Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Breccia]

PolitiFact, likely still bitter about being overworked due to one fat orange fucktard, lays out the criminal referral details for Donald J. Trump, and his few remaining friends.

What the criminal referrals said

Reflecting on the hundreds of rioters who pleaded or were found guilty for their actions on Jan. 6, 2021, Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., said the select committee was compelled to move against the former president.

"Ours is not a system of justice, where foot soldiers go to jail, and the masterminds and ringleaders get a free pass," Raskin said.

For the first criminal offense, the committee invoked 18 USC 1512, which makes it unlawful to obstruct, influence or impede any official proceeding. According to federal guidelines, the offense carries a maximum sentence of 20 years.

The committee argued in an executive summary that Congress' Joint Session to certify the result of the 2020 presidential election should be considered an "official proceeding" under that section of the criminal code. It cited a number of federal court cases.

"Based on the evidence developed, Trump was attempting to prevent or delay the counting of lawful certified Electoral College votes from multiple States," a summary of the committee's report read. Trump was "personally involved in this effort."

The committee referenced both Trump's public pressure on Pence to curtail the certification of the election, and a plan to create and submit fraudulent electoral slates.

The second criminal offense against Trump, Eastman and others is centered on 18 USC 371, or a conspiracy to commit offense or defraud the U.S. government. The maximum prison sentence recommended by federal guidelines is five years.

According to the executive summary, the select committee found evidence that Trump and Eastman entered into a "formal or informal agreement" to participate in a multipart plan to "obstruct a lawful certification of the election."

The committee also noted that Jeffrey Clark, a former Justice Department lawyer, stood out as a participant in the conspiracy, adding that evidence suggests he entered into an agreement with Trump to send a letter to state officials about appointing new electors if appointed acting attorney general.

"There were numerous overt acts in furtherance of the agreement, including each of the parts of the President's effort to overturn the election," the committee wrote. "These included, but certainly were not limited to, direct pleas to the Vice President to reject electors or delay certification, including in Oval Office meetings."

Third, the select committee said Trump violated 18 USC 1001 by conspiring to submit "slates of fake electors to Congress and the National Archives." The charge carries a maximum sentence of five years.

The Justice Department outlines three requirements for a false statement to fall under that section of the criminal code: the act or statement must be material; done within the "jurisdiction of ​​a department or agency" of the U.S.; and done "knowingly and willingly."

"There should be no question that Section 1001 applies here," the committee wrote in an executive summary. "The false electoral slates were provided both to the Executive Branch (the National Archives) and the Legislative Branch."

The committee conceded that some signatories of the fake slates had believed such certificates would only be used if Trump was successful in his lawsuits challenging election results — but it did not extend such concessions to the former president.

The fourth and final statute, the committee claimed, Trump violated is 18 USC 2383, which applies to anyone who "incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the U.S." The charge carries a maximum sentence of 10 years, according to federal guidelines.

Trump's repeated calls to march to the Capitol and tweet referencing Pence are cited by the committee as evidence of the former president's incitement of the violent mob. It also referenced his initial refusal to condemn the violence.

The committee described Trump's actions as throwing "gasoline on the fire." The committee also noted that Trump openly professed his "love" for the rioters and has since said he would pardon those involved in the attack.

"These are not the only statutes that are potentially relevant to Trump's conduct related to the 2020 election, depending on evidence developed by the Department of Justice, the president's actions could certainly trigger other criminal violations," Raskin said at the Dec. 19 hearing.

I quote these not just because concise summaries are helpful in general, but because I had the obstruction charge completely wrong. Trump isn't being accused of obstruction for trying to block the Jan 6th investigation, although to be fair, I still see that as a potential result due to his public words and actions. He's accused of obstruction for trying to block the Jan 6th certification.

That's not a loophole. As 18 US 1512 says:

(2)Whoever uses physical force or the threat of physical force against any person, or attempts to do so, with intent to—
(A)influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding;
(B)cause or induce any person to—
(i)withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document, or other object, from an official proceeding;
(ii)alter, destroy, mutilate, or conceal an object with intent to impair the integrity or availability of the object for use in an official proceeding;
(iii)evade legal process summoning that person to appear as a witness, or to produce a record, document, or other object, in an official proceeding; or
(iv)be absent from an official proceeding to which that person has been summoned by legal process; or
(C)hinder, delay, or prevent the communication to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States of information relating to the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense or a violation of conditions of probation, supervised release, parole, or release pending judicial proceedings;
shall be punished as provided in paragraph (3).

Yeah, I (at least) am used to seeing that with regard to the criminal trial situation, but this makes sense. If a mayor is going to town to sign a new parking law and I kidnap him with the intent of blocking that law, in addition to everything else, that's obstruction. I was just so used to obstruction "of justice" that I forgot there were other options.

So if it's proven that Trump willfully used his authority with the intention of unjustly¹ blocking a legit proceeding, either as the WH resident or leader of a mob, that's obstruction. His refusal to comply with investigations since is important, but not what the panel announced.

---

¹There is a subclause for "I thought I was telling someone to testify in court honestly" which is an affirmative defense. It does not apply here.

[bladeXcrasher]

Equally relevant to the midterm thread given how tehdang keeps saying these fringe ideas aren't mainstream Republican, but this piece on the 5th circuit court really begs to differ. Shows how every Republican president since Regan helped turn it from the court to push through civil rights to what it is today.

[Cthulhu 2020]

"Ours is not a system of justice, where foot soldiers go to jail, and the masterminds and ringleaders get a free pass," Raskin said.

It's wishful thinking, but I hope not just the middle men and the foot soldiers go to jail, but the generals, lietenants, sergeants, and everyone in between as well. Everyone who was in contact with Trump to organize this needs prison time. But that would mean imprisoning multiple members of congress and senate, and I don't know if the department of justice has the teeth to do such a thing.

When people operate continuously without ever receiving justice, they lose the fear of repercussion for committing crimes. If they get away with it, they'll just be more emboldened to try again since they know there won't be consequences.

- - - Updated - - -

Surprising nobody, Trump did not donate/forego his presidential salary, and also wrote off his payments to stormy daniels on his tax returns.

[gondrin]

So, Trump is projecting what he would do in the event the RNC doesn't promote him.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...34abd6e0497118

Trump promotes article encouraging him to run as third-party candidate if GOP doesn't nominate him

Former President Donald Trump on Wednesday promoted an editorial suggesting that he run as a third-party candidate if the Republican Party does not make him its 2024 presidential nominee.

On his Truth Social website, Trump posted a link to an editorial from MAGA publication American Greatness in which author Dan Gelernter compared Trump to the late President Teddy Roosevelt, whose unsuccessful third-party bid in 1912 handed the White House to Democrat Woodrow Wilson.

Gelernter concedes that Trump running as a third-party candidate in 2024 would likely also hand Democrats the White House, but he suggests it would be worth it to teach the Republican Party a lesson about defying its base.

"I have no intention of supporting a Republican Party that manifestly contravenes the desires of its voters," he writes. "The RNC can pretend Trump isn’t loved by the base anymore, that he doesn’t have packed rallies everywhere he goes. But I’m not buying it: Talk to Republican voters anywhere outside the Beltway, and it is obvious that he is admired and even loved by those who consider themselves 'ordinary' Americans."

To further emphasize this point, Gelernter states later in the editorial that "if the Republican Party thinks it’s not big enough for Trump, it’s not going to be big enough for me either."

Although Trump was once the overwhelming favorite to be the GOP's 2024 nominee, recent polls have shown him losing to Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, which has caused him to lash out and accuse the polls of being "fake."

[Corvus]

That would be glorious to see.

[Cthulhu 2020]

It would be glorious to see. Sadly this is Trump blackmailing the Republican party. They KNOW they would not win the election if Trump ran third ticket, so he's strong arming them into supporting him.

[Fugus]

It would be glorious to see. Sadly this is Trump blackmailing the Republican party. They KNOW they would not win the election if Trump ran third ticket, so he's strong arming them into supporting him.

If anything, it would be leading them into making as many backroom deals as possible to ensure he is arrested or at the very least barred from running for office again. They would just have to figure out how to do it without being called out for doing it with proof.

[Breccia]

It would be glorious to see. Sadly this is Trump blackmailing the Republican party. They KNOW they would not win the election if Trump ran third ticket, so he's strong arming them into supporting him.

Some members of Trump's inner circle think that his forthcoming indictment will only help.

"I think it's a really interesting question, you have to see how the cards play out," the Guardian's Hugo Lowell began before adding that there is a divide among the former president's closest remaining aides.

"If you talk to Trump advisers and the Trump legal team, they are kind of split two ways. There is one camp who look at this and say, 'Well, if Trump is indicted, that would be bad for him personally but amazing for the campaign' if he is indicted."

"The Trump campaign thinks that they would steamroller the opposition in the Republican primary and he will be the nominee and that donations would come flying in," he elaborated. "That would basically allow Trump to go on the campaign trail, campaign rallies and say, as a declared presidential candidate, they are coming after me."

"You also get people who are like, look, if he gets indicted and this is a massive opening for Ron DeSantis," he continued. "It is one thing to say Trump is under investigation, it is another to say my opponent in the presidential race has been indicted as [part of a criminal investigation."

I don't think "glorious" is strong enough.

[Gorsameth]

Some members of Trump's inner circle think that his forthcoming indictment will only help.



I don't think "glorious" is strong enough.

It makes sense tho, when you build up a narrative that the 'deep state' is out to get you, and then the 'deep state' comes out to get you that is going to make you look like you were right and its going to galvanise your supporters.

Its a good thing for the 'forever Trump' supporters, but likely a bad thing for everyone else. The question, as so often, is what % of the Republican base that will vote in the primaries is a Trump supporter vs a Republican.

[Endus]

It makes sense tho, when you build up a narrative that the 'deep state' is out to get you, and then the 'deep state' comes out to get you that is going to make you look like you were right and its going to galvanise your supporters.

Its a good thing for the 'forever Trump' supporters, but likely a bad thing for everyone else. The question, as so often, is what % of the Republican base that will vote in the primaries is a Trump supporter vs a Republican.

Yeah, no. The only people who give a shit about the "narrative" are the mouthbreathing choads who blindly support Trump. Feeding their delusions won't change their opinions in any way; they're already all-in and that's never gonna change. They're already maximally galvanized.

You prosecute the fucker anyway so you can get him into a jumpsuit that matches his skin tone, and his followers can go pound sand, because nobody gives a single shit about what they're gonna be whining about. They don't deserve any consideration.

[Gorsameth]

Yeah, no. The only people who give a shit about the "narrative" are the mouthbreathing choads who blindly support Trump. Feeding their delusions won't change their opinions in any way; they're already all-in and that's never gonna change. They're already maximally galvanized.

You prosecute the fucker anyway so you can get him into a jumpsuit that matches his skin tone, and his followers can go pound sand, because nobody gives a single shit about what they're gonna be whining about. They don't deserve any consideration.

No where do I say not to prosecute him. Just that it will feed his supporters.

And while they are already full on Trump that doesn't do much if they don't go out to vote. Trumps prosecution can be that drive to send them all to the polls, assuming they don't stay home 'because its rigged anyway'.

[s_bushido]

No where do I say not to prosecute him. Just that it will feed his supporters.

And while they are already full on Trump that doesn't do much if they don't go out to vote. Trumps prosecution can be that drive to send them all to the polls, assuming they don't stay home 'because its rigged anyway'.

Problem is, I seriously doubt the percentage of die-hard MAGAts alone is enough to secure him a victory. Galvanizing those people won't matter if Trump is forced to run 3rd party. And while I'm sure plenty of the MAGAts will sit at home and pout if their God-Emperor isn't on the ticket, the GOP is probably banking on plenty of them sucking it up and voting for DeSantis anyway, since he'd be the only bulwark against the Evil Woke Atheist Socialist Communist Baby-killing Demoncrats at that point.

[The Stormbringer]

Garland needs to indict, this is beyond ridiculous. Every time some "we can't be seen as political" bullshit reasoning pops up and things are delayed, guess what? Opposition will just come up with another after that! Over and over and over, and Trump will either wind up in power or people sympathetic to him will. Stop worrying about appearing political and actually carry out some fucking Justice in this country.

[Kaleredar]

Garland needs to indict, this is beyond ridiculous. Every time some "we can't be seen as political" bullshit reasoning pops up and things are delayed, guess what? Opposition will just come up with another after that! Over and over and over, and Trump will either wind up in power or people sympathetic to him will. Stop worrying about appearing political and actually carry out some fucking Justice in this country.

So long as his eventual goal is to indeed indict i don’t so much have an issue with him ensuring that every single possible i is dotted and t is crossed. They need to go into this thing with it already being a slam-dunk case. And you can’t just say “well it’s clear here broke the law!”

Despite some people’s consternation that it “should be” easy to indict a former sitting president, it simply is not in the world we actually live in. Rushing in just for it to be tossed out or, even worse, finding that trump wasn’t in the wrong at all, would be a thousand times worse than it “being a slow and boring process.”

[The Stormbringer]

So long as his eventual goal is to indeed indict i don’t so much have an issue with him ensuring that every single possible i is dotted and t is crossed. They need to go into this thing with it already being a slam-dunk case. And you can’t just say “well it’s clear here broke the law!”

Despite some people’s consternation that it “should be” easy to indict a former sitting president, it simply is not in the world we actually live in. Rushing in just for it to be tossed out or, even worse, finding that trump wasn’t in the wrong at all, would be a thousand times worse than it “being a slow and boring process.”

"Slow and boring" isn't my concern here. As I said, my concern is that things will take so fucking long with the current method that Trump will WIND UP IN POWER again and pardon himself, or one of his buddies, or at least someone who "wants to uphold the honor of the Presidency", will do so. Then he'll never come to justice. I would rather there be some risk of it falling apart than completely miss any chance of it happening at all.

[Templar 331]

"Slow and boring" isn't my concern here. As I said, my concern is that things will take so fucking long with the current method that Trump will WIND UP IN POWER again and pardon himself, or one of his buddies, or at least someone who "wants to uphold the honor of the Presidency", will do so. Then he'll never come to justice. I would rather there be some risk of it falling apart than completely miss any chance of it happening at all.

Or worst, he dies before seeing prison. I think this is worst than some crony pardoning Trump. He would be off the hook for his shit where as anyone taking the political bullet for him would still suffer for it. (See Gerald Ford)

[Endus]

Garland needs to indict, this is beyond ridiculous. Every time some "we can't be seen as political" bullshit reasoning pops up and things are delayed, guess what? Opposition will just come up with another after that! Over and over and over, and Trump will either wind up in power or people sympathetic to him will. Stop worrying about appearing political and actually carry out some fucking Justice in this country.

I'd go a pretty big fuckin' step further; hesitating to prosecute because of political position is the literal expression of deep systemic corruption. That hesitation is political bias and corruption at play. The only way to avoid such things would be to treat them the exact same way you would Joe Plumber who was waving a gun around at the Capitol on Jan 6. You go any easier, the reason is literally that you and your justice system are deeply and openly corrupt.

This is how shit gets done in Russia. Not the country to model yourselves after.

- - - Updated - - -

So long as his eventual goal is to indeed indict i don’t so much have an issue with him ensuring that every single possible i is dotted and t is crossed. They need to go into this thing with it already being a slam-dunk case. And you can’t just say “well it’s clear here broke the law!”

Despite some people’s consternation that it “should be” easy to indict a former sitting president, it simply is not in the world we actually live in. Rushing in just for it to be tossed out or, even worse, finding that trump wasn’t in the wrong at all, would be a thousand times worse than it “being a slow and boring process.”

He's essentially admitted to some crimes, openly. Start with those. You can prosecute additional charges when he's already in prison. If he were anyone else, he'd have been charged. He's not being charged because US Justice is corrupt as fuck.

[Kaleredar]

I'd go a pretty big fuckin' step further; hesitating to prosecute because of political position is the literal expression of deep systemic corruption. That hesitation is political bias and corruption at play. The only way to avoid such things would be to treat them the exact same way you would Joe Plumber who was waving a gun around at the Capitol on Jan 6. You go any easier, the reason is literally that you and your justice system are deeply and openly corrupt.

This is how shit gets done in Russia. Not the country to model yourselves after.

- - - Updated - - -


He's essentially admitted to some crimes, openly. Start with those. You can prosecute additional charges when he's already in prison. If he were anyone else, he'd have been charged. He's not being charged because US Justice is corrupt as fuck.

The likely standing issue is that they’re afraid that “well you see your honor, Trump’s statements can be interpreted as meaning that he’s suggesting that people do this illegal thing” is not concrete enough evidence. They want testimony and phone and paper trails that name trump directly.

[Gorsameth]

The likely standing issue is that they’re afraid that “well you see your honor, Trump’s statements can be interpreted as meaning that he’s suggesting that people do this illegal thing” is not concrete enough evidence. They want testimony and phone and paper trails that name trump directly.

Trump had classified documents he was not allowed to possess at his residence. And some were found with his personal possession such as his passport. Thereby making it impossible to claim they belong to someone else and he had no knowledge of them. That is before we have the numerous times where he states he was allowed to have them and where he refused to claim under oath that they were not his.

I don't think you can get a case much more slam dunk then this.
Any ordinary citizen would have been sentences ages ago.

[SoulForge]

Trump had classified documents he was not allowed to possess at his residence. And some were found with his personal possession such as his passport. Thereby making it impossible to claim they belong to someone else and he had no knowledge of them. That is before we have the numerous times where he states he was allowed to have them and where he refused to claim under oath that they were not his.

I don't think you can get a case much more slam dunk then this.
Any ordinary citizen would have been sentences ages ago.

Anyone caught with those documents would have been in jail the day of recovering them as well.