Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[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.

[Breccia]

Yep, Cohen testified about 20 times.

I have every faith that most lawyers keep records. I have more faith than normal that Cohen, knowing who Trump was (even if he was still working for him on purpose), made and kept more records than usual.

Yeah, I have to admit, at some point Team Trump is going to question Cohen's trustworthiness and man do I wish I was the judge for just that one issue. The idea of Trump saying "you cannot trust the word of the lawyer I used for decades, he admitted he lied and committed crimes on my behalf" is just too much and needs to be strangled to death in its own irony. But if I'm right and Cohen has records that back his side of the story, and Trump doesn't, it's an attempt that won't get past the judge. Might work on the jury, tho.

[D Luniz]

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.

No, remember, Barr is a side lined republican, hell, if not for Trump, he knows his time in gov was effectively over decades ago
He's in the "I don't want my headstone replaced with a toilet" phase of his political career (see one Chris Christe or GW Bush)
So ya, he's say sane things that appeal to the "independents"(ashamed republicans) because he doesn't need the GOP base for anything, cause he has private security.

[Breccia]

Well, let's check in on social media.

I love my father, and I love my country. Today, I am pained for both.

I appreciate the voices across the political spectrum expressing support and concern.

-- Ivanka Trump

"What else did she say?"

Nothing, near as I can tell.

"She didn't call this a WITCH HUNT?"

No.

"She didn't say her father was innocent?"

No.

"...when you were a kid, did your parents every force you to write thank-you cards for gifts you didn't like?"

Enough about that, next quote:

RADICAL LEFT, SOROS BACKED, DISTRICT ATTORNEY -- ALVIN BRAGG

-- Donald Trump

"Oh, so Trump found evidence Soros backed Bragg?"

No.

"Did Trump post that before or after Soros specifically and personally refuted the claim?"

After.

Not quite the same thing, but Haberman went on CNN and revealed that a long list of people with Trump's bus tire marks on their backs texted her.

Host Kaitlan Collins asked Haberman if there were people within the Trump Organization that were "quietly cheering" amid news of the indictment.

"By quietly, I'm sure they were loudly on their end of the phone, but were texting me," Haberman said. "And there was a long trail of people who feel burned in one way or another by Donald Trump. We certainly saw that in the White House. This was a pattern that existed for decades before the Trump Organization."

"The number of people I heard from yesterday who worked for his company, who were really happy. One person texted with the words 'wonderful news!'" she revealed. "That really tells you something about where these folks' heads are."

WHERE'S HUNTER?

-- Trump, 2:46AM

"Trump does know that the investigation into Hunter Biden started in 2018, when he was in charge, right?"

Probably not, no. Trump's awareness drops off pretty quickly once it leaves Trump.

Speaking of CyberTrump 2077, a Slate journalist wrote a lengthy article with the headline "What You’ll Find on Truth Social, Where Trump Is Going Nuclear"

It's a worthwhile read, in a "I drove past a ten-car pileup on fire" kind of way. I'll add one paragraph only but I do recommend the whole thing:

It’s not just precious metals that are funding this enterprise, mind you. There are also ads for a sketchy-looking website called Online Shopping Tools, which apparently “Amazon Hates,” even though “They Can’t Stop You.” Anyway, you ever heard of Natasha Owens? I had not, before I came across a “Sponsored Truth” from her account asking for fans to download her song “Trump Won” before it gets “removed.” Considering her song only has about 61,000 streams on Spotify even with the Truth boost, I would assume streaming services aren’t too concerned about its dangerous reach.

But seriously, this place has so many gold and silver ads.

"Doesn't that mean Hannity is technically being paid by Trump? Won't this come up in the Dominion lawsuit?"

I hope so, yes.

And my favorite:

.
.
.

-- Melania Trump

What's Melania been up to? Sources vary on her attitude, but she is seen in public...not heard, good lord no, Trump didn't have an affair with her for her independent thought. Reports still say she's living in a different part of the house and isn't planning on attending the indictment. Other than that, people are going by the context of her lack of public statements, and it's anything from "hoping it will all blow her husband for $130,000 blow over" to "divorce lawyers, stand back and stand by".

I will continue to say that the one thing, at this point, that will make the Republican Party actually evict Trump like he was black is--

"Are you accusing the Republican Party of being racist, or commenting on Trump's proven history of being a racist landlord?"

I mean, mostly the second. Anyhow, the one thing that would make the Republican Party evict Trump like an aging first and/or second wife would be proof Melania had an abortion. But Trump going through a divorce during the campaign would be way up there on the list. I don't know what new prenup Melania signed, and I have even less respect for her than both the porn star and my own Representatives that I call "whore" several times a day, but she is still human, and does have a limit. Trump fucking Stormy Daniels while Melania nursed their mutual son is something she's proven she's willing to be paid to accept. Trump going to jail would be new, but we're a ways off from that. But everyone knows Trump cheated on her, what we don't have is Trump admitting it under oath. Or, far more realistic, Trump being asked and refusing to answer. Only guilty people take the Fifth, remember?

Melania could be the most powerful person in the Party of Trump right now, because she, and she alone, can end it in 24 hours if she wants to. This is a hypothetical, but I firmly believe that, the very day Melania calls a press conference to announce "Trump cheated on me and I'm filing for divorce" is a day everyone in the Republican Party, including FOX News, actually sees it as a starter's pistol to finally back away from the deplorable who cost them three elections and made Mitch McConnell a minority.

Hmm. A single by itself low-key event that could lead to a chain reaction ending Donald Trump's future. If only that was a parallel to something else we're all talking about.

[Gorsameth]

I mean, mostly the second. Anyhow, the one thing that would make the Republican Party evict Trump like an aging first and/or second wife would be proof Melania had an abortion. But Trump going through a divorce during the campaign would be way up there on the list. I don't know what new prenup Melania signed, and I have even less respect for her than both the porn star and my own Representatives that I call "whore" several times a day, but she is still human, and does have a limit. Trump fucking Stormy Daniels while Melania nursed their mutual son is something she's proven she's willing to be paid to accept. Trump going to jail would be new, but we're a ways off from that. But everyone knows Trump cheated on her, what we don't have is Trump admitting it under oath. Or, far more realistic, Trump being asked and refusing to answer. Only guilty people take the Fifth, remember?

Melania could be the most powerful person in the Party of Trump right now, because she, and she alone, can end it in 24 hours if she wants to. This is a hypothetical, but I firmly believe that, the very day Melania calls a press conference to announce "Trump cheated on me and I'm filing for divorce" is a day everyone in the Republican Party, including FOX News, actually sees it as a starter's pistol to finally back away from the deplorable who cost them three elections and made Mitch McConnell a minority.

Hmm. A single by itself low-key event that could lead to a chain reaction ending Donald Trump's future. If only that was a parallel to something else we're all talking about.

Considering Melania hasn't divorced yet I just assume she won't get a cent if she initiates a divorce for any reason and is just waiting for him to die.

[Breccia]

Considering Melania hasn't divorced yet I just assume she won't get a cent if she initiates a divorce for any reason and is just waiting for him to die.

I mean, I'd contradict that if I could. It's almost certain very very very favorable to Trump. But it's forseeable that
(a) at some point it's still worth it, and/or
(b) leaving with nothing could be better than waiting and leaving with less than nothing.

If the rumors about Ivanka, Kushner, and Melania's behind-the-scenes disgust are true, she could potentlally leave and be supported by Kushner.

- - - Updated - - -

Jeb Bush questions Trump indictment, says jury should be ‘the voters’

"Wait, voters can send someone to jail?"

Of course not.

"Then what is he saying?"

He is saying "Hey Trump cultists, I am sucking up to you. Vote for me."