Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Breccia]

Second fav lawyer put this out today.

Dude cited Cobbledick without cracking a smile. Maybe it stops being funny the 100th time it's brought up in law school?

[Paranoid Android]

Holy Mother Eff this judge!

NEW: Judge Cannon rules that Trump does not have to submit affidavit/declaration (as to items allegedly planted by the FBI) *before he has reviewed the seized documents from MAL.

Attached in Link is the legal document or Cannon's ruling.

So after Special Master ruled, she went and said "fuck that" and now says Trump does not have submit and affidavit/declaration (as to items allegedly planted by the FBI) *before he has reviewed the seized documents from MAL.

Blatant disregard and a delay, delay, delay. This is getting serious in what this judge is attempting.

[Edge-]

Holy Mother Eff this judge!

NEW: Judge Cannon rules that Trump does not have to submit affidavit/declaration (as to items allegedly planted by the FBI) *before he has reviewed the seized documents from MAL.

Attached in Link is the legal document or Cannon's ruling.

So after Special Master ruled, she went and said "fuck that" and now says Trump does not have submit and affidavit/declaration (as to items allegedly planted by the FBI) *before he has reviewed the seized documents from MAL.

Blatant disregard and a delay, delay, delay. This is getting serious in what this judge is attempting.

So uh...I assume this is going to be appealed to fuck by the DOJ because...what's the fuckin point of this order other than to give Trump access to these documents that aren't his to begin with?

[Breccia]

This is getting serious in what this judge is attempting.

While I agree, (a) I wonder if this will be appealed because (b) I don't see how it will matter. Team Trump cannot prove anything was planted. If they had that ability, say a video from the cameras the DOJ already knows existed (they got earlier footage, they know where the cameras are) they would have provided it weeks ago.

It looks like their strategy is "wait until the FBI says what items were the most damaging, then claim those were planted". But that's still an...affirmative defense?...and you can't just say that and expect it to be taken seriously. I don't even think Team Trump can demonstrate motive for planting evidence. The "it was a bigly witch hunt" has already been Will Smith'd by the 11th.

Dearie has got to be sick of this shit. Every time Trump cries wolf, the scale tips closer to the DOJ.

- - - Updated - - -

what's the fuckin point

I mean, they have to have the list already or they couldn't have been asked to verify in the first place. So that can't be it. I think Team Trump is trying to get the "special master" to remove some items for them, then go after a smaller list.

It won't work. Trump wasn't allowed to have any of it.

[Paranoid Android]

@Edge and @Breccia.

I'm sure of an appeal, hearing or whatever is needed but this is there to delay. I don't know how long but this is to delay.

Well, if I'm giving Cannon any credit she wants to delay until they get back into power. I guess more here if this is true, is showing a deliberant and egregious cooperation with Trump.

I mean, they have to have the list already or they couldn't have been asked to verify in the first place. So that can't be it. I think Team Trump is trying to get the "special master" to remove some items for them, then go after a smaller list.

It won't work. Trump wasn't allowed to have any of it.

Once more if these lawyers are really this effin dumb, they could be. I just don't understand how they know in their minds this will work. Yes, lawyers try all avenues. But I still say it's a delay.

[Breccia]

Well, if I'm giving Cannon any credit she wants to delay until they get back into power. I guess more here if this is true, is showing a deliberant and egregious cooperation with Trump.

The problem is, two can play that game. If it's clear Cannon is stumping for Trump, so that he can run again, the DOJ can just arrest him based on the objective evidence.

"That's not how the US works!"

Trump literally asked for it in 2016, by promising to have Clinton investigated during the debates. Also, arresting people for objective evidence of their objective guilt is how the US is supposed to work. No-one is above the law. If he didn't want to be arrested, he shouldn't have stolen 200,000 pages of government information. Until then, he can enjoy Cobbledick shoved up his ass.

- - - Updated - - -

But I still say it's a delay.

Cannon has set and to my knowledge not moved a deadline for the "special master". I think he'll adhere to it, and just side with the DOJ on the grounds of "they provided evidence and Trump didn't".

[Paranoid Android]

The problem is, two can play that game. If it's clear Cannon is stumping for Trump, so that he can run again, the DOJ can just arrest him based on the objective evidence.

"That's not how the US works!"

Trump literally asked for it in 2016, by promising to have Clinton investigated during the debates. Also, arresting people for objective evidence of their objective guilt is how the US is supposed to work. No-one is above the law. If he didn't want to be arrested, he shouldn't have stolen 200,000 pages of government information. Until then, he can enjoy Cobbledick shoved up his ass.".

So not being argumentative here and difficult.

I will just say Trump has been giving privilege all the way through. Protected by one of our two Major political parties, protected I guess by sycophants in key places and just the masses. Meaning I hope using kit gloves until it's too late say come around election and it might be over.

Now, the Special Master to my surprise has been good. 11th Circuit has been good. The DOJ and Garland seem to be pursuing this with a fervor.

[Breccia]

Meaning I hope using kit gloves until it's too late say come around election and it might be over.

Yeah, maybe.

The 2024 race without Trump running (one hypothetical at a time) will be brutal, but if the GOP somehow do that and win, they'll get to ask "do we want to get rid of Trump forever?" and they'll find themselves in the position to do exactly that. Trump has been turning on GOP members, some of whom were in the Capitol when Trump ordered the hit on Pence. It's not entirely unfathomable they'll say "I believe in Law and Order" and do the same thing Biden did, let the DOJ decide.

Or, of course, President Harris could roast Trump alive.

[Gorsameth]

Yeah, maybe.

The 2024 race without Trump running (one hypothetical at a time) will be brutal, but if the GOP somehow do that and win, they'll get to ask "do we want to get rid of Trump forever?" and they'll find themselves in the position to do exactly that. Trump has been turning on GOP members, some of whom were in the Capitol when Trump ordered the hit on Pence. It's not entirely unfathomable they'll say "I believe in Law and Order" and do the same thing Biden did, let the DOJ decide.

Or, of course, President Harris could roast Trump alive.

A reminder that the question isn't if the GOP wants to get rid of Trump, They want to for sure, but if they can afford to lose his voters.

As for the Judge, once again I am reminded to be glad that over here a party can ask for a judge to be replaced if they can show the judge is not being objective. And with amount of bullshit this judge is pulling that no other legal expert in the world seems to agree with that shouldn't be to hard.

[Orange Joe]

Sorry if I don't want legal rights and privileges subject to analysis at who it bothers. First Amendment protected speech bothers an absolute ton of people, who might be tempted to outlaw speech they don't like.

Remind me again. Who is banning books currently?

[fwc577]

Today I was banned from r/conservative.

Someone asked why the student debt relief was bad. I replied because Democrats did it so it's bad.

Banned.

How do I file suit against r/conservative in Texas? Surely there are liberal groups already planning class action suits for these whiny cucks!

[Breccia]

whiny cucks

You might be joking, but I hope that's actually what happens. I don't believe there's anything in the laws we've been talking about that say "only for libruls".

[tehdang]

Words have meanings. If you don't know what they mean, maybe you should stop using some. Clearly you don't know what seize or seizing means.

I'm sorry that you dispute the meaning of "seizure," but I suggest you consult a dictionary before doubling down on your definition of implied legal ownership. I'm afraid it's you that don't know what it means, but maybe you've never had anything seized from you before.

Remind me again. Who is banning books currently?

If you define "banning books" as "removing from some grades in the K-12 educational curriculum," then I think members of both sides are in favor of banning books. Some are more after Huckleberry Finn and To Kill a Mockingbird than All Boys Aren’t Blue or Sex Is a Funny Word.

[Breccia]

If you define "banning books" as--

I'm sorry that you dispute the meaning of "ban," but I suggest you consult a dictionary before doubling down on your definition of removal from public places. I'm afraid it's you that don't know what it means, but maybe you've never had anything banned from you or your children before.

[Edge-]

If you define "banning books" as "removing from some grades in the K-12 educational curriculum"

And from school and local libraries as well.

Which some "liberal" Libraries are fighting back against by giving access to those books digitally for folks who the library doesn't serve: https://www.politico.com/news/2022/0...brary-00057828

then I think members of both sides are in favor of banning books.

Bad whataboutism that's in desperate need of qualification and context.

Some are more after Huckleberry Finn and To Kill a Mockingbird than All Boys Aren’t Blue or Sex Is a Funny Word.

Have liberals actually managed to ban those books in school districts? Or are they doing what you say that Republicans are doing - removing it from required reading lists but not actually banning it - https://www.deseret.com/utah/2022/1/...nges-continues

And for what it's worth, since I'm sure you'll go here quickly: No, I don't agree with removing it from the curriculum either. But I don't live there, I don't go to school there, and I don't have kids that go to school there so I don't get a say in the vote in the decision to remove the book from the required reading list.

Because there's no actual analog to what Republicans are doing nation-wide, both in schools and at their local libraries.

[Endus]

I'm sorry that you dispute the meaning of "seizure," but I suggest you consult a dictionary before doubling down on your definition of implied legal ownership. I'm afraid it's you that don't know what it means, but maybe you've never had anything seized from you before.

If you define "banning books" as "removing from some grades in the K-12 educational curriculum," then I think members of both sides are in favor of banning books. Some are more after Huckleberry Finn and To Kill a Mockingbird than All Boys Aren’t Blue or Sex Is a Funny Word.

You realize it's largely the same groups on one single side banning both sets of books, right?

[tehdang]

And from school and local libraries as well.

Which some "liberal" Libraries are fighting back against by giving access to those books digitally for folks who the library doesn't serve: https://www.politico.com/news/2022/0...brary-00057828

Yes, let me add. Some people define banning books as removing from school curriculum. Some define banning books as removing from elementary and high school libraries. Both of them see them for sale and distribution in bookstores as not mattering to their status as banned.

Bad whataboutism that's in desperate need of qualification and context.

I cited examples of current and past book bans from curricula. The news stories surrounding them weren't faked. Are you not aware of what certain activists found objectionable in them?

No, I don't agree with removing it from the curriculum either.

I'm glad to have a solitary example of you bucking the trend. It matters. I'm saddened that your opinion isn't as broadly shared among those in your ideological movement.

[Breccia]

Some people define banning--

You don't get to both claim "seize" has a specific meaning, while "ban" does not. Well, unless you admit you're trolling.

[postman1782]

Sorry if I don't want legal rights and privileges subject to analysis at who it bothers. First Amendment protected speech bothers an absolute ton of people, who might be tempted to outlaw speech they don't like. Prosecutors and cops are really bothered by getting stuff like warrants and demonstrating guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. So if you really want to talk about executive powers, don't act like that's the same thing as questioning what bothers whom.

I do enjoy when people say that public quotes are actually lies, in their pursuit of casting all criticism as lies. When you said "There was no illegitimate election," this contradicts the person Trump ran and won against. It's your quote. Don't pretend you're both contradicting someone, but also not yourself bringing the contradiction into relevance by inveighing against it.

It's pretty easy to keep the same opinion on separation of powers and working within existing systems of power. I don't judge their worth based on the reaction of left-wingers. They have different conceptions on the use and limits on the use of power, and obviously prefer their own when that comes into conflict.

Again, you don't get free speech with ANYONE or ANYTHING, but with the government. So if you are bitching about being banned from Twitter, or Youtube, or even MMO-Champion, you have nothing you can do but suck it up and either make a new account, as long as it isn't bypassing ToS like ban evading like on this website or anything else.

[tehdang]

Again, you don't get free speech with ANYONE or ANYTHING, but with the government. So if you are bitching about being banned from Twitter, or Youtube, or even MMO-Champion, you have nothing you can do but suck it up and either make a new account, as long as it isn't bypassing ToS like ban evading like on this website or anything else.

So, in response to my response to a poster talking about how Biden's executive actions "does not bother anyone," you want to rail against bans from websites. Ok, dude. Maybe you meant to post in another thread, or respond to another poster, because this is entirely non sequitur.