Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[PrimiOne]

You see where are we going ,right? Yeah, I'm pretty sure you do.

First you start eroding the legitimacy of the media. They all ( that criticize me) are liars and fake news and shouldn't be listened. I'm the only valid source of information.

Then you start creating a shadow of doubt over the legislative. Those communists ( lol at a single communist in the US house) trying to crash down this great nation and their cabal of satanistic children eater. They are like Bond villains laughing in their covens and have no morals. I'm the only with with moral authority.

You follow by poisoning the executive. That deep state infiltrated by traitors that is a constant obstacle to my policies, that...well, everyone actually , the FBI, the NSA, the (again) communist CIA ( I really need to take an aspirin to process this idea...the communist...CIA)....that democrat councilman in a small town earning 20k/year that is the power not a millionaire receving billions in donations,no, the councilman is the one pulling the strings. I am the only one that can make the government work as you want.

But to my surprise it's not enough. No, it's not because there's this annoying concept called THE LAW where my claims needs to be verified by a meticulous process and despite it's cristal clear that I won the elections turns out that is not me who call it....it's the courts.

So I'm gonna be honest with you: even the courts are your enemy. The people that hate this great nation has infiltrated the judicial branch that have lost its legitimacy so in the next months when a tsunami of cases against me roll down...you know why. If I lose the next election and the courts lie saying I did...you know why.

....

This is what's left for Trump,this is his current agenda. The only thing left is adding the courts to the conspiracy so you shouldn't believe the media, you shouldn't trust the executive...and you shouldn't accept the courts legitimacy.They need to infiltrate the poisonous trumpism into that branch or ( as seen last time) MAGA won't be possible.

If he suceeds...you are fucked. But royally fucked,fucked as in start setting Mexico and Canada locations in your GPS because shit is gonna get ugly real fast.

[Mekh]

First you start eroding the legitimacy of the media. They all ( that criticize me) are liars and fake news and shouldn't be listened. I'm the only valid source of information.

By now I'm pretty certain the plan of right-wing "news" here at least is to just do a bad a job as possible, dragging down the whole concept of journalism, so it's all just one field of entertainment and people pick whatever channel they want, which will end up being the one with the most salacious lies.

[Breccia]

Wishful thinking? I hope not.

Trump Attorneys Tell Him to Prepare to Lose to Alvin Bragg

Since last month, according to two sources familiar with the matter, some of Trump’s lawyers have told him that if he is criminally charged in New York City, he should be prepared to lose. There’s a widespread belief in Trumplandia — including within the ex-president’s legal orbit — that it would be difficult for Trump to get an impartial jury in the Democratic stronghold of Manhattan. Instead, these Trump attorneys are telling him his best chance is to win on appeal.

“Trump is more confident in his chances [than others are], but when some of us have brought this [idea of counting on an appeal] up to him … it seemed like he believed we had a good point,” one of the sources says.

Trump was going to appeal anyhow. Even with zero point zero percent chance, his goal is now to stall as long as possible.

That said, a felony conviction, even one later overturned, during the campaign is not the boon Trump thinks it is. Trump doesn't need to embolden his base, people like tehdang and GreenJesus would vote for him even if they saw Trump raping a goat. Trump needs to broaden his base, and this won't do it.

[Shadowferal]

If he appeals...he'll lose bigly. Add in a healthy dose of humiliation...and I for one will enjoy the spectacle for once.

[Breccia]

If he appeals...he'll lose bigly.

Now again, assuming the sources are accurate, I think they're right, in that Trump has a better chance arguing the law before a judge, than arguing the law before a judge and 12 NYC people. It's like saying a level 60 has a better chance in the 10.1 raid, than he does in the 10.1 raid while also wearing greens and whites.

- - - Updated - - -

Bragg responds to, well, the last few days, saying

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg (D) for the first time on Thursday addressed a claim by Trump that he would be arrested in connection to an investigation into a hush money payment made to adult film star Stormy Daniels, calling it the creation of a “false expectation.”

Bragg, in response to demands by House Republicans to force his testimony and turn over all documents and communication on the case, wrote in a letter to Congress that such a move was an “unprecendent[ed] inquiry into a pending local prosecution.”

“The letter only came after Donald Trump created a false expectation that he would be arrested the next day and his lawyers reportedly urged you to intervene,” Bragg wrote.

Bragg has already said that he's not going to comment on an ongoing investigation. Because that's how proper law enforcement goes.

[Edge-]

https://thehill.com/regulation/court...battery-trial/

A federal judge has ordered an anonymous jury in former President Trump’s sexual battery civil trial next month, citing in part his call for protests as an indictment looms in a separate probe.

U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan ruled on Thursday that the jurors need protection from harassment, referencing the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack and Trump’s various statements attacking jurors and officials involved in other cases.

Author E. Jean Carroll is set to take Trump to trial late next month after she accused him during his presidency of raping her in the mid-1990s. Trump has repeatedly denied Carroll’s claims.

“Mr. Trump’s quite recent reaction to what he perceived as an imminent threat of indictment by a grand jury sitting virtually next door to this Court was to encourage ‘protest’ and to urge people to ‘take our country back,’” Kaplan wrote.

“That reaction reportedly has been perceived by some as incitement to violence. And it bears mention that Mr. Trump repeatedly has attacked courts, judges, various law enforcement officials and other public officials, and even individual jurors in other matters,” the ruling continued.

Trump’s and Carroll’s lawyers had not raised the issue of an anonymous jury, which is typically reserved for terrorism and organized crime cases, but the Clinton-nominated judge on his own accord asked the parties if they had any objections to using one.

Neither party did so, although the New York Daily News and the Associated Press lodged an objection.

“If jurors’ identities were disclosed, there would be a strong likelihood of unwanted media attention to the jurors, influence attempts, and/or of harassment or worse of jurors by supporters of Mr. Trump,” Kaplan ruled.

Yes, this lawsuit is still ongoing.

And yes, the judge is basically calling out Trump and his stooges are viewed as a fairly specific threat to them and general order given his recent calls for violence.

[Gorsameth]

https://thehill.com/regulation/court...battery-trial/



Yes, this lawsuit is still ongoing.

And yes, the judge is basically calling out Trump and his stooges are viewed as a fairly specific threat to them and general order given his recent calls for violence.

Good of the judge to look out for the safety of the jurors.

But you also have to wonder how on earth you could get an impartial jury when they know they are being protected from direct threats by the defendant.

[Breccia]

But you also have to wonder how on earth you could get an impartial jury when they know they are being protected from direct threats by the defendant.

We had this discussion already. I think @Endus said something like "the neutral reaction can still be that Trump is a horrible human being". Just because the jurors know that Trump and his violent cult of terrorists are a danger to them, doesn't make them partial. It just makes them aware of the issue.

Impartial, neutral people still regard Nazis as the monsters of human's history.

[Edge-]

https://twitter.com/keithedwards/sta...91071655616512

Trump, in another very calm ALL CAPS "TRUTH" complains that Alvin Bragg is a "SOROS BACKED ANIMAL" hitting on both antisemitism and racism at once.

I wonder when he's going to "truth" out some allcaps DO SOMETHING!!!! again.

[s_bushido]

Truly, the most stable of geniuses.

[masterhorus8]

We had this discussion already. I think @Endus said something like "the neutral reaction can still be that Trump is a horrible human being". Just because the jurors know that Trump and his violent cult of terrorists are a danger to them, doesn't make them partial. It just makes them aware of the issue.

Impartial, neutral people still regard Nazis as the monsters of human's history.

Yeah, this was something I was talking about to someone else yesterday. People can still be impartial even if they learn someone is an asshole prior.

[Breccia]

You're fired.

1) Wanna see the video of Giuliani personally destroying the defense of Team Trump in the Cohen case?

They funnelled it through a law firm, then Trump repaid it. When I heard Cohen’s retainer while he was doing no work, I said, ‘that’s how (Trump’s) repaying it

-- 2018 Giuliani

Now, he didn't say it under oath, but he did say it on FOX News, which means Trump supporters are assumed to accept what Giuliani said as fact and must now acknowledge that Trump used political money to pay off the whore he fucked. I mean, I guess they could admit either FOX News and/or Giuiliani is a liar, but you know the rules, if they don't in 24 hours we may safely assume they have accepted Giuliani's take and therefore that Trump broke the law.

2) Remember this?

Long story short, Tapioca met with Daniels and the two of them talked business. While Daniels did not hire Tapioca, Tapioca is not allowed to divulge information about Daniels' case. It's illegal.

UPDATE: Burning the CNN point from the previous part of this very post to cite a CNN exclusive. Stormy Daniels has turned over communications with Tapicoa, yes they are from 2018, to the relevant authorities.

Tapioca cannot divulge or use anything between himself and a client, or potential client. That's still confidential. As he's currently representing Trump in this case, proof that he discussed the matter with Daniels is likely disqualifying.

3) DWAC fires CEO and president Orlando.

He's still on the board, he still owns stock. But he no longer leads the merger-esque company.

Digital World Acquisition Corp.
, the publicly traded blank check company that planned to merge with former president Donald Trump’s social media company, fired its CEO earlier this week, according to a Wednesday filing.

The former CEO, Patrick Orlando, will remain as a director for the company. He and his other company ARC Global Investments each own 10% of DWAC. The DWAC board appointed Eric Swider, another director, to serve as interim chief executive while the board works on executing a final succession plan. Orlando and a DWAC representative didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment.

In a Wednesday announcement, DWAC cited “unprecedented headwinds” that necessitated a leadership change in order for the company to enter a “new phase.”

The company had aimed to merge with Trump Media and Technology Group, the parent of Truth Social, but has delayed finalizing that deal. In November, the company secured a deadline extension for the Trump Media merger until September 2023. If it had not gotten that extension, it faced liquidation. The delays have cost the company $100 million.

“I know it has been a challenging process for the shareholders,” Swider said in Wednesday’s announcement.

I imagine it's very challenging for the stockholders who weren't the original stockholders, i.e. the board. The board is getting their money back. Literally every other shareholder who bought later has lost money since.

Actually no, the price went up 1%-ish today. I guess DWAC is in such peril that firing the CEO is good news.

4) A lot of sources are citing the story that Melania Trump is, as one would expect, still not happy with Trump paying $130,000 to a whore when (a) she's his wfe (b) she's the mother of one of his children (c) she's the woman he cheated on his second wife with, and she wanted to be the last and not the middle of the Human Adultery Centipede¹ and (d) she's a fucking supermodel.

"Melania is leading her own life, and still feels happy being at Mar-a-Lago, surrounded by people who love her and who never talk about reality, or bad things about her husband," a social source tells PEOPLE.

But that doesn't mean she's supportive of her husband's role in the alleged hush money payment, which stems from a rumored extramarital affair with Daniels. The former porn star has claimed the affair took place less than four months after Melania gave birth to the couple's son, Barron, in 2006.

"She remains angry and doesn't want to hear [the alleged hush money payment] mentioned," the source tells PEOPLE. "She is aware of who her husband is and keeps her life upbeat with her own family and a few close friends."

bla bla bla court case stuff we know

Melania, meanwhile, "wants to ignore it and hopes it will pass, but she doesn't sympathize with Donald's plight," the source tells PEOPLE.

While the source tells PEOPLE that Melania and Donald live in separate quarters of their Mar-a-Lago estate, the two are still often spotted eating dinner together or attending events at the private club.

"She does very well with all of her socializing duties," the source continues. "They still see friends for dinner at the club, but live separately and do what they want on their own. They don't spend that much time together."

But oh, there's more. Maybe PEOPLE isn't your favorite source, despite that this is celeb gossip and their forte. The Washington Examiner and WaPo might be more your style.

You may remember that the first lady remained in New York City while her husband moved into the White House at the beginning of his presidency. While it was reported at the time that Melania stayed behind to finish out the school year of her son Barron, a 2020 biography by Mary Jordan revealed that she was actually renegotiating her prenup. While the Daniels saga only became public knowledge in 2018, during the 2016 general election, numerous women alleged that Trump had sexually harassed them after his 2005 wedding to Melania. While Trump made headlines for his infidelity during his first marriage, the 2016 deluge of allegations marked the first time Melania was publicly humiliated in this way. At the start of a presidency the entire pundit class dreamed would be disastrous, Melania thus had enormous leverage.

"According to three people close to Trump, Jordan writes, Melania had finally renegotiated the prenup to her liking," the Washington Post relayed from Jordan's biography. "She had already been looking out for Barron’s future by making sure he had dual citizenship in Slovenia, which will position him to work in Europe for the Trump Organization when he comes of age. Now, she had made sure he was not shut out of the family business."

A re-negotiated prenup would be very interesting indeed. And yes, Melania would have had massive leverage. The Republican Party, especially around 2016, had accepted they were putting an incompetent, inexperienced, unqualified failure at the head of their party. A divorce would have sunk things at the time and is even more dangerous now, since in 2016 they gave up on all other alternatives like fucking spineless Pences, but in 2024 they clearly have options.

Speaking of: Inside Edition says Melania has little interest in standing by a man of conviction. Hardee har har.

"She's not lending him a whole lot of moral support and I'm sure she's still thinking: 'You got yourself into this mess. I'm certainly not going to walk beside you and support you as you try to get out of it."'

Those are the words of Stephanie Grisham, who is speaking out about her former bosses Melania and Donald Trump as the former president face possible indictment this week by a Manhattan grand jury.

Grisham says that this time around, Melania is unlikely to be standing by her man — or attending court hearings.

"I would be very, very surprised. I would be very surprised to see her in court," Grisham tells Inside Edition. "Because it has to do with Stormy Daniels. It's just not in her to stand by her man for something like that."

Grisham says that like many wives, Melania was disgusted when she learned her husband allegedly had an affair with the legendary porn star.

"She always said to me, 'this is his problem,'" Grisham tells Ann Mercogliano.

I've said for a while that Melania would divorce Trump while her half was worth something. Didn't know about the prenup, of course, so I'll admit I had inaccurate intel. But her leverage now is arguably even stronger. It's one thing for someone, who was already a mistress, to accept the "grab 'em by the pussy" tape. It's another for Trump to fuck another woman so hard, it's a federal election issue.

While Melania's new prenup, like her old one, probably spells out "even if Trump cheats on Melania, Melania loses everything if she leaves" but Trump is in a situation to lose more than everything. Trump is a narcisitic sociopath, he's terrified of being viewed as a failure, but it's less insane of him that he's insane of going to jail.

The grand jury on the whore payment continues Monday. I do not believe the aforementioned Tapioca issue was the reason, although I admit it's possible if he illegally introduced evidence...in a grand jury, that doesn't make sense, nevermind. But bear in mind, this is a grand jury not a regular jury, it doesn't require a unanimous verdict to indict, only a majority.

---

¹ Not apologizing for that image. His wives and whores are the ones lining up to be fucked in order. I'm just the one pointing it out.

[Edge-]

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2023...-investigation

Once again, Republicans go to the tried-and-true "flood the zone with shit" strategy of just projectile vomiting out so many lies and so much bullshit that nobody can keep up, much less rebut each one.

The Ohio Republican, a longtime top ally to the former president, has already cast potential charges against Trump as an “unprecedented abuse of prosecutorial authority”—even though Alvin Bragg still has yet to file any. And now, Jordan is escalating his nascent probe into Trump’s investigators, demanding the testimony of two former prosecutors who worked with the Manhattan district attorney: Mark Pomerantz and Carey Dunne, both of whom resigned last year after Bragg apparently declined to seek the indictment against Trump that they had recommended. “The inference from the totality of these facts is that Bragg’s impending indictment is motivated by political calculations,” Jordan wrote in letters to Pomerantz and Dunne Wednesday, saying the prosecutors’ “efforts to shame Bragg have worked.”

Note: None of this is true, implied, or even likely. It's all truly irrelevant.

In his missives, which made note of Pomerantz’s recent book about the investigation, Jordan claimed that he was acting in the interest of “oversight” and “potential legislative reforms.”

If Jordan ever mentions any of these "legislative reforms" let me know, until then the shit he's flooding the zone with goes flushed down the toiled unlooked at, because looking at your own shit is kinda weird (unless like, you need to for medical reasons).

It’s a pretty weak conspiracy theory, particularly given how thin Bragg’s ties to Soros are. But the point of all this isn’t to make sense—it’s to “flood the zone with shit,” as Steve Bannon would say. Jordan and his ilk aren’t trying to defend Trump’s innocence. They’re trying to erode trust in the legal system itself with a lot of vague claims of bias: “There’s been reports in the news that Democrats have been working with Bragg, pushing Bragg, helping Bragg in this direction,” Jordan said on Real America’s Voice, the far-right network where Bannon himself has a platform. “So that’s something we think is important to understand.” Of course, this isn’t the first time the GOP has tried to muddy the waters on Trump’s behalf. But in seeking to use their congressional power against a state prosecution, they seem to be taking their efforts to protect Trump to a new level.

Again, there are no "reports", because these things aren't happening. This isn't worth a point-by-point rebuttal, with citations and documentation.

[masterhorus8]

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2023...-investigation

Once again, Republicans go to the tried-and-true "flood the zone with shit" strategy of just projectile vomiting out so many lies and so much bullshit that nobody can keep up, much less rebut each one.



Note: None of this is true, implied, or even likely. It's all truly irrelevant.



If Jordan ever mentions any of these "legislative reforms" let me know, until then the shit he's flooding the zone with goes flushed down the toiled unlooked at, because looking at your own shit is kinda weird (unless like, you need to for medical reasons).



Again, there are no "reports", because these things aren't happening. This isn't worth a point-by-point rebuttal, with citations and documentation.

When can we go after these chuckle fucks with obstruction of justice?

[Breccia]

The civil war in the Republican Party just had its Antietam. Or possibly "the Battle of Bullshit Run".

Trump just told the Republican Party to stop using his name and likeness without paying for it.

That's right: the head of the Republican Party has just told the Republican Party they may not use the likeness of the head of the Republican Party.

I think this story is not getting the attention it deserves, because this is massive. There are four possible results.

1) The Republican Party has to start using what I assume would be political donation money, to hand to Trump, as non-political-donation money, just a regular old licensing fee. I believe this is called "money laundering" and it sounds a lot like Trump paying himself for his hotels at an upcharge.

2) The Republican Party stops using the likeness of Trump, and one would assume, gives up on Trump being the head or even a part of it, out of understandable outrage. How could they promote someone if they can't use their face and name?
2a) The letter does not say, or even suggest, that this is just a few smaller groups, as it was aimed at the National RNC and their biggest colleagues. If Trump is overreacting, if it is just a few smaller groups, then this result becomes "the RNC tells the small-fry groups to knock it off" and they just get less donation money, because Trump is right about his name getting money. Again, his PAC took a lot of 2020/2022 money that was never used for other people...or even Trump, in 2022's case.

3) The Republican Party changes nothing, and Trump caves like a little bitch, because he thinks he needs the Republican Party's support. This would be a pretty big admission on Trump's part, and an opening DeSantis would seize.

4) The Republican Party changes nothing, Trump sues, and the bloodshed begins in earnest. I don't think the Republican Party will allow someone to be its leader while that someone is suing them for the millions they don't have (because donations are going to Trump, who kept them all). And I don't think Trump will want to be the head of the Republican Party, if they ignore his orders and don't give him money.

This is the letter Trump sent to the RNC and a bunch of its allies.

It has been brought to our attention that your company has been sending digital fundraising messages using President Trump's name, image and likeness, under the guise of “supporting,” “standing with” and “defending” him. Many of the messages make it appear as if the funds raised in response to these solicitations will go to Trump's campaign.

The purpose of this outreach is to advise you that Trump does not consent to the use of his name, image and likeness in unauthorized fundraising appeals for candidates he has not endorsed and committees he may or may not support. Going forward in determining which candidates he will support, Trump and his team will consider whether the candidate is paving a digital fundraising vendor that routinely fundraises off of his name, image and likeness without his authorization. It is highly unlikely that Trump will endorse, sign letters for, appear at events with or post on social media about candidates who use such vendors, or invite such vendors' clients to join him on stage or otherwise recognize them at his rallies and other events.

Trump has built the most powerful, successful brand in the history of American politics — at great personal expense and toll to him and his family. When you deceive Trump's donors and usurp his brand for your own profit, you drain him of the financial resources his campaign needs to defeat Joe Biden and Make America Great Again.

It is not enough to claim that your clients support Trump. They must endorse his candidacy. If you wish to seek the President's authorization to solicit contributions for your company's clients using his name, image, and likeness, stuff that was blacked out

Now Trump has some real hypocrisy saying the RNC is stealing money from his donor pool.

Him patting himself on the back for his "most powerful, successful brand" is a little premature when the Republican Party still calls themselves "the Party of Lincoln".

But yep, that's a threat. Trump is finally doing what all those musicians did to him when he used their music without their permission or paying them.

Looking forward to seeing where this goes. Hey, who here thinks the RNC is still stoked about Trump being the head of the Republican Party? Who thinks they're delighted and happy? Let me know what you think is going on, and what you think will happen.

[Edge-]

When can we go after these chuckle fucks with obstruction of justice?

"I wasn't attempting to sew mistrust and spread doubt about a lawful investigation with the intent to impede it, I was expressing my First Amendment right to just literally make up whatever the fuck I want and say it with the full authority of my officer as a Representative and my position as the Chair of this literal fishing expedition."

[Breccia]

Trump, on his Chinese/Russian knockoff Twitter clone, brags about his polling and election numbers (yeah, still claiming he got more votes in an election he lost) also says

also known that potential death & destruction in such a false charge could be catastrophic for our Country?

and

along with Radical Lunatic Bombthrower Jack Smith, who is harassing and intimidating innocent people at levels not seen before

Trump lashing out at other people who are not Trump is nothing new. Suggesting Smith is causing record-breaking levels of intimidation, with no source or evidence of course, is as a Trump thing to say as it is false.

But it's the "potential death & destruction" that I want to discuss. Leaving aside Trump's claims that he committed no crime, where is the "potential death & destruction" coming from? I think it's from Trump's followers. I think Trump is not just saying that his followers will literally kill people if he's arrested, but I think he's encouraging them to do it.

Has anyone, anyone, seen Trump tell his followers not to cause violence? I've seen others do that, just scroll back a few pages, but has Trump in the last, I dunno, month? Told his followers "don't hurt anyone, don't kill anyone, don't break anything on my account"?

Has literally anyone seen such?

Yes, I know when he claimed (falsely) he would be arrested by now, he told his followers to protest. But I have not seen anything from him where he specifically said "don't cause violence" which is a big deal, considering
(a) this is not the first time he's suggested his followers will cause violence and kill people, and
(b) they have already proven their willingness to do so

Now, what happens from here could be...involved, so before I continue, I think I need a rules question addressed.
@Rozz @Flarelaine

What are the rules about calls for violence on these forums? Actual real-world violence, not in-game of course.

The rules call out the following as forbidden:

Graphic violence or gore images/videos
Content that is dangerous or considered illegal

and

Do not post inappropriate or offensive content.
Do not post illegal content or links to illegal content.

Many acts of violence would be illegal and dangerous, and therefore prohibited. That's great, it should be, but it's not clear enough in this context. So I need a specific, direct response on the topic. We talk about wars in real life all the time. And Trump has not spelled out that what his followers do would be illegal or inappropriate -- in fact, I think he's suggesting the opposite.

"Trump isn't posting here" is not specific enough. I think we all need this question answered, as it's increasingly relevant and increasingly likely.

Would Trump, by saying "potential death & destruction" would stem from his arrest, from his own followers, be considered a post that would get him infracted or banned?

I know asking a rules question is, itself, against the rules. I'll take the hit for that. But after posts like this one, and of course Jan 6th, I think everyone here needs to know what line is being drawn.

And you might know where I'm going with this, but I haven't gone there yet, so that's not an excuse either.

Please, answer this very specific, very direct question, in public, so we can all benefit from the rules clarification.

[Edge-]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pac...-investigation

Yes, the source is intentional.

Emergency personnel have responded after a package with suspicious powder was delivered to the New York City building housing the Manhattan District Attorney's office, according to police.

The New York Police Department said the package was delivered by USPS on Friday. No injuries were reported, and as of yet no one has been ordered to evacuate.

Police responded to the scene shortly after 12 p.m.

District Attorney Alvin Bragg is currently weighing whether to proceed with an indictment against former President Donald Trump for alleged hush money payments made to porn star Stormy Daniels in 2016.

Oh boy.

[masterhorus8]

District Attorney Alvin Bragg is currently weighing whether to proceed with an indictment against former President Donald Trump for alleged hush money payments made to porn star Stormy Daniels in 2016.

He better fucking do it.

[Draco-Onis]

He better fucking do it.

He may as well hand in his resignation if he doesn't since the optics and precedent would be really awful.