1. #82761
    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    To his minimal credit, he did start going off on rants again eventually. But a lot of the site's problems can be answered with, well, exactly what you said. CyberTrump 2077 was a bad investment when Trump wasn't on it, and now, he's only on it because he personally is a bad investment. He could easily have spiked the price months ago and sold off.
    I don't want to undersell the importance of that platform for his ego, though. It matters a lot that he's getting likes and "retruths" or whatever it's called. It's a way for him to more easily projectile vomit out some stupid shit without needing to go through the hassle of posting/sending out and official communication from the 45th POTUS.

    It's like back in the old days when he could just grab whoever's phone was near him, demand they log into his twitter account, and then narrate some bullshit for them to send out on his behalf. Except now he has a lot more than 240 characters to play with so his "truths" can get pretty wordy!

    - - - Updated - - -

    https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-...ndal-rcna47029

    Susan Collins, is finally not very concerned -

    HuffPost asked several senators this week whether they would take secret documents home with them. The Maine Republican responded that she didn’t “have the facilities to do so nor the authority” to keep top secret information at home, but added, “That’s different from a president. I don’t have any authority to deem something classified or unclassified.”
    Or...is she?

    Of course I’m concerned there are classified documents,” said Collins, though she added there is much that remains unknown. “All we have are unsubstantiated leaks and that’s why I strongly support the request of the chairman and vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee for us to have full access to all the documents that were retrieved,” Collins said.
    I don't think they have clearance to see many of those documents...

    Also, we have more than unsubstantiated leaks. We have the FBI search warrant, partially redacted, as well as lists of general items taken, including classified and SCI documents.

    Just a reminder: Susan Collins is a mostly spineless Karen who just narcs on local kids who make chalk drawings on the sidewalk.

  2. #82762
    The Undying Breccia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    36,751
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    I don't think they have clearance to see many of those documents.
    I'm disappointed. The Party of Trump has routinely demanded to see the evidence against Trump, so they could warn him about it. Meanwhile, when Trump hid evidence (did we ever get that Ukraine call log?) they backed his every play.

    I thought Collins was better than that.

  3. #82763
    A survey on PBS Newshour said that 61% of Republicans say Trump should run in 2024, even if he's charged with a crime.

    So, Democrats need to forget about trying to convert non-MAGA Republicans to the Democratic Party. The majority of Republicans will support Trump, no matter what.

  4. #82764
    The Undying Breccia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    36,751
    Quote Originally Posted by CastletonSnob View Post
    A survey on PBS Newshour said that 61% of Republicans say Trump should run in 2024, even if he's charged with a crime.
    The hypocrisy knows no bounds. I'm willing to bet that, if you asked that 61%, a lot of them would say "But it was a Fake Crime, a partisan WITCH HUNT, he didn't do anything wrong".

    And Clinton...

    "Oh she's guilty, hang her next to Mike Pence. She deserves it for Benghazi and Katrina!"

  5. #82765
    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    I'm disappointed. The Party of Trump has routinely demanded to see the evidence against Trump, so they could warn him about it. Meanwhile, when Trump hid evidence (did we ever get that Ukraine call log?) they backed his every play.

    I thought Collins was better than that.
    Oh absolutely not. Best-case scenario is that she’s just a moron that acts as a mouthpiece for her speech-writers, who in turn have her pretend to be a more moderate voice while still voting right alongside radical fascists in the GQP. Worst-case scenario is that she’s a lying snake that really is a radical fascist but pretends not to be so she doesn’t draw the ire of her constituency. Either is a really bad look.

  6. #82766
    https://www.cnbc.com/2022/09/09/ty-c...stitution.html



    Remember this mustachioed man? Ty Cobb, former Trump White House lawyer?

    Asked about Trump’s claims that he actually won the 2020 election, Cobb said, “I believe former President Trump to be a deeply wounded narcissist, and he is often incapable of acting other than in his perceived self-interest or for revenge.”

  7. #82767
    The Undying Breccia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    36,751
    One update, one non-update-update.

    1) I've personally posted that Trump's PAC is apparently facing a criminal investigation, for lying about the election that was over to get more funds...and doing nothing with them. Well, the GOP has him flanked. They're apparently getting tired of him taking all the Republican campaign funds and not giving them to people actually running.

    The minority leader is advising Trump-backed candidates and senators with good relationships with the 45th president to prod him to transfer millions of dollars from his leadership PAC to super PACs supporting Trump’s favored candidates, according to two people familiar with McConnell’s entreaty. Trump has repeatedly trashed McConnell over the past 18 months, including calling for his ouster as GOP leader. But the two have a shared goal of turning the Senate red.

    Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who frequently talks Senate politics with Trump, said that Trump’s PAC has “resources. A lot of Trump candidates need help, like Blake Masters. My argument would be: ‘If the people you endorsed do well, you do well.’”

    Graham said he is planning to make a larger push with Trump closer to the election. But there’s plenty of urgency now. The McConnell-linked Senate Leadership Fund super PAC recently slashed $8 million in ads for Masters in Arizona, leaving a huge spending gulf.

    One Republican senator, granted anonymity to speak candidly about the situation, doubted that Trump would loosen his purse strings even for his own candidates given the long-running tensions between him and Senate Republicans — a sentiment echoed in part by some operatives close to the former president.

    “It’s not Trump’s job to elect a Senate majority,” said one Trump world adviser.

    But others were more hopeful.

    “In at least a couple of those races, there’s a really compelling argument for him to be involved. He’s got a huge wad of cash that could make a difference,” said Minority Whip John Thune (R-S.D.), whom Trump once vowed to defeat.
    Yeah, funny how the Republicans telling the truth about Trump have to hide who they are so they get the Trump voters. There should be a name for that.

    Trump spending money now won't help him with the criminal investigation. But it is a solid parallel with what happened with Bannon, just on a larger scale. If Trump's PAC is shut down for not being a PAC, locking off the money from the Republican Party, well, what was that line? About being destroyed?

    2) Hey, weren't Trump and the DOJ supposed to give the court their nominations for "special master" by now? The DOJ appealed, I get that, but where's Trump's list?

  8. #82768
    The Unstoppable Force Kaleredar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    phasing...
    Posts
    24,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    One update, one non-update-update.

    1) I've personally posted that Trump's PAC is apparently facing a criminal investigation, for lying about the election that was over to get more funds...and doing nothing with them. Well, the GOP has him flanked. They're apparently getting tired of him taking all the Republican campaign funds and not giving them to people actually running.



    Yeah, funny how the Republicans telling the truth about Trump have to hide who they are so they get the Trump voters. There should be a name for that.

    Trump spending money now won't help him with the criminal investigation. But it is a solid parallel with what happened with Bannon, just on a larger scale. If Trump's PAC is shut down for not being a PAC, locking off the money from the Republican Party, well, what was that line? About being destroyed?

    2) Hey, weren't Trump and the DOJ supposed to give the court their nominations for "special master" by now? The DOJ appealed, I get that, but where's Trump's list?
    Why, if he never submits a list, they can never select a judge that they ruled was needed, so therefore he can never be taken to to trial!
    “Do not lose time on daily trivialities. Do not dwell on petty detail. For all of these things melt away and drift apart within the obscure traffic of time. Live well and live broadly. You are alive and living now. Now is the envy of all of the dead.” ~ Emily3, World of Tomorrow
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    Kaleredar is right...
    Words to live by.

  9. #82769
    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    but where's Trump's list?
    "List of Special Master candidates for review:

    1. Donald John Trump

    End of list"

  10. #82770
    Legendary! Poopymonster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Neverland Ranch Survivor
    Posts
    6,349
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    "List of Special Master candidates for review:

    1. Donald John Trump

    End of list"
    DoJ list:
    Barrack Obama
    Hillary Clinton
    William Clinton
    Robert Mueller

    Cue the sound of Trump filling his diaper.
    Quote Originally Posted by Crissi View Post
    Quit using other posters as levels of crazy. That is not ok

  11. #82771
    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    Oh my God, why do you keep bringing up that you literally asked to see men sucking each other's dicks?
    Because it was in response to somebody that said it literally happened. Take it up with him.

    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    This talking point literally doesn't exist in reality, dude. Current POTUS determines privilege, and has access to documents from prior administrations.
    That's yet to be tested in court, which means the DoJ was wrong to fail to ignore it in taint team procedures. If you'd get over denying clear errors in process, you might arrive at something good. Like, this may be the case when a high court changes the precedent which binds the DoJ (and binds the judge in the lower court, for that matter).

    Quote Originally Posted by postman1782 View Post
    Wrong. The ONLY PERSON that can claim executive privilege ANYWHERE, doesn't matter if it is a local lawsuit or the Attorney General personally putting the cuffs on Trump, is the CURRENT FUCKING PRESIDENT. The SCOTUS decision specifically stated that.
    I've cited you the court case that says this is wrong. You'll have to justify to yourself how Nixon left office, but was still the current president when the Supreme Court ruled on executive privilege lingering after the term. Shrodinger's president: Nixon is out of office, but still in office at the same time according to postman1782.

    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    What I'm asking you, specifically, is what does that line from Nixon vs GSA mean in this case? Using the precedent case US vs Nixon as well. How are you saying this applied to the situation with the documents seized from MaL by the FBI?

    (and apologies if you've summarized your position like this previously, and I missed it - you can just link the post and I'll find it from there)
    Just re-read my past posts. Specifically the first posts. Read the judge's order. I linked it in past notes. And read Nixon vs GSA. There are multiple lines in the case. I doubt you can fully read the judge's order and Nixon vs GSA and still be confused as to my point. Well, actually, just tell me if you understand Cannon's ruling and why she cited it to make her point. I doubt you can, in good faith, feel you understand her but misunderstand me. Unless you need some slow and long explanation of taint teams and the purpose of screening for documents protected by privilege.

    Quote Originally Posted by gondrin View Post
    Problem is, this isn't like Attorney Client privilege. Executive Privilege is only about communications between the sitting president and others he talks to so that he can do his job. However, it is only the current sitting president that can assert that, not previous ones.
    Nixon was out of office when the GSA came calling. Nixon asserted executive privilege, and the court ruled on it, in the process writing precedent that presidents out of office do not automatically surrender all vestiges of privilege. Nixon vs GSA. It should make intuitive sense too; advisors would be wary of giving frank advice to the president--that might not be phrased as diplomatically and politically-correct for public consumption--if it could be seized and dispersed by a rival admin the second he/she left office.
    Last edited by tehdang; 2022-09-10 at 03:57 AM.
    "I wish it need not have happened in my time." "So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."

  12. #82772
    The Undying Breccia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    36,751
    Team Trump and the DOJ pool their "special master" requests into a single eight-page filing.

    There were no survivors.

    The Justice Department proposed two former Federal District Court judges for the position: Barbara S. Jones, a Clinton appointee to the Southern District of New York who performed a similar role in cases involving two personal lawyers of Mr. Trump, Michael S. Cohen in 2017 and Rudolph W. Giuliani in 2021; and Thomas B. Griffith, a George W. Bush appointee who retired from the bench in the District of Columbia in 2020.

    Mr. Trump’s legal team countered with two suggestions of its own: a retired Federal District Court judge, Raymond J. Dearie, a Reagan appointee who sat in the Eastern District of New York and once served as the top federal prosecutor there; and Paul Huck Jr., a former deputy attorney general in Florida who also served as general counsel to Charlie Crist, who was its Republican governor at the time.

    Mr. Huck is married to Judge Barbara Lagoa, whom Mr. Trump appointed to the Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in Atlanta, which oversees federal courts in Florida. Such an appointment would appear to create a conflict of interest that could require Judge Lagoa to recuse herself from litigation involving the case.
    "Okay, nothing too odd there, but it doesn't sound so b--"

    The department also said Mr. Trump should pay for the master since he had asked for it; Mr. Trump’s team proposed that taxpayers split the cost.
    "Ah, of course. Well if that's the w--"

    The two sides also clashed substantially over the duties of the special master. Mr. Trump’s lawyers argued that the arbiter should look at all the documents seized in the search and filter out anything potentially subject to attorney-client or executive privilege.

    By contrast, the government argued that the master should look only at unclassified documents and should not adjudicate whether anything was subject to executive privilege.

    Mr. Trump’s lawyers are also asking the court to exclude National Archives officials from the process of reviewing the materials; the department believes their involvement is essential.
    "There it is."

    Yeah, so, there's a few things to take away here.

    1) The DOJ is trolling the fuck out of Trump with those choices. One choice that has already ruled against Team Trump, and one conservative-appointed that seems like a gimme...unless you remember that W and his allies are classic Republicans and owe Trump nothing.

    2) The DOJ says the "special master" should only look at unclassified records. I'm going to guess here, but my guess is only Barbara Jones, the Clinton nominee, has a security clearance anywhere near this shit. Meaning, the DOJ seem to have a good point on paper. What it really is, is a trap to get Trump to admit, under oath, that he didn't actually declassify anything. If Trump can't find any evidence he did, then that restricts the options, or worse for Trump, means that the "special master" might not be able to read much of anything at all. Trump's lawyers tried to say "just because the folder says classified doesn't mean it wasn't declassified later" but have yet to say, under oath, that the material actually was declassified.

    Why? Bobb. Trump screwed her over, possibly ending her career, by tricking her into saying "that's everything Trump has" on a federal form, when that was false. Whoever Trump still has left on his "payroll" won't dare to say "the documents were declassified" under oath, because even if Trump told them, they no longer believe him. Or at least, not enough to risk their career based on a fact they can't check themselves.

    Which means, only Trump can answer that question. I don't think he will. I think he knows he didn't do it while in the WH and is a giant orange pussy who knows his many lies will get him on perjury within seconds. Until Trump is willing to say so under oath, the material should be considered classified (or higher) because NARA and the documents themselves say they are. And the judge has got to know the thin ice she's already on won't support her declaring them all declassified.

    3) Trump suggesting the taxpayers foot half the bill is yet more admission he's broke.

    4) And the highly-expected clash, with neither side willing to give up any ground (well, each made a "special master" choice that doesn't seem 100% toxic on paper) could push the judge to just take the easy route and grant the DOJ's appeal. Simply put, the DOJ has a strong upper hand here. If the judge and/or Trump don't make major concessions, they'll just appeal, and based on pretty much every expert we've heard, will probably win.

    And yet again, I still don't know what this "special master" request is expected to do. If it's lawyer-client, well yeah, give that back. I suspect it's already separated and ready to return, because it means nothing to the FBI. If it's Executive Privilege, Trump still doesn't get it back, and it still remains evidence that Trump stole/hid government property, even if it doesn't get to the Jan 6th investigation(s).

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    Because it was--
    Dude. Drop the topic of man-on-man sex. You won't see it here. Stop asking.

    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    Nixon vs GSA
    You keep posting this as if it's helpful. Nixon lost that case 7 to 2.

    Moreover, adequate justifications are shown for this limited intrusion into executive confidentiality comparable to those held to justify in in camera inspection of the District Court sustained in United States v. Nixon, supra. Congress' purposes in enacting the Act are exhaustively treated in the opinion of the District Court. The legislative history of the Act clearly reveals that, among other purposes, Congress acted to establish regular procedures to deal with the perceived need to preserve the materials for legitimate historical and governmental purposes. An incumbent President should not be dependent on happenstance or the whim of a prior President when he seeks access to records of past decisions that define or channel current decisions that define or channel current governmental obligations. Nor should the American people's ability to reconstruct and come to terms which their history be truncated by an analysis of Presidential privilege that focuses only on the needs of the present. Congress can legitimately act to rectify the hit-or-miss approach that has characterized past attempts to protect these substantial interests by entrusting the materials to expert handling by trusted and disinterested professionals.
    There is no precedent that Trump, no longer in the WH, can cite new privilege. At best, things he privileged before will remain so, but as I just finished posting, your man Trump is too much of a coward to say under oath he did that -- and it's been months, and he had plenty of chances.

    Your citation is wrong. Your interpretation is wrong. Only the current President, that's Biden by the way, can establish new Executive Privilege. Almost everyone on these forums has pointed that out several times, and you insist on using a ruling that is the opposite of your case.

    Give it up. It's over.

  13. #82773
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    I've cited you the court case that says this is wrong. You'll have to justify to yourself how Nixon left office, but was still the current president when the Supreme Court ruled on executive privilege lingering after the term. Shrodinger's president: Nixon is out of office, but still in office at the same time according to postman1782.
    No, you didn't, Nixon lost the case you are citing. And the CURRENT Supreme court ruled on Trump not having executive privilege in literally January of this year. And again, everything he stole, doesn't belong to him, it belongs to the the US Government.

    Again, literally nothing you have said is fucking true.

  14. #82774
    The Undying Breccia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    36,751
    I have here a letter that NARA presented to Trump's lawyers May 10th. It cites Nixon vs GSA, multiple times, in their favor. Which means, not only can an ex-President no longer establish new privilege, but Trump knew that, because the government handed him a letter saying precisely that.

    There is nothing in Nixon vs. GSA that will help Trump retroactively privilege these documents. That's directly and specifically blocked.

  15. #82775
    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    I have here a letter that NARA presented to Trump's lawyers May 10th. It cites Nixon vs GSA, multiple times, in their favor. Which means, not only can an ex-President no longer establish new privilege, but Trump knew that, because the government handed him a letter saying precisely that.

    There is nothing in Nixon vs. GSA that will help Trump retroactively privilege these documents. That's directly and specifically blocked.
    There is also the case I cited from January when here lost executive privilege claims when it came to the January 6th committee.

  16. #82776
    The Undying Breccia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    36,751
    Quote Originally Posted by postman1782 View Post
    There is also the case I cited from January when here lost executive privilege claims when it came to the January 6th committee.
    Indeed. It's reassuring to know most people are on board with the vast pile of precedent that Trump has nearly no defense from privilege here. Oh, and of course the crime exception. It's a lot more effective than cherry-picking on the bar of the Titanic.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Of course, Trump has other problems.

    Two Top Trump Political Aides Among Those Subpoenaed in Jan. 6 Case

    Brian Jack, the final White House political director under Mr. Trump, and Stephen Miller, Mr. Trump’s top speechwriter and a senior policy adviser, were among more than a dozen people connected to the former president to receive subpoenas from a federal grand jury this week.

    The subpoenas seek information in connection with the Save America political action committee and the plan to submit slates of electors pledged to Mr. Trump from swing states that were won by Joseph R. Biden Jr. in the 2020 election. Mr. Trump and his allies promoted the idea that competing slates of electors would justify blocking or delaying certification of Mr. Biden’s Electoral College win during a joint session of Congress on Jan. 6, 2021.
    Honestly, this could be about the Fake Electors or Trump illegally fundraising off his baseless/false claims of fraud. Both people named were close enough to Trump that it could be either or both.

  17. #82777
    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    Honestly, this could be about the Fake Electors or Trump illegally fundraising off his baseless/false claims of fraud. Both people named were close enough to Trump that it could be either or both.
    IIRC, it could be about both. If you're going to drag people in front of a grand jury who have a lot of questions to answer about a lot of possible crimes, and the jury needs to hear from them all, there's no point in doing it before multiple juries if the facts of the cases related to those crimes share broad overlap. I don't know for sure though.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rudol Von Stroheim View Post
    I do not need to play the role of "holier than thou". I'm above that..

  18. #82778
    The Undying Breccia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    36,751
    Quote Originally Posted by Ripster42 View Post
    there's no point in doing it before multiple juries if the facts of the cases related to those crimes share broad overlap
    While I agree, the issue with Trump fundraising off blatant lies and keeping the money is under 24 hours old. The timing alone suggests two juries. I suppose the original investigation could have been expanded, but I don't think so.

  19. #82779
    The National archive should not be involved in screening the seized documents to filter out those that legally belong to them or Trump.

    That's an interesting take for sure.
    It ignores such insignificant forces as time, entropy, and death

  20. #82780
    The Lightbringer
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Look behind you.
    Posts
    3,019
    Guess that little victory lap about Trump being 'granted' his Special Master was short lived if nothing substantial for him even comes from it.

    Also fuckin' lol at him thinking he can get Tax payers to foot any part of the bill for it. You're a private citizen you fuckass, either use your own fucking money or leech off your gullible followers some more.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •