Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Drutt]

Grand Jury flat out accusing witnesses of perjury is really bad news for the Trumpa Loompa.

[Orange Joe]

To clarify an earlier story, the Atlanta grand jury recommends perjury charges. Not "we have questions" it's full-on "he lied, arrest him."

"Him" is a guess, we don't know who or how many yet. Most of the report is sealed because it's an ongoing investigation. The fact we have anything at all is because the press sued to the GASCOTUS.

Sorry for the ot. But is gascotus a thing? Cause in mi we just call it the Michigan State Supreme Court no "of the US" cause it's only for Michigan

[Breccia]

Grand Jury flat out accusing witnesses of perjury is really bad news for the Trumpa Loompa.

Very, and they should be concerned not just because some of them are going to jail -- they are -- but because they don't know who and they don't know why yet. They're likely desperate to find out what lie one of them told on the stand that's a proven, objective falsehood so the rest of them can back away from it.

Like, if someone says "at least one person in the room will die" that's bad news. If they instead say "because you ate the Peanut Butter Half Baked which I poisoned" then they all just turn and watch me to see how quick-acting the poison is, because I would have hogged that shit all to myself.

The second the person/people are arrested, the rest will know which lie they happened to not say on the stand, and will get with their lawyers to make new defenses.

Oh, and this is all above and beyond the grand jury's original intent, by the way. These people weren't dragged to the stand just to see if they would lie. They were dragged to the stand because they were targets of a criminal investigation. Or, witnesses, I guess it's possible a witness lied, but again I don't think that's the smart money.

- - - Updated - - -

Sorry for the ot. But is gascotus a thing? Cause in mi we just call it the Michigan State Supreme Court no "of the US" cause it's only for Michigan

So...SCOGA?

[Orange Joe]

Very, and they should be concerned not just because some of them are going to jail -- they are -- but because they don't know who and they don't know why yet. They're likely desperate to find out what lie one of them told on the stand that's a proven, objective falsehood so the rest of them can back away from it.

Like, if someone says "at least one person in the room will die" that's bad news. If they instead say "because you ate the Peanut Butter Half Baked which I poisoned" then they all just turn and watch me to see how quick-acting the poison is, because I would have hogged that shit all to myself.

The second the person/people are arrested, the rest will know which lie they happened to not say on the stand, and will get with their lawyers to make new defenses.

Oh, and this is all above and beyond the grand jury's original intent, by the way. These people weren't dragged to the stand just to see if they would lie. They were dragged to the stand because they were targets of a criminal investigation. Or, witnesses, I guess it's possible a witness lied, but again I don't think that's the smart money.

- - - Updated - - -



So...SCOGA?

In my head that would be correct but have never seen it abbreviated at the state level for all I know gascotus could be right

[Breccia]

Wall Street Journal editorial board sees ‘no clear rationale’ for Haley candidacy

Before I quote the non-paywalled article, I will say I have seen a clear rationale.

She is campaigning for the VP spot

Maybe WSJ should hire PA?

“The question her opening video didn’t answer, but she will have to, is: Why her?” the Journal’s editorial board wrote on Thursday.

“Ms. Haley’s candidacy is welcome in that sense, and she brings clear strengths. She was a popular Governor, held a cabinet-level position in a foreign-policy role, and brings racial and gender diversity to the GOP field. She also has charisma and can light up a room of Republicans,” the board wrote.

The board then wrote that the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations under Trump has so far failed to identify what she brings to the table that others in the potential 2024 primary field do not.

She's a woman.

That's.

It.

“The bigger challenge for Ms. Haley is identifying the rationale for her candidacy beyond a winning persona,” it said. “Her campaign announcement stressed a belief in America as a force for good, the seriousness of global threats, and the follies of the progressive left. Is there a Republican presidential candidate who believes something different?”

Haley also has not staked out “any clear domestic policy directions, and she doesn’t have an obvious core of support,” the board wrote.

I'm not saying I disagree, but it's clear they haven't been reading these forums. Of course Haley doesn't have a platform. No Republican does. They have been running on the spectrum between "block Obama from getting a SCOTUS seat for a full calendar year" to "Obama is a gay Kenyan".

[Shadowferal]

I gotta say Haley didn't think this through at all.

[Breccia]

I gotta say Haley didn't think this through at all.

Anyone entering the field while Trump's fat ass covered most of it is stepping in a large pile of orange dogshit. If her game really is "I want to be VP" "I want to be in the Cabinet" or "I just want attention" it may yet work.

But she's going to take a political beating until that happens. So I'm not disagreeing with you.

[Shadowferal]

I can't even see vp...although that may be her game; to publicly ingratiate herself to Trump...

[Breccia]

I can't even see vp...although that may be her game; to publicly ingratiate herself to Trump

If so, neither side is off to a great start. That said, Trump's options are kinda limited. It's been my confirmation bias that many candidates are more moderate and pick VPs who are less moderate. Team Trump did that kinda backwards in 2016, but that was a special case, the Republican Party handed Trump a loaded weapon then declared themselves his hostage. That won't happen again here. Trump will pick someone who's as crazy as he is this time since he won't be constrained by the Pence factor, but someone he thinks can expand the ticket...like a woman. And he has worked with Haley before. But, yeah, they've already publicly taken swings at each other. (Haley didn't mention Trump by name, but she wasn't fooling anyone either)

DeSantis could court Haley as his VP pick, on the grounds of "I can use her to steal a few more Trump votes without joining the Batshit Crazy ticket". This, again, will be difficult. Anyone who is not Trump, is not Trump, and Trump voters will vote only for Trump while Trump is running. This would only work if Trump actually dropped out -- probably faking an undisclosed illness when he's losing by an irrecoverable gap -- and Trump hasn't flat-out turned his rabid fanbase into a lynch mob to kill her yet. Which normally I would say was figurative, but I can't do that anymore.

The GOP won't really come to blows for months and months yet. Haley could pick up steam, or she could be destroyed. But based on the current climate she has to know her chances of winning are very slim right now, and things out of her control would have to change for her to actually win the Republican nomination.

[Edge-]

https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1626048196844703744

Honestly, Haley is just embarrassing. Like, truly, utterly embarrassing. She's trying the polished, career politician trick that hasn't appealed to the Republican base in a decade, getting asked fucking policy questions by Sean Hannity. She's got the practiced sound bites with talking point repetition down, but she doesn't have the emotion to back it and she's literally saying nothing.

I want to know who's bankrolling her campaign because this is basically welfare for out of work conservative politicians who are willing to humiliate themselves nationally.

Though I see she's getting the warm Ann Coulter welcome because Republicans will never let people of color within the party forget that they're not "real Republicans".

[arandomuser]

https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1626048196844703744

Honestly, Haley is just embarrassing. Like, truly, utterly embarrassing. She's trying the polished, career politician trick that hasn't appealed to the Republican base in a decade, getting asked fucking policy questions by Sean Hannity. She's got the practiced sound bites with talking point repetition down, but she doesn't have the emotion to back it and she's literally saying nothing.

I want to know who's bankrolling her campaign because this is basically welfare for out of work conservative politicians who are willing to humiliate themselves nationally.

Though I see she's getting the warm Ann Coulter welcome because Republicans will never let people of color within the party forget that they're not "real Republicans".

the idea of "term lits for congresspeople" is one of the dumbest pseudo populist ideas ever
that just kicks out the people that know how to do things and your cyclying through inexperienced people every X number of years, it would be a disaster, also i dont even think its popular, i think " if i like my congressperson i can elect them for 40 more years" seems like something people liked considering they kept electing that person?

[Sunseeker]

the idea of "term lits for congresspeople" is one of the dumbest pseudo populist ideas ever
that just kicks out the people that know how to do things and your cyclying through inexperienced people every X number of years, it would be a disaster, also i dont even think its popular, i think " if i like my congressperson i can elect them for 40 more years" seems like something people liked considering they kept electing that person?

If you have to be elected to "know how to do things" that's a problem that needs to be addressed, because the logical conclusion of it is: "The longer they're in there, the better they become, so if they stay there forever, they'll be amazing!"

Elected officials could easily pass on their knowledge of "how things work" to the next person, but they don't, because they want people to barf out crap like you just wrote: that the only person who can do the job, is the person who is already doing the job, therefore we should vote for them. It's a fucking con job to get you to vote for them.

And I mean, if everyone was inexperienced? Like, LOL what the fuck are you even saying? Noone would know how to govern? Half the dipshits in office don't know how to do that now and they've been there for 40 years!

If people like Joe Johnson's policies, they can just elect John Johnson, Joe's understudy who Joe guides in the way of Johnson-style government.

This is precisely the bullshit we've been fed from a system that forces us to elect individuals rather than parties with set policies and ways of training their members. Everyone is "on their own", a lone ship upon a terrible sea. What kind of nonsense is that?

[s_bushido]

the idea of "term lits for congresspeople" is one of the dumbest pseudo populist ideas ever
that just kicks out the people that know how to do things and your cyclying through inexperienced people every X number of years, it would be a disaster, also i dont even think its popular, i think " if i like my congressperson i can elect them for 40 more years" seems like something people liked considering they kept electing that person?

Obviously when you get a person who has been in Congress for longer than the majority of the population has even been a live, there are issues with that. But so long as elections are held, I don't really have a problem with loose/no term limits. It's shit like lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court, where voters get no say beyond who happens to be in office when a seat opens up, that I do have serious issues with.

[Dontrike]

This could go in the Dominion thread, but I found it odd. Cucker thinks Trump would destroy Fox News if they didn't back him. I'm not sure how, I feel Fox lawyers are better than Trump's.

Two days after Election Day 2020, Fox News host Tucker Carlson texted his producer warning that Fox New's decision to call the state of Arizona for Joe Biden on election night could spell doom for the network.

That's according to a newly released court filing Thursday. The document, a 200-page motion for summary judgment in Dominion Voting Systems' defamation lawsuit against Fox News, featured multiple deposition excerpts and texts from top Fox News figures including Carlson, Sean Hannity, Rupert Murdoch, and others.

Fox was the first cable news network to project Biden's victory in Arizona, prompting a slew of angry phone calls and texts from people in Trump's camp.

"We worked really hard to build what we have," Carlson texted his producer, Alex Pfeiffer, on November 5, 2020, according to the filing. "Those fuckers are destroying our credibility. It enrages me."

Carlson added that he had spoken with fellow primetime commentators Laura Ingraham and Sean Hannity minutes earlier and that they were "highly upset."

"At this point we're getting hurt no matter what," he wrote, according to the filing.

Pfeiffer replied that "many on 'our side' are being reckless demagogues right now."

"Of course they are," Carlson wrote. "We're not going to follow them." He went on to say that Trump was good at "destroying things. He's the undisputed world champion of that. He could easily destroy us if we play it wrong."

At another point the same day, Carlson texted that "we've got to be incredibly careful right now. We could get hurt." It's unclear who the recipient of the message was.

[Gorsameth]

This could go in the Dominion thread, but I found it odd. Cucker thinks Trump would destroy Fox News if they didn't back him. I'm not sure how, I feel Fox lawyers are better than Trump's.

What do lawyers have to do with Trump turning his supporters away from Fox News, something that would be disastrous for Fox since they are the prime demographic.

[Breccia]

Cucker thinks Trump would destroy Fox News if they didn't back him

Considering we know Murdoch isn't backing Trump this time around, we'll find out. But to be fair, Tucker was speaking in 2020. Trump's lost a fair amount of standing since.

EDIT: Wait, hold on.

"Those fuckers are destroying our credibility."
-- Tucker Carlson

"No, I think you took care of that on your own."
-- Breccia

[gondrin]

So, this can go in either the insurrection thread or this one. I will put it in this one.

So, you know who is trying to get Trump to get on the stand to talk about Jan 6th? Some Proud Boys who are on trial.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...6f5e83247c8de8

Trump's Most Loyal Followers Pledge to Subpoena Him

Some of former President Donald Trump's most prominent supporters are following through with their plans to subpoena him as part of their sedition trial.

On Thursday, attorney Norm Pattis, who is representing leading Proud Boys figure Joe Biggs, said that the defendants are "going to ask the government for assistance in serving Mr. Trump."

Biggs is on trial for seditious conspiracy, along with former Proud Boys chairman Enrique Tarrio and three other allies, for their role in the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot. The far-right group is well-known for its support of Trump and opposition to progressive groups.

It was reported last month that the defendants intended to call Trump to testify as a witness in the trial, although it's unclear why they want him to testify under oath.

While Thursday's announcement confirmed earlier reports, it will ultimately be up to U.S. District Court Judge Tim Kelly to approve the subpoena.

Similar efforts to have Trump testify have not been granted in other January 6-related trials, but the Proud Boys trial would have the best chance, given the former president's previous remarks directly referring to the group. Trump infamously said, "Proud Boys, stand back and stand by," during an October 2020 presidential debate.

Although a Trump subpoena is not certain, a high-ranking Proud Boys member from North Carolina, Jeremy Bertino, who plead guilty to his own seditious conspiracy charge, is expected to take the stand next week. Bertino did not attend the January 6 riot but had engaged in a series of discussions with other Proud Boys leaders ahead of the riot.

Pattis, who is known for representing conspiracy theorist Alex Jones in his defamation lawsuits related to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, and other defense lawyers have repeatedly sparred with Kelly over the last month. The trial began on January 12 in Federal District Court in Washington, D.C.

So far, prosecutors have argued that the Proud Boys are singularly responsible for the violence of that day, presenting evidence that Tarrio, Biggs and other leaders gave instructions for the events that unfolded on January 6 and that they helped others breach the Capitol building.

In one message shown to the jury, Biggs wrote on social media weeks before the attack: "If police block electors from entering a building to cast a vote for Trump, we the people will treat your thin blue line like we do antifa."

"Get in our way and get walked over," he wrote in the December 14, 2020, post. "You will become the enemy of the state."

The prosecution has also shown evidence that Tarrio received inside information about law enforcement matters from a D.C. police officer with whom he had a close relationship.

Lets see if Trump really does support the Jan 6th insurrectionists or is it his normal thing to just get people to vote or like him.

[Breccia]

So, this can go in either the insurrection thread or this one. I will put it in this one.

Don't sweat it, I got the other thread

[Spectral]

the idea of "term lits for congresspeople" is one of the dumbest pseudo populist ideas ever
that just kicks out the people that know how to do things and your cyclying through inexperienced people every X number of years, it would be a disaster, also i dont even think its popular, i think " if i like my congressperson i can elect them for 40 more years" seems like something people liked considering they kept electing that person?

What sorts of things do you think it's important for a Congressperson to know how to do that cannot be learned in the context of their first term? Most of the things I can think of that would fit that description are either corruption or illegitimate uses of power. Reading bills, drafting bills, negotiating with colleagues, and voting on bills are not conceptually difficult.

[Gorsameth]

So, this can go in either the insurrection thread or this one. I will put it in this one.

So, you know who is trying to get Trump to get on the stand to talk about Jan 6th? Some Proud Boys who are on trial.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...6f5e83247c8de8



Lets see if Trump really does support the Jan 6th insurrectionists or is it his normal thing to just get people to vote or like him.

Be guess would be that they want Trump on stand because of the Sedition charge.
If Trump, as the head of the US government, told them to storm the Capitol then it can't be an attack on the government because they would be acting on behalf of the government.