Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[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.

[Edge-]

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.

They were still alive?

[Breccia]

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

Before anyone says anything, yes this is a Trump-related topic, he broke the news of the death almost as soon as they did.

NPR demonstrates how Trump handled it:

On Monday, Trump called Diamond's death "really bad news for Republicans and frankly, ALL Americans" in a post on Truth Social. He said she died at home in North Carolina with Silk by her side.

"There was no better TEAM anywhere, or at any time!" he wrote, adding that "our Magnificent Diamond ... will be greatly missed."

Trump also called her death "totally unexpected" but offered up a theory of his own: "probably her big and precious HEART just plain gave out."

Ret. Gen. Michael Flynn, Trump's former national security advisor, described the duo as "wonderful, beautiful women" and said Diamond will be missed.

And Roger Stone, a controversial Republican operative and Trump ally, shared several tweets mourning Diamond's death and celebrating her life. Among them was a video clip of them cracking up together during a show, which he called "Diamond and Silk's greatest moments."

Now, here's where it gets dicey.

MyPillow CEO and longtime Trump supporter Mike Lindell, who hosts the video series, confirmed to The Daily Beast after Hardaway's death that she had been sick, without specifying an illness.

Lindell is possibly even less trustworthy than Trump, but on the one-in-a-million chance he's telling the truth and she was sick...yeah, I'd bet on COVID.

Also, there's a website fundraiser for a memorial, and I'm just going to say it'll end up being just taken and kept.

[jonnysensible]

she defo had covid her sister (cant remember which one is which) said 'pray for x she has covid' a while back.

can you keep the grift alive with just one of them, bit like the chuckle brothers, ant and dec or dick and dom, can they really work without the other?