Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Breccia]

So we sh--

It wasn’t my fault that the Republicans didn’t live up to expectations in the MidTerms. I was 233-20!

It was the ‘abortion issue,’ poorly handled by many Republicans, especially those that firmly insisted on No Exceptions, even in the case of Rape, Incest, or Life of the Mother, that lost large numbers of Voters.

Hmm. So we sh--

HAPPY NEW YEAR to all of the Radical Left Democrats, Marxist Lunatics, China loving Coco Chow and her Obedient Husband, Mitch, and Clueless RINOS, who are working so hard to DESTROY our once great Country. More importantly, HAPPY NEW YEAR to the Incredible, Brave, and Strong American Patriots who Built, Love, and Cherish America. The REAL leaders of our Country will always remain FAITHFUL and LOYAL to you. The USA will be back, Bigger & Better & Stronger than ever before. GOD BLESS YOU ALL!

Interesting. So we sh--

This is the year that Nancy Pelosi became the first woman to lose the House of Representatives twice in a lifetime, and lose two highly partisan and ill conceived Impeachment Hoax's to a President who created the best Economy, with no Inflation, Energy Independence, and the safest Southern Border in the history of our Country. Pelosi also failed to follow my recommendation to have 10,000 to 20,000 soldiers available to protect D.C. from the Election Fraud Protest of January 6th.

Okay! Jeez! I guess, since not even tehdang will show up to defend his chosen leader anymore, it falls to us to discuss Trump's New Year's party.

I'm not going to even watch.

Turns out, you're not alone. Nobody else watched, either.

Despite being surrounded by hundreds of guests, the only people of relative note at the annual gala were Trump’s legal advisor Rudy Giuliani, My Pillow CEO Mike Lindell, and Trump’s second-oldest son, Eric. Two of Trump's other children, Ivanka and Donald Jr.—once staples of his circle—were nowhere to be seen. Despite a tepid response to his presidential campaign announcement, Trump was filled with typically vague remarks about his 2024 run, repeating old ramblings about “strong borders” and “fantastic” poll numbers to the crowd over a champagne toast.

That's right -- Trump threw a party so Trumpian, even his own family bailed. How sad it is when the only family that was there was his hostage wife and Eric?

"Well at least a lot of people got to see it on the news."

Um...no.

Nobody else watched, either.

New Year’s Eve, Trump hosted a “media availability” slot, inviting all of the notable cable news networks to cover his speech. However, none of the major cable news networks turned up. Most notable among the absent networks were Fox News and Newsmax, who have historically been sympathetic to the former President and his message.

MSNBC host Alex Witt was the one who announced that Trump would be hosting a surprise “media availability” slot on New Year’s Eve around 9:00 p.m.

Trump and his wife, Melania went in front of reporters at 9:00 p.m.; however, for the first few minutes of the speech, the audio was barely audible. According to the news outlets that were present, Trump spoke mostly about the FBI, the war in Ukraine, and his 2024 presidential run.

A journalist from the New York Times, Peter Baker, said that while he didn’t know what the speech would entail, he had a feeling it would be a “gimmick” to try to “get attention in a positive way.”

If this sounds vaguely familiar, it should. I remind everyone of the time Trump held a "media availability" involving his birther views and his hotel. This is just one of the many articles from the time, namely, Sept 2016.

Finally, after more than 20 minutes, CNN, Fox News and MSNBC cut away from the Trump event.

CNN's Jake Tapper had this take on air: "It's hard to imagine this is anything other than a political rick roll."

He added: "It was very clever on one level. On another level, it does speak to the integrity of the Trump campaign."

Eventually, after a series of speakers, the candidate returned to the microphone to address the matter at hand. After blaming Hillary Clinton and her 2008 campaign for first giving rise to the birther conspiracy theory — multiple news organizations have found no evidence to support this argument — and following his claim that he "finished it," Trump said: "Barack Obama was born in the United States, period."

Later, after the Trump campaign made clear it would only allow photographers to film the candidate as he toured his hotel following the birther statement — a producer was prevented from accompanying — Politico reported that the candidate's broadcast press pool opted to erase the footage in protest and withdraw the camera.

"Does that count as a CNN source?"

Well, if so, it also counts as FOX News so it evens out.

Anyhow, Trump took the lack of coverage th--

Wow!!! So while Trump Hating CNN & MSNBC (MSDNC!) RATINGS are both at record lows, numbers that they have never seen before (“they’re toast”), Fox News Ratings are also way down because they never say ‘Trump’ or TRUTH, never talk about the Rigged Presidential Election, and is a Fake Polling Network. Our giant MAGA base, much bigger than anyone knows, does not like watching Fox play their games. Their Ratings will continue to sink. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!

"Well, at least Trump got his message out."

To the Chinese bots on his Twitter knockoff, at least. I mean, not even tehdang will comment -- go ahead and ask him, he's too, erm, "concerned" to respond to me. We can always play "Count the Objective Lies" which is like Where's Waldo except in reverse.

But not everyone got their message out.

Trump's New Year's Eve celebration at Mar-a-Lago featured Trump complaining about Southwest cancelling its flights, a media conference that no major news stations — including Fox or NewsMax — covered, and a video of Rudy Giuliani ringing in the New Year — though no one can hear him.

In a video posted to Twitter with the caption "Mar-a-Lago 2023 New Year headed right to 2024!" Giuliani can be heard saying "Here we are at Mar-a-Lago..." before a live band starts performing a cover of "Footloose" by Kenny Loggins so loudly that nothing that Giuliani says is remotely audible.

Giuliani did not appear to notice and posted the video as people danced around him and photobombed the camera.

I think I have the video for that...



Wait, fuck, that's something else. Multiple sites have covered the story but apparently Giuliani took it down.

So this is what the head of the Republican Party has become. Someone who threw a big lavish celebration, nobody came, and was left the second least successful person SCREAMING INTO THEIR OWN PHONE.

Sad. Pathetic. Deplorable.

Happy New Year, everyone else.

[RampageBW1]

https://news.yahoo.com/gen-mark-mill...160159534.html

General Mark Milley said there were talks about court martialing retired Military Officers whom posted critical Op-Eds of (then) President Donald Trump.

How were they gonna prosecute these retired officers? By recalling them to active duty of course!

[Breccia]

Hey guys, we can stop worrying -- I found Donald Trump Jr, he's not lost.

He is, however, selling bibles online.

So I'm not going to link the site, because duh, but I will link the article.

The eldest son of Donald Trump was accused of “peak grift” over a video promoting a “We The People” Bible. The Trump scion said the book defended America’s “Judeo-Christian” values, which he claimed are under attack.

Twitter account PatriotTakes shared the clip of Trump Jr. online last week.

Now that I will link.

"How did you find it?"

I didn't. Kinzinger did.

Oh the irony.

The fact that some Christians dont see the problem here is more affirmation that it’s not the GOP that has failed Christians, it’s the church.

Good Pastors and Priests rise up and call this out.

So while of course Trump has broken every Commandment there is (yes, he killed people, yes, even before he got elected) Trump's not selling these so I guess I don't need to harass our last remaining Trump sup...has anyone seen tehdang recently?

(checks site)

Huh. Nothing since Chrismas Eve Eve. Or, to use the name his people call it, "Covfefe". Anyhow, I don't feel the need to draw his attention to the son of the leader he chose to follow and still does doing something beyond sketchy.

*ahem*

Until he mentions Hunter Biden even a single time. Then the fact that he ignores Don Jr. becomes an immediate riposte and his comments can be safely handwaved. So, bookmark this post, y'all. If there is no reason for Trump supporters to take Don Jr. seriously, there is no reason for them to take Hunter Biden seriously, either.

What else is going on with Team Trump? Having a good holiday?

"All of us that didn't have jobs lined up will be perpetually unemployed."
-- Hope Hicks

Neat.



Sorry but...you all knew what you were doing. You knew who you signed up with. Maybe you didn't see this exact issue coming up, but how many people did Trump disown and destroy? How many people didn't he pay, before you signed up with him? Also, where was that time Hope Hicks on/around Jan 6th got in front of the cameras and said "this is wrong, I resign in protest"?

"Didn't she resign shortly thereafter?"

Yes. And did she say why in public?

"Uh..."

Exactly. And she told people it wasn't because of the riots, so it's not just her silence that speaks volumes.

And she knew she should have.

Hicks reiterated she thought they were all "unemployable" and "untouchable" and said Alyssa Farah Griffin was right to get out of the administration early. Farah Griffin, who served as the White House director of strategic communications, resigned in early December 2020, as Trump was pushing the lie that he won the election.

During the Capitol riot, Farah Griffin tweeted at Trump, pleading with him to condemn the attack. The day after, Farah Griffin told Politico she had stepped down because she "saw where this was heading."

"Not being dramatic, but we are all fucked. Alyssa looks like a genius," Hicks wrote in a text on January 6.

And yet, did not resign in protest. She can't even use "I don't want to be disowned by Trump" as an excuse when Trump was the one killing her job anyhow. Hicks has testified to the Jan 6th panel, but that's not enough. Far too little, far too late.

By contrast, there are Republicans who did not embrace Trump, even as they knew it was killing them. Here is an interview with one of them.

[DarkTZeratul]

How were they gonna prosecute these retired officers? By recalling them to active duty of course!

That is a thing that has been done before. Just usually for actual crimes, and not just exercising their First Amendment rights as private citizens.

[Breccia]

General Mark Milley said there were talks about court martialing retired Military Officers whom posted critical Op-Eds of (then) President Donald Trump.

I believe, far earlier, on these forums, we mentioned something about troops not being allowed to bad-mouth their commander in public.

But that was active-duty. Despite what Trump seems to think Free Speech is, using government powers to penalize private citizens for their opinion does not seem to fit anything we discussed. Perhaps one of our American military posters can chime in?

[RampageBW1]

That is a thing that has been done before. Just usually for actual crimes

And probably for crimes they've committed while active service but didn't get caught (or enough evidence) until after retirement.

[DarkTZeratul]

And probably for crimes they've committed while active service but didn't get caught (or enough evidence) until after retirement.

Not necessarily. I recall there was talk about doing that several months ago for... I think it was some of the January 6th Insurrectionists who were retired military. It's unusual, but it DOES happen. Again, though, typically only when an actual serious crime has been committed that would warrant the military taking such an unusual step. Never for simply badmouthing the president.

[Breccia]

So obviously this could go in either thread, but I'm picking this one, I'll explain shortly.

Exhibit A:

Trump mum on whether he still supports McCarthy for speaker

Trump, who had endorsed Rep. Kevin McCarthy’s bid for House speaker, declined to say Tuesday whether he still supports his longtime ally after McCarthy, R-Calif., failed to clinch the job in three consecutive votes.

“We’ll see what happens,” Trump said when asked directly whether he was sticking with McCarthy, the GOP leader, in a brief phone conversation.

“I got everybody calling me wanting my support. But let’s see what happens and we’ll go — I got everybody calling, wanting my support,” he said. “That’s all I can say. But we’ll see what happens. We’ll see how it all works out.”

That article was posted about 6 hours ago.

Exhibit B:

McCarthy’s bid for speaker to continue, says Trump backs him

McCarthy appeared undeterred by the gravity of the moment. Instead, he vowed to fight to the finish, encouraged, he said, by Trump to end the disarray and pull the Republican Party together.

McCarthy said Trump wants him to stay in the race and told him to bring an end to the House Republican chaos and pull the party together.

Trump “wants to see the Republicans united to be able to accomplish the exact things we said we’d do,” McCarthy said.

That's within the hour.

Now obviously, these can't both be true at the same time. Either Trump pledged his support to McCarthy or he didn't. If he did, the first story is false. If he didn't, the second story is false. Either Trump is lying in that first interview, McCarthy is lying in that second one, Trump lied to McCarthy about his support over the phone, or Trump changed his mind but only told McCarthy he did.

If, for whatever reason, Trump is in fact supporting McCarthy, his interview is a horrible way of doing that. He could be pushing a campaign quietly, but not only would that be so far out of character that it suggests a psychotic episode, but I don't see how it'd work right now, either. Why say earlier you support McCarthy, continue to support him privately, but stop admitting it out loud? So I'll count that option, insane as it is, lumped in with "Trump is lying in the first interview".

And, well, you know where my vote lies when it comes to a "who is less honest?" debate.

I'd like everyone to take a shot at this one.

Now, I've said waaaaaaaaaaaay earlier that Trump uses "we'll see" as a kind of camouflage, trying to make it look like something other than Trump is responsible for Trump's decision.

There it is again. "We'll see." That passive attempt to deflect from the fact that it's his job and his decision, my implying he, too, was going to have to wait and accept whatever happens.

Others disagree:

Yeah I don't think Trump's "We'll see" is a non-endorsement.

I think his "we'll see" is almost universally "I've been too busy watching Fox News and tweeting to give it any amount of thought".

So opinions differ. What do you think? Who's either lying or just being careless with their words?

[Edge-]

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/05/u...epartment.html

A federal judge has ordered lawyers for former President Donald J. Trump to give the government the names of the private investigators who searched Mr. Trump’s properties late last year for any remaining classified documents, part of what appeared to be a step by the Justice Department toward questioning the investigators about their efforts, two people familiar with the matter said.

The order, issued on Wednesday by Beryl A. Howell, the chief judge of the Federal District Court in Washington, was the latest twist in a monthslong dispute between prosecutors and Mr. Trump’s lawyers about how forthcoming the former president has been in returning classified material that he removed from the White House after he left office.Hundreds of classified documents were later recovered by the government from Mar-a-Lago, Mr. Trump’s private club and residence in Florida.

The fact that the Justice Department sought a formal order for the investigators’ names suggests an increasing breakdown in trust between prosecutors investigating the documents case and Mr. Trump’s legal team. And the request comes as a special counsel has taken over the inquiry into whether Mr. Trump willfully retained sensitive records or obstructed the government’s efforts to retrieve them.

Remember how Trump said he hired a few PI's to look for more classified documents he stole?

Well the Justice Department has an interest in finding out who these people are. Lots of questions for them, including "what did you find?" and "do you happen to have a security clearance?". Well they had to go to court to get the names, and now the court has ordered Trump give the DoJ the names. Publicly.

It's almost like the DoJ can't trust a single thing Trump says or does or something.

Oh yeah, and the judge still has yet to rule on a request from the DoJ to hold Trump's office in contempt given that they had previously certified that they had returned all classified materials multiple times but discovered that they actually hadn't and all that.

[Gorsameth]

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/05/u...epartment.html



Remember how Trump said he hired a few PI's to look for more classified documents he stole?

Well the Justice Department has an interest in finding out who these people are. Lots of questions for them, including "what did you find?" and "do you happen to have a security clearance?". Well they had to go to court to get the names, and now the court has ordered Trump give the DoJ the names. Publicly.

It's almost like the DoJ can't trust a single thing Trump says or does or something.

Oh yeah, and the judge still has yet to rule on a request from the DoJ to hold Trump's office in contempt given that they had previously certified that they had returned all classified materials multiple times but discovered that they actually hadn't and all that.

I fully expect the Trump lawyers to meekly whisper that no such PI's exist.

[Breccia]

Remember how Trump said he hired a few PI's to look for more classified documents he stole?

No.

(searches)

I still can't find where he announced such, but I did find this article saying his hired team found two more items. So, yes, they 100% need to be checked because random-ass people aren't allowed to have that shit.

[Poopymonster]

No.

(searches)

I still can't find where he announced such, but I did find this article saying his hired team found two more items. So, yes, they 100% need to be checked because random-ass people aren't allowed to have that shit.

I'm sure once they track down the invoices for the hired team, and get the firm they worked for, then we'll see just who handled the documents such as

(checks notes)

Padimir Vlutin and Tomald Drump Jr

[Breccia]

Lawsuits, lawsuits, lawsuits!

1) NY woman sues Rudy Giuliani for $3.1M claiming he demanded sexual favors, created ‘toxic’ work environment

2) A Manhattan judge is weighing new sanctions against Trump's lawyers — this time over 'frivolous litigation'
@cubby your expertise is called for. Or, you might just find it funny.

A Manhattan judge is threatening to sanction Donald Trump's lawyers for filing "frivolous litigation" in the New York attorney general's $250 million lawsuit against the former president and his New York-based business empire.

The threat against three Trump-defending law firms by New York State Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron was revealed in court filings Thursday night.

"This court is considering imposing sanctions for frivolous litigation against attorneys from Habba Madaio & Associates LLP; Continental PLLC; and Robert & Robert PLLC," the judge said in a January 4 email to all parties in the attorney general's lawsuit.

The unspecified penalties would punish the three firms for filing motions to dismiss the lawsuit that set forth "the same legal arguments that this court previously rejected," Engoron wrote. That rejection had come in November, in his denial of Trump's request for a preliminary injunction halting the attorney general's lawsuit.

The judge said Trump's repetitive arguments for dismissal include that New York Attorney General Letitia James does not have legal standing to sue, that her lawsuit is part of a political "witch-hunt," and that a simple disclaimer — essentially warning lenders to check Trump's math — gives the former president immunity from James' fraud claims.

3) Trump Is Sued in Death of Capitol Police Officer After Jan. 6

That one's not going anywhere. The other two named defendants both did plead to, erm, beating a man until he had a stroke and died. But the coroner said natural causes. Finding either of the two people beating him until he died liable for $10 million's a stretch. Trump being found liable for that seems effectively impossible.

The idea, of course, is Trump put them up to it. And he 100% did. But because the death was ruled natural causes, even along the lines of "naturally, if someone beats you over and over, you're going to die of something" Trump is separated enough from that, that it feels unlikely to succeed and might just be a stunt.

In her suit, Sandra Garza, who as Officer Sicknick’s longtime partner is a representative of his estate, painted Mr. Trump as culpable both broadly for the violence on Jan. 6 and specifically for Officer Sicknick’s death. The suit cited the conclusions of the House committee that investigated the Jan. 6 attack, saying that the panel “made a number of criminal referrals” against Mr. Trump “based on its finding of ‘sufficient evidence of one or more potential violations,’” including inciting an insurrection.

All these, in the last 24 hours.

By the way, it's a minor point and one of you might have even cited it, but Trump tried to trademark "Rigged Election" and we have objective proof.

[Edge-]

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politic...house-district

For the 500th time -

Federal judges ordered South Carolina lawmakers to draw new congressional maps, ruling Friday that the U.S. House district lines of a seat flipped by Democrats four years ago were intentionally redrawn to split Black neighborhoods to dilute their voting power.

The state used the maps in this past November’s midterm elections after the Republican-dominated state Legislature redrew the lines earlier this year following the 2020 U.S. Census.

Republicans are racists who draw racist district lines when allowed. No ifs, ands, or buts. They're racists. Period.

[Fugus]

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politic...house-district

For the 500th time -



Republicans are racists who draw racist district lines when allowed. No ifs, ands, or buts. They're racists. Period.

In any fair world that would require the districts be redrawn, all the members of where elected to those positions on those ballots be recalled on those elections reheld.

[Edge-]

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/c...sexual-contact

Oh hey, CPAC organizer Matt Schlapp seems like yet another sex pest.

Predictably Schlapp's attorney is accusing the Daily Beast of making this all up, but the Daily Beast reportedly has the text messages from the staffer to Schlapp expressing his discomfort with Schlapp's behavior, as well as the staffer reporting the incident to their supervisor who found another person to drive Schlapp to the airport the next day.

[cubby]

Lawsuits, lawsuits, lawsuits!

2) A Manhattan judge is weighing new sanctions against Trump's lawyers — this time over 'frivolous litigation'

A Manhattan judge is threatening to sanction Donald Trump's lawyers for filing "frivolous litigation" in the New York attorney general's $250 million lawsuit against the former president and his New York-based business empire.

The threat against three Trump-defending law firms by New York State Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron was revealed in court filings Thursday night.

"This court is considering imposing sanctions for frivolous litigation against attorneys from Habba Madaio & Associates LLP; Continental PLLC; and Robert & Robert PLLC," the judge said in a January 4 email to all parties in the attorney general's lawsuit.

The unspecified penalties would punish the three firms for filing motions to dismiss the lawsuit that set forth "the same legal arguments that this court previously rejected," Engoron wrote. That rejection had come in November, in his denial of Trump's request for a preliminary injunction halting the attorney general's lawsuit.

The judge said Trump's repetitive arguments for dismissal include that New York Attorney General Letitia James does not have legal standing to sue, that her lawsuit is part of a political "witch-hunt," and that a simple disclaimer — essentially warning lenders to check Trump's math — gives the former president immunity from James' fraud claims.

@cubby your expertise is called for. Or, you might just find it funny.

Oh, it's hysterical. All of these money grubbing asshats who thought they would be the ones to do [insert asinine objective here] are seeing their comeuppance now in court. These guys are going to get sanctioned, like so many other election denier enablers.

I saw also that Alex Jones' lawyer's license is being suspended.

[Breccia]

Newsweek cites two experts who both agree that Trump is likely facing indictment soon. We've already heard predictions of "spring" and these agree.

"Well, I would guess that one is going to come pretty soon. I mean, let's face it—that's an easy prosecution," former federal prosecutor Cynthia Alksne said. "You stole the documents. We're asking for them. We ask you 'pretty please.' You said 'no.' You lied about it. You move them, and then we found them."

Alksne said the case could likely be prosecuted "at any time," but the DOJ still has work to do to craft its strongest argument, including fully identifying obstruction allegedly committed by Trump's team.

"They also have to figure out, now that they have the documents, were they shared with anybody and what exactly happened with them," Alksne added. "And that may take some time."

Gene Rossi, also a former federal prosecutor, told Newsweek on Saturday that while he believes the Mar-a-Lago investigation is the most likely Trump probe to yield an indictment "relatively soon," he said he's not sure exactly when that would be.

"Although a mere mortal and average citizen would have been justly charged last summer, I do not believe that the alleged Mar-a-Lago charges will be revealed so quickly after Jack Smith arrived physically in the States. However, those charges will highly likely be presented this year to a grand jury," Rossi said.

He agreed that the Mar-a-Lago investigation has the potential to be an easy win for prosecutors, adding that Trump handled top secret documents "like a lottery ticket."

"I think it would be a prosecutor's dream to present that to a trial jury," he said. "I think the evidence is very strong about his willfulness, his recklessness and his deliberate ignorance."

Remember years and years ago when one of the discussion topics was "Trump will grow into the job"? And how everyone who said "he will, just you wait" have run away and hidden in their bunkers, crying into their single scoop of ice cream? Yeah, that defense won't play to a federal court. Trump cannot claim ignorance of the role he took for the correct alloted term of four years. Nor will "I fired everyone who was supposed to help" work. It's like that joke about the child charged with murdering both his parents pleading for mercy on the grounds that he's a fat orange loser. Or something.

That's hardly the only issue Trump is facing, as we're all fully aware. In the last week, two days maybe? I personally posted that Trump lost two bigly court cases, and the Georgia case is ongoing. I guess you could make it three, he lost his bump stock ban. So he's not just stopped, he's surrounded.

But the biggest clue that Trump is about to be indicted...is McCarthy.

The fact that McCarthy struggled even with a mostly endorsement from Trump, and I'll remind you Trump took credit for McCarthy's win so yes that counts, is proof that the GOP no longer wants or needs him, not even enough to pass a simple vote that's basically never failed since the Civil War.

Basically, Trump told the Republican Party the sky was blue and some of them looked up to see if he was lying.

Why yes, I did use that metaphor because one of the first lies he ever told in office was to the people at his tiny inauguration crowd, namely, he told them it wasn't raining on them when it was. Never forget, Trump lies about everything all the time.

But again, the takeaway here is Trump has no power here. He's a salesman pushing a garbage product, story of his life to be sure, but now he can't even sell his name to people who voted for him twice. Well...claim to have voted for him twice, if we're being careful.

With Trump's power as shrinking and withered as his dick, the concern or threat of a great Republican riot if objectively guilty criminal Trump is put on trial is clearly much weaker now than it's ever been. MTG was handing around a phone with Trump on it, and GOP Reps were ignoring them both. Are they really going to bat for such a lame-ass, limp-dick IMPOTUS? When, say, they have the option of President DeSantis?

Now I have seen some articles suggesting the House GOP will want some oversight of criminal actions and referrals, but they're the legislative branch, they really can't do that. At best, they could try to pass a law giving them some power over the DOJ. Such a law might not even get a majority vote, but would never survive the Senate, Biden would never sign it, and SCOTUS would slap it down instantly. Yes, even Trump's SCOTUS. Remember, the Jan 6th panel had a hard time getting people to show up for legal subpoena's. What's a House this divided going to do when trying to shut down an ongoing court case? And that's even if they really want to, which in enough cases, I don't think they do. Trump being ejected from 2024 is what a lot of them are hoping for.

If Garland or Jack Smith (that can't possibly be his real name) or whoever is worried about political backlash, McCarthy just proved there'd be little to none.

[Breccia]

The special GA grand jury has completed its work. By Jan 24th, a panel of...holy shit, twenty judges...will decide if the report should be made public, but, apparently this special grand jury says it should be public.

"So will there be charges?"

Apparently that's not what this was for?

Any criminal charges would have to be sought from one of the regular grand juries that consider criminal matters in the county.

Yeah, I thought these guys were the ones who'd ask for charges. But, that might be because I don't live in Athens. According to this local source:

Special grand juries in Georgia cannot issue indictments but instead can issue a final report recommending actions to be taken.

The end of the special grand jury moves the investigation one step closer to possible criminal charges against Trump and others. The decision whether to seek an indictment from a regular grand jury will be up to Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis.

So now I'm just flat-out confused.

In any event, we're within a couple weeks of finding out if 12 people from Georgia agree enough that Trump and/or his allies committed any crime by, say, trying to threaten GA govt officials into finding more votes for him, and creating a panel of false electors to defraud the state and the country.

If it's not clear from my tone, I think the layers upon layers of giving Trump an exit ramp will eventually let him go. If it's not this special grand jury, it'll be the next, or an overly cautious decision made to spit in Raffensberger's face and wipe it off with the Constitution. Hopefully, at least some of the people who attacked democracy under Trump's orders will be held accountable. Giuliani in jail for working for Trump would at least be both justice and gratifying.

"Sexually gratifying?"

Well, Graham's apparently a witness not a target, so no.

[Drutt]

Major Trump stan Diamond of the "Diamond and Silk" grifter duo has died.

Ultimate irony would be if it was Covid after all of their coronavirus misinformation.