury into a not guilty verdict is a very old tactic, and pretty desperate too boot, so that bodes well for justice, as it were.

[Breccia]

However, this isn't the prosecutor's first rodeo, and they will be prepared for this kind of contingency.

Yeah, the articles I read suggested the judge wasn't a big fan, either. Closing arguments are expected to go on for days -- and the prosecution goes last, if I remember correctly. Hopefully they can use that position and time to discredit Trump's pathetic I-have-no-defense defense.

- - - Updated - - -

"Okay fine," the Trump campaign says, rolling its eyes. "From now on, we'll Google everyone that Trump personally invites to private meetings with, so that we know ahead of time if he's meeting with a known racist, anti-Semite, white supremacist or violent terrorist. There, are you happy now?"

No, by the way. The answer is no. Trump has lived through the computer age and damn near lived on Twitter until he started a murderous insurrection. He's been bloated fat orange ass-deep in PR since he was six. He should have known what "guess who's kkkoming to dinner" is by now. Yes, I picked that movie for a reason, shut up.

[Edge-]

"Okay fine," the Trump campaign says, rolling its eyes. "From now on, we'll Google everyone that Trump personally invites to private meetings with, so that we know ahead of time if he's meeting with a known racist, anti-Semite, white supremacist or violent terrorist. There, are you happy now?"

No, by the way. The answer is no. Trump has lived through the computer age and damn near lived on Twitter until he started a murderous insurrection. He's been bloated fat orange ass-deep in PR since he was six. He should have known what "guess who's kkkoming to dinner" is by now. Yes, I picked that movie for a reason, shut up.

fully vetted

Why the fuck were they not vetting everyone who wanted to meet with a former president? Especially a former president with a now-active campaign for president?

I mean, this is a tough one.

On the one hand, it's absolutely believable that Trump's team doesn't bother vetting anyone who Trump wants to meet with because telling Trump he can't meet with someone due to their avowed and explicit white nationalist views would simply anger Trump. He doesn't like people telling him he's wrong or can't do something.

On the other hand, I don't believe them that there was no process in place. I fully believe there was "vetting" process in place, but that the process was ultimately subject to Trump's decision. So no matter how many red flags the vetting raised, if Trump wanted the meeting to go ahead it goes ahead.

Either way, I hope he keeps this up because this is going to make the next two years of his campaign a nonstop machine for drama and I absolutely fuckin love me some drama.

[Breccia]

Why the fuck were they not vetting everyone who wanted to meet

Because Trump is an ego-driven sociopath who thinks the rules never apply to him and if someone wants to suck his dick that much, he...oh, did you mean the SS? Because it's not their job to screen out loathesome excused for humanity, only ones that might try to murder Trump.

[Edge-]

https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/30/polit...rns/index.html

In other news, Ways and Means now has 6 years of Trump's tax returns.

[Poopymonster]

Why the fuck were they not vetting everyone who wanted to meet with a former president? Especially a former president with a now-active campaign for president?

I mean, this is a tough one.

On the one hand, it's absolutely believable that Trump's team doesn't bother vetting anyone who Trump wants to meet with because telling Trump he can't meet with someone due to their avowed and explicit white nationalist views would simply anger Trump. He doesn't like people telling him he's wrong or can't do something.

On the other hand, I don't believe them that there was no process in place. I fully believe there was "vetting" process in place, but that the process was ultimately subject to Trump's decision. So no matter how many red flags the vetting raised, if Trump wanted the meeting to go ahead it goes ahead.

Either way, I hope he keeps this up because this is going to make the next two years of his campaign a nonstop machine for drama and I absolutely fuckin love me some drama.

...maybe one of the Secret Service member, one who is in charge of protecting Trump personally, is willing to "take one for Team America" and go take a leak or something while there is an unvetted person who wandered into Mar-A-Lardo and gets within an arm's length of him. *shrug*

[Sunseeker]

...maybe one of the Secret Service member, one who is in charge of protecting Trump personally, is willing to "take one for Team America" and go take a leak or something while there is an unvetted person who wandered into Mar-A-Lardo and gets within an arm's length of him. *shrug*

Eh, as amusing as the thought is, this would only be useful to anyone outside the GOP if it was one of Trump's deranged fanboys or someone like Fuentes himself. Someone so impossible to pin on the Democrats or the Left that it could only send the message of "reap what you sow".

[gondrin]

https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/30/polit...rns/index.html

In other news, Ways and Means now has 6 years of Trump's tax returns.

I mean, we won't see them but here's hoping for a leaker. There are more than enough of them on Capital Hill.

[Fugus]

I mean, we won't see them but here's hoping for a leaker. There are more than enough of them on Capital Hill.

I know a Republican would gladly to destroy Trump in an attempt to purge him from the party but didn’t they refuse to have any on the committee because the minority leader only wanted to put people directly implicated in it as members?

The Democrat ones may very well leak it but may want to wait till closer to the next elections to do it if he runs and wins their primaries.

[Voidism]

https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/30/polit...rns/index.html

In other news, Ways and Means now has 6 years of Trump's tax returns.

Is it possible that the reason he doesn't want anyone to see it is because he's actually broke as f? Not that he doesn't pay what he should. I wonder how his supporters would see it.

[Breccia]

Is it possible that the reason he doesn't want anyone to see it is because he's actually broke as f? Not that he doesn't pay what he should. I wonder how his supporters would see it.

In order:
1) This is the most commonly cited reason people give. However, I've seen a few experts saying "the way he's fighting this hard, it has to be more than that". Trump claimed over and over, including the literal all-caps line TEN BILLION DOLLARS!, that fiscal disclosure forms are good enough, but there's a lot they don't say.

We've since seen plenty of articles along the lines of "Deutsche Bank wants their money back for real this time" and "Trump sells XXX at a loss". We know Trump's poor, and he's still fighting it.

2) We also know he doesn't pay what he should. That's not exactly new info. I think an excellent 2024 debate topic would be "Mr. Trump, you said you weren't taking your salary in the WH. How much did the tax cut for the rich directly give to you?" Because I think the real estate settings probably stopped him from losing even more money than he should have.

3) His base is insane. They're voting for abortion provider Walker, for fuck's sake. They will praise Trump for lying on his taxes, claim he's still rich and successful, even as the NY AG slaps the handcuffs on.

- - - Updated - - -

McCarthy says he'll have the Jan 6th panel investigated.

It is imperative that all information collected be preserved not just for institutional prerogatives but for transparency to the American people.

The American people have a right to know that the allegations you have made are supported by the facts and to be able to view the transcripts.

Naturally, the Jan 6th panel responded by saying "We're going to make our findings public, then give everything to the DOJ. Because they're law enforcement and they should have it. Also they've been asking for a while now. So, don't worry, the evidence will be in good hands."

And then Pelosi flipped him off, put on sunglasses, and walked away from an explosion.

Seriously, I don't know why McCarthy is making this stupid-sounding threat. One, I told the above in the wrong order. The plan to release the report by Christmas pre-dates McCarthy's threat. Two, he's a Republican and actively serving election deniers' interests. His goal should be to bury the evidence. Three, he's sounding off like he's running for election when he's not. And four, if a nobody like myself can predict for literally years that the Jan 6th panel would hand everything directly to Biden if the Dems lost control of it, why wouldn't McCarthy see it coming? This doesn't even come off as posturing, it comes off as inexperienced, which he's not.

[Fugus]

@Breccia

I am wondering if McCarthy is trying to setup a defense because he thinks/knows he is directly involved in some illegal stuff and so when/if it comes out he can claim they are an attack on him for trying to look into him or something along those lines.

[Breccia]

I am wondering if McCarthy is trying to setup a defense

I mean, I don't see how. He knows like everyone knows Cheney will strut across DC carrying the evidence to Garland. Maybe literally. And that the evidence was collected long before he made this statement.

His statement sounds so odd because it almost sounds bipartisan. Which McCarthy has never been. He's claiming the American people want transparency, but the Jan 6th committee has had all those public meetings. At best, he might be implying there's exculpatory evidence but he knows full well there isn't -- and even if there was, by law, the prosecution has to bring it up anyhow.

It just feels so...empty, and why make such a public empty threat?

"Now don't you move, or I'll shoot you next."
"No you won't, you're using a S&W 0.38 Special with five shots and I counted, you're out."
"I will shoot you!"
"Dude, I can see the chambers from here. They're all empty."
"Shoot you, I will!"

[cubby]

I mean, I don't see how. He knows like everyone knows Cheney will strut across DC carrying the evidence to Garland. Maybe literally. And that the evidence was collected long before he made this statement.

His statement sounds so odd because it almost sounds bipartisan. Which McCarthy has never been. He's claiming the American people want transparency, but the Jan 6th committee has had all those public meetings. At best, he might be implying there's exculpatory evidence but he knows full well there isn't -- and even if there was, by law, the prosecution has to bring it up anyhow.

It just feels so...empty, and why make such a public empty threat?

"Now don't you move, or I'll shoot you next."
"No you won't, you're using a S&W 0.38 Special with five shots and I counted, you're out."
"I will shoot you!"
"Dude, I can see the chambers from here. They're all empty."
"Shoot you, I will!"

He's making the threat because in our Post-Truth Era, his followers will believe anything he tells them to believe (we see that here all the time from some of our more enthusiastic GQP posters). The problem we're having is that McCarthy's statement doesn't make sense...because we're using critical thinking skills, looking up information, checking the other side to see what they've done/said. McCarthy and his followers don't do that, so when McCarthy (or any of the other GQP - aka not Republican) makes a statement, the GQP followers believe the statement, and then assume that whatever McCarthy/GQP is calling for hasn't happened yet.

The GQP followers will not believe anything Cheney says, because they've been told how to think about her and anything she says/does. The truth doesn't matter anymore to the GQP and the leadership knows this, so they can spin whatever reality they want.

[Edge-]

https://twitter.com/judiciarygop/sta...74670854975491

Kanye. Elon. Trump.

This tweet no longer exists. Only took them just under two months to delete it. I guess Kanye and Trump having dinner with an avowed white nationalist who praises Hitler may have been a bridge too far? I doubt it, it seems more a reaction to the much more recent heavy criticism levied at Trump from conservative Jewish groups.

Reminder, these absolute fucking jokes of human beings will run this committee in a few months.