Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[solinari6]

DNA obtained from a lawful arrest and arraignment is 100% legal to use in another criminal case where DNA was sought. The analogy would be if someone were applying for a federal job, and had to be fingerprinted for it (and DNA'd now). Those materials could be used against them later, in a match when law enforcement officials ran a future unknown sample.

I'm pretty sure the Carroll case is a civil one, not a criminal one. He's on the hook for defamation, not for rape. Does the same DNA sharing apply for civil cases?

[Breccia]

Ladies and gentlemen, very stable genius Donald Trump.

Wow! District Attorney Bragg just illegally LEAKED the various points, and complete information, on the pathetic Indictment against me.

I know the reporter and so, unfortunately, does he. This means that he MUST BE IMMEDIATELY INDICTED. Now, if he wants to really clean up his reputation, he will do the honorable thing and, as District Attorney, INDICT HIMSELF.

D.A. BRAGG JUST ILLEGALLY LEAKED THE 33 points of Indictment. There are no changes or surprises from those he leaked days ago directly out of the Grand Jury. No Crime by Trump. What a MESS. Bragg should resign, NOW!

Speaking of LEAKS, Special ‘Prosecutor’ Jack Smith (What did his name used to be?) leaked massive amounts of information to The Washington ComPost. This is illegal, and I assume this Radical Left Lunatic, much to the chagrin of his Trump Hating wife and family, will be PROSECUTED?

Biden is guilty of Obstruction, I am not!

"The charges have been leaked? Where are they? What are they?"

I don't know. They don't seem to be public. Tucker Carlson is following Trump by saying the leak of the charges of the indictment, are worse than the indictment. Which sounds as crazy as it is insane.

MSNBC has a theory that Trump is reacting to a Yahoo article which in turn is a late reprint of the same list from 3 days ago, which in turn, seems to be coming from the grand jury or another court official. You can read that here and decide if this is enough evidence to have Bragg resign. The Yahoo article suggests the charges are falsifying paperwork...but we all knew that already. We've known that for months. Cohen more or less said that directly to the cameras.

"Did Trump name the reporter?"

No. So like MSNBC we're forced to guess.

"So, if the charges aren't public, and we don't have independent verification, how do we know Trump isn't making this up?"

I think we have every reason to believe Trump is making this up.

"How could Bragg indict himself if he resigned?"

He couldn't. He'd have to indict himself first, then resign second.

"How many people in the history of human civilization have ever indicted themselves, at the request of the defendant of a criminal prosecution?"

I'm going to guess maybe four.

"In the same vein as 'unclassified information is not leaking' if there was No Crime by Trump, what was leaked that was so illegal?"

Again, Trump is not claiming he didn't do these things, only claiming that there is no crime. It's not that the leak, if there was even a leak, says there was no crime but we're charging him anyhow. It's that Trump is editorializing.

"Um...'what did his name used to be'? The fuck?"

Trump has brought up Jack Smith's name before. He has never explained. It's just another conspiracy theory that his followers, such as tehdang and GreenJesus, have either embraced, or effectively embraced by watching Trump do it and saying nothing.

"Does Trump have proof that either Bragg or Smith leaked, personally?"

No.

Trump is likely worried about this article but there is no proof Smith was the source, which is "people familiar with the matter". I won't quote the whole thing, because it's the obstruction stuff we already knew, but here's a couple bits I didn't know:

The Washington Post reported in October that Trump’s valet, Walt Nauta, had told investigators that he moved boxes at Mar-a-Lago at Trump’s instruction after the subpoena was issued. Smith’s team has video surveillance footage corroborating that account, The Post reported, and considers the evidence significant.

In addition, the people familiar with the investigation said, authorities have another category of evidence that they consider particularly helpful as they reconstruct events from last spring: emails and texts of Molly Michael, an assistant to the former president who followed him from the White House to Florida before she eventually left that job last year. Michael’s written communications have provided investigators with a detailed understanding of the day-to-day activity at Mar-a-Lago at critical moments, these people said.

I will point out that what both of these witnesses have in common is verification of their story. Trump should be terrified.

"Trump mentions Smith has a Trump-hating family. Has he mentioned Ginni Thomas?"

Yes, but only positively. Trump seems to be trying to condemn Smith, and others, by association, but only when it's Democrats. In other words, his protests mean nothing, considering to the best of my knowledge Jack Smith's wife has not been raising dark money.

"Did Trump ever leak anything?"

Well, he stole 15 boxes of classfied information and left it unsecured, so, yes. Considering he wasn't in the WH at the time it was found, "it wasn't illegal because Trump did it" doesn't really seem to work there.

EDIT: "Didn't Trump used to routinely call articles that were negative about him, with anonymous sources, FAKE NEWS? Why isn't he doing it this time?"

I think it's telling that not even Trump can sell that lie to his own cultists. He likely knows the charges are very real, because he did the crimes himself. Also, not even Trump would say that there were 33 counts...or 34...is a lie, just before being served with 33 counts. His followers are divorced from reality, but not goldfish.

"Does this look like a group of posts by someone who knows they are innocent and about to be exonorated?"

No. They sound like a desperate, terrified, panicking screaming coward who is trying to Whataboutism his way out of being dragged into court for all that stuff he did. There is an extremely low chance either Bragg or Smith personally leaked information that would sabotage their own cases. There is a no percent chance either one will resign over this, or indict themselves over this. And I don't see anyone else with the authority being motivated to do so, either.

I would ask for Trump supporters to clarify matters, but what a surprise, they're absent from this thread and in some cases these forums entirely. So I'll half-satirically "quote" what their silence means.

Trump is a criminal and we always knew it, but wanted the policies he claimed to represent. Our silence is admission of shame and regret for backing such an obvious lying loser criminal, but we'd rather die than admit we made a mistake. Since we can't defend him on the merits either, the only solution isto hide in our bunkers, crying into our single scoops of ice cream, and hope that Trump walks on a technicality so we can pretend we never doubted him once in public. Until then, the facts and evidence are strongly against Trump and we admit it's more likely than not that we voted at least twice for someone who was already a proven fraud and could soon be a convicted felon.

Any, literally any, Trump supporter is free to post on the facts as we know them to refute the above sarcastic "quote". Until then, it applies to all of them.

[The Stormbringer]

They need to slap his ass with a gag order immediately. This buffoon can't help but run his mouth and insult everyone who is involved in something that might be critical of or potentially against him. I hope they give him a gag order and he moronically breaks it and gets slapped with more charges.

[Endus]

They need to slap his ass with a gag order immediately. This buffoon can't help but run his mouth and insult everyone who is involved in something that might be critical of or potentially against him. I hope they give him a gag order and he moronically breaks it and gets slapped with more charges.

Even without a gag order, publicly attacking the prosecutor once charges are filed can be treated as obstruction of justice, and attacking the judge can be considered contempt of court.

He could make one slap about the "corrupt Soros-funded judge" and then immediately go to jail until he publicly retracts and apologizes.

[Draco-Onis]

We should all take in the irony here, Trump thought the republican party was too moral to take the fact that he had an affair with a porn star so he paid her hush money. The republican party now is openly saying nah we got no morals and he is fundraising millions off his amoral acts. The party of "family values" is falling over themselves defending sleeping with a porn star after your wife gives birth to your kid.

If at any point these empty shells of humans ever talk about morality they should be laughed at.

[Kaleredar]

We should all take in the irony here, Trump thought the republican party was too moral to take the fact that he had an affair with a porn star so he paid her hush money. The republican party now is openly saying nah we got no morals and he is fundraising millions off his amoral acts. The party of "family values" is falling over themselves defending sleeping with a porn star after your wife gives birth to your kid.

If at any point these empty shells of humans ever talk about morality they should be laughed at.

They do. Constantly. Just look at them hand-wringing about the “unprecedented politicization” of prosecuting trump when trump made “lock her up” his campaign slogan in 2016.

It’s all just hollow, hypocritical hot air.

[Breccia]

We should all take in the irony here, Trump thought the republican party was too moral to take the fact that he had an affair with a porn star so he paid her hush money. The republican party now is openly saying nah we got no morals and he is fundraising millions off his amoral acts. The party of "family values" is falling over themselves defending sleeping with a porn star after your wife gives birth to your kid.

Well, it's that or something almost as bad.

Trump is claiming that he didn't have sex with them, and his followers are pretending to believe him. Meaning, that instead of a world in which their chosen leaders (looking at you, Gingrich) commit adultery, they are choosing instead to live in a world where their chosen leaders pay off people who have objectively false FAKE NEWS! about them.

Which...is nonsense, but we are talking about Trump supporters here. They'd rather intentionally live in nonsense, than in morals, ethics, and facts.

If you can get $130,000 for just lying about having sex with Trump, and the story is buried rather than fought vehemently in the public eye, why haven't more people done that? I mean, I'm straight, but if I could get $130,000 by claiming I had sex with Trump until he pays me and makes me sign a contract to stop saying that...why haven't I done so already?

The answer, of course, is plausibility. I've been in the same zip code as Trump maybe five times in my life. I never sat foot in Trump Tower, nor was seen with him in public, in the first four, and I didn't attend his rally the fifth. (Also, it would be pretty tough for me to convince the world that Trump, with Trump's history, was secretly homosexual. Like, impossible.)

But why do we only know a small number of women making these claims? Daniels, McDougal? It's because they can almost certainly prove that, not only have they met Trump, they've been in a room with him with no witnesses for long enough to have sex. Trump couldn't disprove the accusations no matter what, which is why having Daniels (etc) sit on the stand and say "Your Honor, I say under oath that I had sex with Donald John Trump for money, and I was not his wife at the time". Even if it was a lie, he could not prove that. And while the contracts were likely written in language such as "You will not say you had sex with Trump" and not "You will not talk about the time we had sex", they're not proof either. (They also don't survive the witness chair) Trump would either have to take the stand himself and hope Daniels lordy doesn't have tapes, or just as bad, hope his appearance on the stand wasn't broadcast on TV to every carbon-based life form on earth.

But facing all that, his supporters will still say "Even though these women that we know were close to Trump and were alone in a room with Trump were paid money, we are choosing to believe that's standard behavior anyone would do, with or without a prenup or erection. Election! Fuck!" Because they know facts and evidence are bad for their chosen frame of mind, and they'd rather die than admit they made a mistake.

"Why didn't Trump just ignore it?"

...what?

"If Daniels made the story up and had no proof because it didn't happen, why not just ignore it? Without proof, it'd blow over eventually, right?"

Well, three reasons.

One, Trump is incapable of handling a negative story about him, factual or fictional, with any semblence of dignity. So no, he couldn't ignore it. He's a dangerous narcisist. That's not an excuse, it's me saying he's mentally unwell.

Two, the 2016 election was close enough to be decided by a laptop with nothing on it. Even short-term, a fake story could have scared off 70,000 voters until December. EDIT: I should point out, that makes the payment an election issue, and therefore the crime for which he's shortly to be charged.

Three, because the story is true. Trump had sex with a whore and she threatened to go public. The simplest answer is often the best one.

[Endus]

It’s all just hollow, hypocritical hot air.

I feel the need to reiterate that accusations of "hypocrisy" won't ever make headway against Republicans, because they're not actually hypocrites, not really.

They don't believe the shit they say. They don't stand for "freedom", or against "politicization", or any of that shit. What they believe in is power. They chant "lock her up" because they want the power to do that. They protest the "politicization" of the law against Trump because it's a threat to their power. It's all just the uneven distribution of power in their favor; that is their single political goal and purpose. Everything else is an intentional lie to get everyone else to chase their tails, wasting time trying to "prove hypocrisy" and such when the reality is no Republicans give a shit, and they're just ratcheting forward into greater control and power while everyone else pretends the problem is anything but that.

[Breccia]

Trump asks the public for a change in venue.

Very unfair venue, with some areas that voted 1% Republican. This case should be moved to nearby Staten Island – Would be a very fair and secure location for the trial

"Let me guess. 'Fair' in this context means 'an area that voted for Trump'."

Yes. 57% apparently.

"Is Trump suggesting that the jury's political makeup is what will cause conviction?"

Yes, probably because he knows he's guilty and wants his supporters to block the case.

"Why hasn't he asked in court?"

Well, for one, the court case hasn't started yet.

For two:

Trump’s attorney in the case, Joe Tacopina, on Sunday said there had been “no discussion of that whatsoever” when asked about the possibility of seeking a change of venue to Staten Island.

“It’s way too premature to start worrying about venue changes until we really see the indictment and grapple with the legal issues,” Tacopina said on ABC’s “This Week.”

because Trump is just screaming into the wind while the lawyers on both sides are focused on things that matter.

"What good does asking the public for a change of venue do?"

It lets him whine like a little bitch. It has no useful effect.

"Is it common to let a change of venue, because everyone hates the criminal, because of all those crimes they did?"

Changes of venue can happen, but to my inexperienced, unexpert recollection, they typically happen when someone is well-known in one location, but less so in others. Trump is known coast to coast. Moving the venue won't help there.

In his Tuesday morning Truth Social post, Trump also launched new attacks against the judge presiding over the case, Juan Merchan, claiming he and his family “are well known Trump Haters.”

"Isn't Merchan a well-known 'Trump hater' because Trump was guilty as hell in the previous case? And tried a bunch of bullshit that didn't work?"

Probably. Trump claiming that a judge hates him is not great -- we're all thinking "gag order", some of us just preface with with "For the love of God". But a judge that knows Team Trump's bullshit legal tactics doesn't make that judge unfair. He's likely told his friends and colleagues, and even if not, they read the news.

Trump is a sociopathic narcisist. He's insane. "Fair" does not mean in real life what it means in Trump's demented, insane psyche.

- - - Updated - - -

Barr's got more to say on Trump's legal issues.

Former Attorney General Bill Barr, who has called the Manhattan DA's case "pathetically weak," sounded the alarm on Sunday over the legitimate danger Trump is facing in the classified documents probe.

"I think the document case is the most serious case," Barr told Fox News. "I don't think they went after those documents to get Trump. I think they actually wanted the documents back."

"What's at issue in that case is not the taking of the documents. It's what he did after the government sought them and subpoenaed them, and whether there was any obstruction."

That...sounds like Barr admitting there was obstruction.

Barr might be a sack of feces pretending to be a human being, but...hold on. Let me try again.

Barr is a sack of feces pretending to be a human being. But he's also the single most competent lawyer Trump ever fired. And based on his other comments about the NY case, I don't think he's biased against Trump to the point of making that statement up. I think he's flat-out saying he worked for someone who willingly committed a crime. Well, he was fired first. Well, fired before that crime. Look, the corruption is complicated, Barr didn't steal documents is what I'm saying.

[Gorsameth]

Really Barr? You think the government legit cared about getting back top secret documents pertaining to foreign nuclear security?
I am shocked....

[cubby]

I'm pretty sure the Carroll case is a civil one, not a criminal one. He's on the hook for defamation, not for rape. Does the same DNA sharing apply for civil cases?

Yes, it applies to civil cases as well.

[Breccia]

So, speaking of the federal case:

1) FOX News reports (+1 CNN point, not that I was low...yet) that multiple Secret Service agents are expected to testify before the grand jury Friday.

As a reminder to everyone including myself, this is a grand jury. The defense gets basically nothing here. These SS agents were asked to testify, because it's expected they have things to say about Trump's guilt, not his innocence. And, well, I'm moderately sure no SS agent is going to risk both their job and perjury jail time for Trump on this one. Maybe they didn't see anything, and if so that's fine, that's the truth. But that's the best case scenario. None of them have proof Trump didn't do it -- you can't prove a negative like that. And if they have proof it was someone else, remember conspiracy is on the table.

2) CNN reports (easy come, easy go) that

Special counsel prosecutors have secured evidence including daily notes, texts, emails and photographs and are focused on cataloging how Donald Trump handled classified records around the Mar-a-Lago resort and those who may have witnessed Trump with them, according to multiple sources familiar with the investigation.

Yeah, the special counsel seems to want this over and done with.

The recent investigative activity before a federal grand jury in Washington, DC, also includes subpoenaing witnesses in March and April who had previously spoken to investigators, the sources said. While the FBI interviewed many aides and workers at Mar-a-Lago nearly a year ago voluntarily, grand jury appearances are transcribed and under-oath – an indication the prosecutors are locking in witness testimony.

Another source familiar with the matter told CNN that Secret Service agents tasked with protecting the former president have been called to testify. The number of agents remains unclear. Fox first reported on the development.

"Hey, why'd you quote that second part? You just cited it from the source."

Yeah I thought it was funny. CNN saw FOX News post a story that was bad for Trump and was like "oh sheeeeeeeeeeeet we gotta rub that in their faces, yo"

"Is this stuff we already knew?"

No.

The new evidence the team working for special counsel Jack Smith is focusing on is separate from what was obtained through a recent grand jury pursuit of Trump’s defense lawyer Evan Corcoran, a source told CNN. Corcoran spoke with Trump the day the Trump Organization received a subpoena for Mar-a-Lago surveillance tapes and at other pivotal moments last year, and the DOJ believes Trump used the lawyer to try to advance a crime.

The grand jury activity – expected to continue to occur at a frequent clip in the coming weeks – builds upon several known reactions Trump and others around him had to the DOJ’s attempt to reclaim classified records last year, and which prompted the FBI to obtain a judge’s approval to search Mar-a-Lago in August for classified records.

Some of the evidence the DOJ has used to persuade a judge to allow that search is still under seal.

3) Hannity, in that interview I keep going back to because fuck that was stupid of them both, seems to have a peanut gallery.

Morning Joe Crew ROASTS Hannity For Trying To ‘Move On’ In Middle of Trump ‘Confession’

"Hey, you can't cite them, they're biased!"

And Hannity isn't?

"...continue."

When Trump replied by contradicting the host, Hannity tried to interrupt him and “move on,” but Trump bulldozed him and insisted, “I have the right to take stuff. I have the right to take stuff and look at stuff. I have the right to look at stuff.”

On Tuesday morning’s edition of MSNBC’s Morning Joe, Scarborough introduced the clip by telling his control room, “Let’s play this clip again in case you all… Well, first of all, I missed Donald Trump’s confession. And two missed Sean Hannity trying to move him along. And he just wouldn’t do it because he’s like going, ‘No, I like my hand on the hot stove so much!'”

Actually...I think they also read these forums?

JOHN HEILEMANN: One of the things we also learn in that clip. You know, the Fox News people occasionally say, the Fox News people occasionally say that, hey, you know, our primetime hosts are not actually journalists. That’s not actually news we do in prime time. That’s entertainment. The best example, the best of.

JOE SCARBOROUGH: They say that in their legal pleadings!

JOHN HEILEMANN: That’s correct. And the best evidence for that claim is Sean Hannity, you know his behavior here. When’s the last time you saw, Joe, a journalist in the middle of an interview? When the subject is confessing to a crime, the journalist saying, let’s move on, as opposed to. Excuse me, sir. We would like to, let’s let’s spend some time on that topic! Rather extraordinary performance! I mean, even by the low standards that we apply to Hannity, that was a kind of amazing, amazing performance on his part!

I know we've brought the bolded up before.

4) There are a lot of stories like this one from a couple days ago.

Trump supporters gathered outside his Mar-a-Lago home to protest his indictment

"Why weren't they invited inside? They were clearly Trump fans."

Private club. No entry.

"But...they were saying bigly yuge WITCH HUNT, rigged biased leaks Hunter Biden NO U. Trump could have said thank you? Or waved? Or sent out sandwiches, like that one restaurant did during his Waco rally?"

He could have. He didn't.

5) Someone named Dr. Gina who was at Mar-a-Lago when the ind--

"She's one of Trump's closest advisors."

You again!

"Dr. Gina is a doctor, but her qualifications are not what she says they are. She claimed to have a PhD in psychology, but was called out for it by The Daily Beast when her PhD was found to be in human and organization systems from a school focused on online accelerated study. Dr. Gina sued on the grounds of 'close enough' but then dropped the lawsuit when it was clear she could not make her case, as all the objective facts were objectively against her."

"She is also a 2020 Trump campaign media advisory board member, the head of Women For Trump in 2020, and the spokesblonde for Citizens Voters Inc. which, you guessed it, is pushing for a Constitutional amendment that only citizens may vote, something that is already law. She is also a Mar-a-Lago paying member, which explains the photos you're about to mention."

Yeah, so anyhow, Dr. Loudon -- yes, a Trump media promoter's name is literally pronounced "Loud One" -- posted pictures in an attempt to troll the libs, claiming that Trump was surrounded by (reads previous point) people who paid money to be near Donald Trump. She used the term "friends" but I assume that's a typo.

The picture...well...it wasn't what she was going for.



First, she called them "the REAL First Couple" meaning that Dr. Loudon is an election denier. In other words, a conspiracy theorist.

Second...is that the best she could do? Trump does not look happy. At all. For someone surrounded by friends, FUCK, now I did it too! For someone surrounded by people paying to be near Donald Trump, he does not seem especially happy.

"Is that the only pic she posted?"

No, but the other one appears to be unrelated people sitting at tables. I could do that from restaurants myself, and ones I don't have to pay a yearly fee to enter. Actually, hang on.



That's just a random picture of a party at Buffalo Wild Wings. It's just as relevant as what Dr. Loudon posted. Have you tried the new Buffalo Ranch? It's actually really good.

Sorry to disappoint, corporate media. Actually not. Screw you! This is a happiness you will never know, sadly

-- also what Dr. Loudon posted

"She was a 2020 media advisor leader? With...this?"

Simply put, Mar-a-Lago is no longer a refuge for Trump. It is now another form of prison. He's clearly not happy to be there, Melania's not happy to be there, and it's a crime scene. Not the gold decor...well, okay, that too. But it's clear that Trump's problems are just beginning.

And more importantly, he knows that.

[Edge-]

http://edition.cnn.com/2023/04/04/po...ork/index.html

Former President Donald Trump has arrived at the Manhattan district attorney’s office in lower Manhattan, where he is under arrest and in police custody before his upcoming arraignment.

Obviously pleading not-guilty, will be fingerprinted, still no word on a mug shot.

Shame we can't get video of all this. While it's really not that actually exciting, it sure is a historic moment. Shoulda happened to the last Republican president involved in brazenly illegal behavior, but hopefully we've learned from those past mistakes by now.

[Breccia]

Shame we can't get video of all this.

Nah, no need to make it a circus. I'm just glad there's no reports of Trump supporters, known associates of terrorists and in hundreds of proven cases terrorists themselves, causing violence in the aims of a political result. You know, terrorism.

[Benggaul]

Obviously pleading not-guilty, will be fingerprinted, still no word on a mug shot.

I've read multiple times over the past day there likely won't be one.

https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/loca...urces/4206890/

[Edge-]

I've read multiple times over the past day there likely won't be one.

https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/loca...urces/4206890/

That's the word, and it's very disappointing if true. He should largely be treated as any other indicted individual outside of security concerns, I'm none too pleased he's already getting the kid glove treatment while conservatives are apparently saying he's no different than Nelson Mandela or Jesus Christ, both of whom were also arrested. Reasonable takes, you know.

[Benggaul]

That's the word, and it's very disappointing if true. He should largely be treated as any other indicted individual outside of security concerns, I'm none too pleased he's already getting the kid glove treatment while conservatives are apparently saying he's no different than Nelson Mandela or Jesus Christ, both of whom were also arrested. Reasonable takes, you know.

Naturally, but it's not reasonable for us to expect he'll ever be treated as any other individual given that he wasn't IMMEDIATELY thrown in a cell for having highly classified documents scattered around his seedy resort. If it were you or I they would have already lost the key.

[gondrin]

http://edition.cnn.com/2023/04/04/po...ork/index.html



Obviously pleading not-guilty, will be fingerprinted, still no word on a mug shot.

Shame we can't get video of all this. While it's really not that actually exciting, it sure is a historic moment. Shoulda happened to the last Republican president involved in brazenly illegal behavior, but hopefully we've learned from those past mistakes by now.

Honestly, I am glad there isn't video of it. It is already a circus with the clown car of insanity. No need to throw the beehive into it and cause everyone to freak out.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't know. They don't seem to be public. Tucker Carlson is following Trump by saying the leak of the charges of the indictment, are worse than the indictment. Which sounds as crazy as it is insane.

"Your honor, the person taking pictures of me setting fire to this house is the real criminal! What he has done is far worse then what I'll ever do!"

- - - Updated - - -

So, MTG shows up in New York and finds out that she isn't liked there and flees after a few minutes. I mean, she isn't even liked in her own state but still.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime...24a374760&ei=9

Marjorie Taylor Greene Whisked Away By Security At Protest Against Trump’s Indictment Outside Manhattan Criminal Court

Marjorie Taylor Greene had to be taken away by security minutes after showing up to a protest outside the Manhattan criminal court ahead of ex-Prez’s arraignment.

On Monday, the Georgia politician arrived at the scene where Trump will appear later this afternoon. She attempted to speak with a few supporters of a planned “Rally for Trump.”

However, witnesses said her speech was drowned out by anti-Trumpers. Moments later, Greene was taken away by security into an SUV.

Moments later, Greene did an interview from the back of her SUV to MSNBC where she trashed the Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg.

Earlier today, Greene compared Trump to Nelson Mandela and Jesus.

She said, “President Trump is joining some of the most incredible people in history being arrested today. Nelson Mandela was arrested and served time in prison. Jesus! Jesus was arrested and murdered by the Roman government. There have been many people throughout history who have been arrested and persecuted by radical, corrupt governments. And it's beginning today in New York City. And I just can't believe it is happening, but I will always support him. He has done nothing wrong."

New York Mayor Eric Adams warned Greene that his state was not the place for violence.

"Control yourselves," Adams said after learning of Greene’s plan to protest for Trump.

"New York City is our home, not a playground for your misplaced anger," he added.

He warned city officials would "not allow violence of any kind.”

Trump will appear for his arraignment this afternoon. He will go before a judge but will not be handcuffed or have his mugshot taken.

The ex-Prez has attacked the 34-count indictment filed against him. He said, “The Democrats have lied, cheated and stolen in their obsession with trying to ‘Get Trump,’ but now they’ve done the unthinkable - indicting a completely innocent person in an act of blatant Election Interference.”

Trump accused Bragg of "doing Joe Biden’s dirty work, ignoring the murders and burglaries and assaults he should be focused on."

Didn't she just commit blasphemy? Shouldn't she be put to death by the same beliefs of the religion she so claims to be apart of by comparing someone else to, what her religion, God in human form?

[Edge-]

Didn't she just commit blasphemy? Shouldn't she be put to death by the same beliefs of the religion she so claims to be apart of by comparing someone else to, what her religion, God in human form?

I do believe she compared every person arrested ever of basically being Nelson Mandela or Jesus Christ. Or at least every arrest of a politician for violating the law.

[Endus]

I do believe she compared every person arrested ever of basically being Nelson Mandela or Jesus Christ. Or at least every arrest of a politician for violating the law.

Jesus was in no way a politician, or even really a political figure, in his day, FWIW. That shouldn't be an objectionable statement to anyone.

What's possibly even more baffling is Trump claiming this indictment is "election interference". There is no official election process ongoing. There won't be, until the parties hold primaries and submit those candidates to appear on national ballots. Nothing up to that point can, legally or rationally, be considered "election interference". There is no "election" with which to "interefere".

No, announcing your candidacy stupid early does not rush that process forward, you festering orange tofu squirt.