Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Finlandia WOAT]

I'm honestly still waiting for the crime Hunter Biden committed to be stated. Other than illegal drug usage. Him getting a job because his dad has connections? Yeah, that is a common thing in white collar jobs. Not illegal. Backroom deals because of connections? Once again, not illegal and somewhat normal in white collar jobs.

He may have lied on a gun permit.

That's it, far as tangible wrongdoing goes.

[Edge-]

https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/pr...erference-2016

Related to all this, seems like some of the 2016 interference charges are still being worked through. DoJ just secured a conviction for a guy who really likes the movie Major League for his role in participating in a coordinated campaign to spread misinformation with the intent of denying people their constitutional right to vote.

[Breccia]

CNN managed to get Mike Pence somehow. That link is a video, but there's a good exchange in the middle which I'll paraphrase.

Pence: "Federal prosecutors declined to move on this (while Trump was in the WH)"
Wolf Blitzer: "The DOJ, under Trump, arrested Cohen, and convicted him, for making the payments for Trump."
Pence: "I want to talk about something else."

[Edge-]

Honestly I might be more upset that they've seemingly attached permanent shock-paddles to Wolf to keep him shuffling around. I thought he's been legally braindead for at least the past half decade.

[Breccia]

The NYTimes talked to some of the people who gathered around Mar-a-Lago to protest.

When asked why she made the trek to Palm Beach, Loxahatchee resident Georgia McGeerey said she had come to "fight for America."

Lake Worth resident Nancy Sparks, 83, said the indictment was set off by Trump's presidential run. “They said they would get him and they’re trying. It’s going to backfire and the Democrats are going to wish they didn’t mess with him,” she said.

"Yeah! MAGA! How many people were there?"

Twenty.

"Twenty...thousand?"

Twenty people. As in, take the number of years you get for obstruction of justice, and it was that many.

Greene seems to think she'll have better luck. She's organizing a protest in New York. Incidentally, the sewer rats of NYC have already announced they're protesting the arrival of MTG.

[Edge-]

Lake Worth resident Nancy Sparks, 83

Is grandma escaping the memory care wing of the assisted living facility she's in again?

[gondrin]

The NYTimes talked to some of the people who gathered around Mar-a-Lago to protest.



"Yeah! MAGA! How many people were there?"

Twenty.

"Twenty...thousand?"

Twenty people. As in, take the number of years you get for obstruction of justice, and it was that many.

Greene seems to think she'll have better luck. She's organizing a protest in New York. Incidentally, the sewer rats of NYC have already announced they're protesting the arrival of MTG.

Well, be careful. There was one giant rat that did protest for Trump. He might be back out there in again.

[Edge-]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/for...ite-house-2024

Bill Barr thinks it's to hurt GOP chances of winning the White House in 2024.

Which is weird for him to say. Especially since it's basically a tacit admission on his part that he doesn't think the entire rest of the GOP can field a candidate that can beat Trump in the primaries, even if he's in prison during that time I guess.

How embarrassing for him and his party.

[Breccia]

Which is weird for him to say.

Hard disagree.

I think it makes a lot of sense and everyone should be saying it. Republicans are not. What's strange isn't that Barr said it, it's that no other Republican is.

[gondrin]

Hard disagree.

I think it makes a lot of sense and everyone should be saying it. Republicans are not. What's strange isn't that Barr said it, it's that no other Republican is.

Well, now that someone has said it, the rest will follow. Republicans are lemmings for the most part. All it takes is one of them to do something and the rest go along with it like it is fine.

[Breccia]

Hours ago, I suggested Trump would file dismissal motion after dismissal motion, hoping to get an activist judge who would throw out all the evidence in what I suggested was an ironclad case (to go up against Trump, you'd need one).

Then, this happened:

Trump to face same judge who oversaw Trump Organization case

It's Judge Merchan. The Trump Org judge.

Oh, dear. Someone already tired of Trump's bullshit.

Look, a cornerstone of America is being able to get a fair trial. But when Trump has relentlessly abused the law and stalled on so many cases for so long, I can't even pretend to be sad about this. A judge is not biased because they don't like Trump. A judge is biased because they don't like Trump, with no valid reason. It's like why reasonable people hate Nazis, for example. Judge Merchan has a very good reason, and Trump could enter the trial unable to get any purchase at all on flailing and screeching and stamping his feet.

He'll have to defend his case on the merits. And the last time Trump was that screwed, it cost him $130,000 of Cohen's money.

Now Trump would be wise to push for a new judge. I don't see this judge stepping aside for that. "Your Honor, the defense moves that you recuse yourself because you already are wise to my bullshit" should be met with "Don't break my chair when you sit your fat ass down".

- - - Updated - - -

Well, now that someone has said it, the rest will follow.

I don't believe this will happen. The Party of Trump will never admit this. Classic conservatives want Trump's voters more than they want Trump, and will not admit this easily or quickly. Barr isn't running for anything.

[gondrin]

Hours ago, I suggested Trump would file dismissal motion after dismissal motion, hoping to get an activist judge who would throw out all the evidence in what I suggested was an ironclad case (to go up against Trump, you'd need one).

Then, this happened:

Trump to face same judge who oversaw Trump Organization case

It's Judge Merchan. The Trump Org judge.

Oh, dear. Someone already tired of Trump's bullshit.

Look, a cornerstone of America is being able to get a fair trial. But when Trump has relentlessly abused the law and stalled on so many cases for so long, I can't even pretend to be sad about this. A judge is not biased because they don't like Trump. A judge is biased because they don't like Trump, with no valid reason. It's like why reasonable people hate Nazis, for example. Judge Merchan has a very good reason, and Trump could enter the trial unable to get any purchase at all on flailing and screeching and stamping his feet.

He'll have to defend his case on the merits. And the last time Trump was that screwed, it cost him $130,000 of Cohen's money.

Now Trump would be wise to push for a new judge. I don't see this judge stepping aside for that. "Your Honor, the defense moves that you recuse yourself because you already are wise to my bullshit" should be met with "Don't break my chair when you sit your fat ass down".

- - - Updated - - -



I don't believe this will happen. The Party of Trump will never admit this. Classic conservatives want Trump's voters more than they want Trump, and will not admit this easily or quickly. Barr isn't running for anything.

So, if this were a D&D game, Trump rolled a big fat 1 and lost all of his saving throws. I also misread the post. Still tired from work from the previous couple of weeks of being short staffed and it is getting busier.

[Poopymonster]

Hours ago, I suggested Trump would file dismissal motion after dismissal motion, hoping to get an activist judge who would throw out all the evidence in what I suggested was an ironclad case (to go up against Trump, you'd need one).

Then, this happened:

Trump to face same judge who oversaw Trump Organization case

It's Judge Merchan. The Trump Org judge.

Oh, dear. Someone already tired of Trump's bullshit.

Look, a cornerstone of America is being able to get a fair trial. But when Trump has relentlessly abused the law and stalled on so many cases for so long, I can't even pretend to be sad about this. A judge is not biased because they don't like Trump. A judge is biased because they don't like Trump, with no valid reason. It's like why reasonable people hate Nazis, for example. Judge Merchan has a very good reason, and Trump could enter the trial unable to get any purchase at all on flailing and screeching and stamping his feet.

He'll have to defend his case on the merits. And the last time Trump was that screwed, it cost him $130,000 of Cohen's money.

Now Trump would be wise to push for a new judge. I don't see this judge stepping aside for that. "Your Honor, the defense moves that you recuse yourself because you already are wise to my bullshit" should be met with "Don't break my chair when you sit your fat ass down".

- - - Updated - - -



I don't believe this will happen. The Party of Trump will never admit this. Classic conservatives want Trump's voters more than they want Trump, and will not admit this easily or quickly. Barr isn't running for anything.

He could appeal that the judge was mean to him for his bullshit, which takes it up a notch, to a group of appeals judges who probably will be deemed "mean" for not putting up with his bullshit.

[Logwyn]

Anyone think that a small group of miscreants will show up at the trial with MTGreene in tow? Just yelling about random stuff that She has no idea about?

[Breccia]

I also misread the post.

Some might argue that the mark of maturity is willingness to admit you made a mistake. Oh, shit, that's really off-topic in a thread about Trump and his supporters. Uh, quick, find a story to link!

Has anyone heard from Mitch McConnell?

As that FOX News article says, so yesh +1 CNN point, that while Barr has said something negative, McConnell has said nothing at all.

This...100% fits their long history, doesn't it? McConnell isn't stupid enough to say "Yes, he should go to trial, there was a grand jury and everything, that's how the legal system is supposed to work. He can contest the charges like every other American, as we have since 1783. God Bless America." But he is smart enough not to say "Trump did nothing wrong and this is a bigly yuge WITCH HUNT!" on the chance Trump is, you know, convicted.

I do find it funny that this is the first article in ages I've seen where FOX News refers to him as

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has said nothing about Trump's indictment this week, even as several House Republicans have condemned the charges as politically motivated.

Since Trump's indictment was reported Thursday, McConnell has issued no public statements on Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's criminal case against the former president and leading Republican 2024 candidate. Neither has Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., the No. 2 Republican in the Senate.

McConnell's office told Fox News Digital that it did not have a comment as of Friday. Thune's office did not respond to a request for comment.

McConnell and Trump are not on good terms — McConnell said in December that Trump is "diminished" and blamed the former president for the GOP's disappointing performance in the 2022 midterm elections. Trump, who holds a grudge against the Senate GOP leader for refusing to go along with his claims that the 2020 election was stolen, called McConnell a "tremendous liability for the Republican Party" in an interview with Fox News.

Those two aren't lemmings jumping off the cliff, but they are standing on the edge looking at the water.

I hate to say it, but McConnell might be the single most effective current elected federal official. He has plenty of experience and the intelligence to use it. While silence is acceptance, and McConnell in particular playing to the Trump base is something I doubt he or I are thrilled with, silence is not support.

Of course, McConnell is not just looking for a way to ditch someone who's done nothing but harm his party and, yes, throw him out of majority leadership, but he surely also knows as a GOP Senator there's nothing useful he could do anyhow. His options are to yell at passing clouds, aim a gun at his foot and say Trump had it coming, or be silent. He picked the least risky option.

- - - Updated - - -

He could appeal

I have less than no idea how that would work. You're probably right, but I admit that how a defendant would force a change of judge in their own trial is something I only see in fiction.

That said, you have a good point -- the judges in NYC have all at the least heard of Trump's bullshit and some have had to handle appeals in the past. Trump will get a fair trial, for as...I think @Endus has said but probably others too, you can be neutral and still say someone is a horrible human being because they keep proving they are a horrible human being. And I would assume "he keeps filing bullshit claims" would be way up there on the list of how to get a judge on your bad side.

[gondrin]

He could appeal that the judge was mean to him for his bullshit, which takes it up a notch, to a group of appeals judges who probably will be deemed "mean" for not putting up with his bullshit.

Problem with Trump in this is he cannot take it outside of NY. He won't get a friendly judge for any reason as it is a state case. Could he appeal? Yes. Every person has the right to appeal any judgement against them. And Trump is allowed to have his day in court for this case as much of a disgusting person that he is.

However, he most definitely won't get a friendly judge unless he appeals it all the way to the Supreme Court, which more than likely won't happen as it probably won't get that far. But unless you get a corrupt judge, most will treat the case fairly and hear out the evidence involved.

[Breccia]

Problem with Trump in this is he cannot take it outside of NY. He won't get a friendly judge for any reason as it is a state case.

Don't go too far with this logic. Don't forget where my whore of a Rep. Elise Stefanik is.

[postman1782]

CNN managed to get Mike Pence somehow. That link is a video, but there's a good exchange in the middle which I'll paraphrase.

Pence: "Federal prosecutors declined to move on this (while Trump was in the WH)"
Wolf Blitzer: "The DOJ, under Trump, arrested Cohen, and convicted him, for making the payments for Trump."
Pence: "I want to talk about something else."

Yep, and Trump is individual 1 in that case, the only reason they didn't go after Trump was because he was president.

- - - Updated - - -
@Breccia I never saw this in 2018, but apparently this came out then.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/...y-model-740413

The tape was entered into evidence.

[Breccia]

The tape was entered into evidence.

Trump's defense will not be "it did not happen".

Trump's defense will be "it was not illegal". His goal will be that paying women to say you didn't have sex with them, oh and he'll claim he didn't of course because family valuuuuuuuuuuuues, paying women to say you didn't have sex with them is totally normal and a thing everyone does. The goal being that falsifying paperwork to NYState is only a felony if covering for a felony.

Of course, he has a major obstacle: Cohen. Who knows the story, has no reason to hide his part in it anymore, and is going to be horrifyingly vindictive.

I'll also point out even a legal NDA does not hold up to the witness stand. Um, pretty sure. It is not just possible, but likely, that the prosecution will ask not just "did you have sex with him" but also "did you demand money for your silence, otherwise you would specifically ruin his 2016 campaign?" The NDA will not say this, but the human being who signed it can.

[postman1782]

Trump's defense will not be "it did not happen".

Trump's defense will be "it was not illegal". His goal will be that paying women to say you didn't have sex with them, oh and he'll claim he didn't of course because family valuuuuuuuuuuuues, paying women to say you didn't have sex with them is totally normal and a thing everyone does. The goal being that falsifying paperwork to NYState is only a felony if covering for a felony.

Of course, he has a major obstacle: Cohen. Who knows the story, has no reason to hide his part in it anymore, and is going to be horrifyingly vindictive.

I'll also point out even a legal NDA does not hold up to the witness stand. Um, pretty sure. It is not just possible, but likely, that the prosecution will ask not just "did you have sex with him" but also "did you demand money for your silence, otherwise you would specifically ruin his 2016 campaign?" The NDA will not say this, but the human being who signed it can.

Yep, Cohen testified about 20 times.