Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[bladeXcrasher]

Once again, it's time for Guess the Speaker!



"Wait, did he say he organized the whole thing and literally follow it saying IF he organized the whole thing?"

She.

"Ah, then it's MTG."

I really hate having to say this, but in an effort to head of people like tehdang...the first part was said as a statement made by democrats, not by her. The lead up to this was about accusations made against her. Her reply to this was the "If we had planned it we would have succeeded and it would have been an armed insurrection."

[Breccia]

I really hate having to say this, but in an effort to head of people like tehdang...the first part was said as a statement made by democrats, not by her. The lead up to this was about accusations made against her. Her reply to this was the "If we had planned it we would have succeeded and it would have been an armed insurrection."

On a reread, that does make sense.

So...she didn't mean the confusing part, only the insurrectionist part.

[bladeXcrasher]

On a reread, that does make sense.

So...she didn't mean the confusing part, only the insurrectionist part.

Yeah...the second part is still disturbing as fuck.

[Breccia]

Yeah...the second part is still disturbing as fuck.

That's almost assuredly why she hid behind "sarcastic", despite videos showing she wasn't. I'm fully aware intonation is lost in text -- see our earlier exchange -- but I doubt most major publications plus the WH all missed clear,obvious sarcasm. I think they didn't see it because it wasn't there.

[bladeXcrasher]

That's almost assuredly why she hid behind "sarcastic", despite videos showing she wasn't. I'm fully aware intonation is lost in text -- see our earlier exchange -- but I doubt most major publications plus the WH all missed clear,obvious sarcasm. I think they didn't see it because it wasn't there.

It's not like she doesn't have a history of making ads about shooting Democrats, or maybe it was "only" 1 person like Pelosi.

[Breccia]

Recently released court documents show that, last year, the Trump Org refused multiple times to comply with subpoenas, and was fined for contempt the maximum amount allowed.

All of $4,000.

Because the fine was capped, it basically did little other than demonstrate that Trump has a continuing pattern of just not following the law because he just doesn't want to. We're learning about this now because it was a grand jury, and those records are typically sealed.

[Huehuecoyotl]

Recently released court documents show that, last year, the Trump Org refused multiple times to comply with subpoenas, and was fined for contempt the maximum amount allowed.

All of $4,000.

Because the fine was capped, it basically did little other than demonstrate that Trump has a continuing pattern of just not following the law because he just doesn't want to. We're learning about this now because it was a grand jury, and those records are typically sealed.

Does it show if he actually paid that fine? Because I'd be willing to bet that he didn't.

[Breccia]

Does it show if he actually paid that fine?

While the document in question only says it was levied and does not indicate the payment, as it is old, I think if he refused to pay it the penalty would have gotten larger and more public. I'm guessing they just threw $4000 at the judge instead of the requested files, the grand jury saw that and returned a "send it to trial" result, and we saw what happened next.

That's a guess, tho.

- - - Updated - - -

Trump falls behind DeSantis in a new poll--

"You already posted that."

This is another one, WSJ this time. DeSantis leads by 14, not 23, but given the WSJ's readership...actually I don't know if that impacted the poll, nevermind. But it's another double-digit gap Trump can't close by turnout or luck. Not that the election or primary is today or anything.

But the blood in the water continues to gush, and the sharks are circling closer.

As mentioned plenty of times before, the Republican Party is fine with a Russian traitor, but not a loser. traditionally spineless McConnell is actually taking shots at Trump in public, and he's running the show. Only one GOP Senator has publicly endorsed Trump's 2024 run with the slogan "if he goes to jail, we all go to jail".

But it's not just Senators who aren't backing Trump. It's time to play Guess the Speaker! Which state's governor said this about a 2024 Trump-Biden rematch:

That’s really the worst scenario. That’s almost the scenario that Biden wishes for. And that’s probably how he got elected the first time. It became, you know, a binary choice for the American people between the challenges that we saw in the Trump presidency, particularly the closing days, versus Biden, who he made it that choice.

"Some commie librul traitor, no doubt."

You think a Democrat called Trump losing in 2024 the worst-case scenario?

"Oh, right. Um, then a borderline purple state, then."

Like Arkansas?

"No, Arkan...wait, really?"

Yes, that is Gov. Hutchinson of Arkansas, who just to be clear, also said

It hurts our country. I mean, any leader, former president that says suspend the Constitution is tearing at the fabric of our democracy. And so we want to make sure that the people know that it’s Republicans that support the rule of law.

while still refusing to rule out backing Trump in 2024 if, say, Trump wins the nomination. Man, how bad is it when a governor who repeatedly gets one-sided election mandates shows less spine than Mitch McConnell? But even with that in mind, he's still daring to speak openly against Trump, just not decisively.

The Republican Party is divided in support of former President Trump's 2024 presidential campaign (+1 CNN point) goes on to list more big names, of which, my favorite is canned ham Karl Rove saying the only person Biden could beat is Trump. Ouch. But Rove is a classic Republican, not a Trump cultist. FOX being FOX, they went out of their way to find Republicans backing Trump, specifically they wanted to cite more pro than con, and even they were having trouble finding more than a couple of Reps and the AG of Texas.

[Cthulhu 2020]

https://twitter.com/MuellerSheWrote/...79271839117312

Here's a nice can of worms to unravel @Breccia

[The Stormbringer]

Recently released court documents show that, last year, the Trump Org refused multiple times to comply with subpoenas, and was fined for contempt the maximum amount allowed.

All of $4,000.

Because the fine was capped, it basically did little other than demonstrate that Trump has a continuing pattern of just not following the law because he just doesn't want to. We're learning about this now because it was a grand jury, and those records are typically sealed.

Why are these fines capped? Why not just keep upping the ante over and over until we're seeing millions of dollars looming over someone's head if they don't pay? It seems like every time some rich asshole's business or organization or whatever is breaking the law, all they get is a financial slap on the wrist, whereas normal people would have their livelihoods utterly crushed most of the time...

[Breccia]

Why are these fines capped?

Because the law was made with citizens in mind, not skyscrapers.

EDIT: Seriously some NYState laws are very very citizen-friendly. There are payday loan ads on cable TV that say "we can't do business in NYState because it's illegal to charge that much interest". This is an undesired side-effect and, who knows, if it gets enough publicity could be rewritten.

- - - Updated - - -

Here's a nice can of worms to unravel

I saw the subpoena's, and the overall idea is "show me all contact between non-government Trump campaign and state governments". We know the fake electors plot is part of the overall package, but if Raffensperger says "yes, I felt this was extortion" it's possible other state governments, which as I posted recently are less and less fans of Trump anyhow, might say the same.

That said, I posted about broad strokes and this thread is about details. So it's really good stuff.

Also:



Eastman looks like what happens if Rick goes back to the carpet store.

[The Stormbringer]

Because the law was made with citizens in mind, not skyscrapers.

EDIT: Seriously some NYState laws are very very citizen-friendly. There are payday loan ads on cable TV that say "we can't do business in NYState because it's illegal to charge that much interest". This is an undesired side-effect and, who knows, if it gets enough publicity could be rewritten.

- - - Updated - - -



I saw the subpoena's, and the overall idea is "show me all contact between non-government Trump campaign and state governments". We know the fake electors plot is part of the overall package, but if Raffensperger says "yes, I felt this was extortion" it's possible other state governments, which as I posted recently are less and less fans of Trump anyhow, might say the same.

That said, I posted about broad strokes and this thread is about details. So it's really good stuff.

There should be a difference between normal people and corporations/organizations. Alas.

[Breccia]

There should be a difference between normal people and corporations/organizations. Alas.

No argument in this context. It's not like a skyscraper can be thrown in jail. Like, can you imagine being the bunkmate of 500,000 tons of concrete and rebar?

[Cthulhu 2020]

One of Bruce Babin’s many messages; “Mark, when we lose Trump, we lose our Republic! Fight like hell and find a way. We’re with you down here in Texas and refuse to live under a corrupt MARXIST dictatorship. Liberty !"

34 major public figures are being implicated as taking part in Jan 6 to keep Trump in power. Don't have to wonder at all why conservative media isn't even touching this.

[Endus]

There should be a difference between normal people and corporations/organizations. Alas.

Median income in NY is ~$35,000. $4,000 works out to about 11.5% of that. So let's make the cap proportional to income. Let's even be generous and drop it to an even 10%.

If you're a company with an income like $450m as the Trump Org was supposed to have taken in in 2020, that would make avoiding a subpoena a $45m fine.

That seems fair.

And yes, we'd run those calcs off gross revenue. Yes, this would annihilate most profit margins. Good.

[The Stormbringer]

Median income in NY is ~$35,000. $4,000 works out to about 11.5% of that. So let's make the cap proportional to income. Let's even be generous and drop it to an even 10%.

If you're a company with an income like $450m as the Trump Org was supposed to have taken in in 2020, that would make avoiding a subpoena a $45m fine.

That seems fair.

And yes, we'd run those calcs off gross revenue. Yes, this would annihilate most profit margins. Good.

Sounds GREAT to me! Maybe if those fines were actually painful, these fuckers would stop breaking the law so damn often.

[Breccia]

Trump sues Pulitzer board for--

"No no no, we already did that."

Well, not quite.

Looks like this one got by me: Trump threatens to sue Pulitzer board for defamation.

"What? The Pulitzer board published something about Trump?"

See, that's the thing. No, they didn't. So Trump is just throwing another tantrum. The case would be dismissed in seconds.

Also, FOX News wants this case to be dismissed. They're being sued by Dominion, and their defense is "we were just reporting what Trump said". (That's also a lie, but it's what they're going with) If the Pulitzer board is liable, then so is FOX News.

"Why is he threatening to sue at all?"

He claims that they awarded the prize to the totally debunked Russia Hoax, and therefore, they defamed him.

"But it wasn't debunked."

Correct. No charges were filed, but there was plenty of evidence and even some arrests. Trump, to prove defamation, would have to prove the statement was both false and knowingly false, and this he cannot do.

He's actually doing it now.

"Does have Trump have any evidence the Pulitzer board knew the story was false?"

No.

"Does Trump have any evidence the story is false?"

No. And the Pulitzer board has already spoken on the topic.

The Pulitzer Prize Board has an established, formal process by which complaints against winning entries are carefully reviewed. In the last three years, the Pulitzer Board has received inquiries, including from former President Donald Trump, about submissions from The New York Times and The Washington Post on Russian interference in the U.S. election and its connections to the Trump campaign--submissions that jointly won the 2018 National Reporting prize.

These inquiries prompted the Pulitzer Board to commission two independent reviews of the work submitted by those organizations to our National Reporting competition. Both reviews were conducted by individuals with no connection to the institutions whose work was under examination, nor any connection to each other. The separate reviews converged in their conclusions: that no passages or headlines, contentions or assertions in any of the winning submissions were discredited by facts that emerged subsequent to the conferral of the prizes

That quote is also cited from FOX News, +1 CNN point.

Now we only have one Trump supporter left, let's see if he can handle this. Hey @tehdang as a Trump supporter I have every reason to believe you would view this fast-moving topic favorably. Could you show us the items revealed in the Pultizer-winning articles that have been objectively disproven, as Trump's lawsuit suggests? I stand with the Pulitzer board, but perhaps you can find something which Trump says he has but seems to have forgotten to link evidence of.

[Poopymonster]

There should be a difference between normal people and corporations/organizations. Alas.

Corporations are people my pony.

[The Stormbringer]

Corporations are people my pony.

Wow! So they have birth certificates, social security numbers, they work a set number of hours and then go home, and so on? Amazing! /s

The whole "corporations are people" thing is and shall remain one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.

[Endus]

Wow! So they have birth certificates, social security numbers, they work a set number of hours and then go home, and so on? Amazing! /s

The whole "corporations are people" thing is and shall remain one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.

It doesn't even mean what people think. It means "corporations can legally act in their own name rather than having to directly list every single listed owner on every single contractual arrangement". So, "Google" could sue someone (or you could sue Google), rather than having to list the CEO or chief shareholders as the plaintiffs or defendants.

That's it. That's what "corporate personhood" means. It carries over into a few other rights as a proxy for its owners, like freedom of speech (can't rightly restrict a corporation's speech if you can't restrict the owners from the same speech, it's just semantic jiggery, so extending the right directly prevents stupid bullshit happening).

You can shoot a corporation in its metaphorical face and tear to pieces and run around in public wearing those pieces as a suit, though. Try doing that with an actual person and it's prison/looney bin time.