Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Cthulhu 2020]

I don't know the answer to this question because, frankly, it hasn't ever really come up before. Does Melania lose her security detail if she divorces Trump? If so, she may feel like she needs to remain with him for her own safety. There are definitely some crazies out there who'd blame her for rightfully ditching him. Maybe she figures it's smarter in the long run to wait a couple years for him to keel over on the toilet, but then again Russian mail-order brides are not exactly known for their intellect.

If divorce is the outcome, I still don't see many in the Republican party abandoning Trump who haven't already done so. If you're still in after "non-consensual pussy grabbing blackmailing insurrection leading reason for thousands of covid deaths" you're in for life. Sure, there'd be some headshaking from the cult at first, but all it would take is a single statement from Trump saying, "She didn't leave me, I left her because she told me she hates America!" and all will be forgiven.

I don't ever see Melania divorcing, ever. She'll stay married. She'll likely live separately from him, though that's likely been going on for a long time now anyway.

[Nastard]

I don't ever see Melania divorcing, ever. She'll stay married. She'll likely live separately from him, though that's likely been going on for a long time now anyway.

I think that's likely, yeah. Since she was once the "other woman" she knew what she was getting herself into. Trophy wives never have any real attachment to their husband. Political appearance wives the same. Combine the two and the only reason she remains is that she doesn't want to move in next to Ivana on the golf course.

[NineSpine]

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

Come down to Albany. We are saner here.

[SoulForge]

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."

Any republican who says anything remotely like this can just go away. I wanted to say something much harsher here.

After that bullshit they pulled rushing a Supreme Court nominee through TWICE after saying the voters should decide. Zero credibility 'Letting voters decide'.

It should be more accurately stated as "Let the voters decide unless they don't side with us then we will do it anyway because fuck em".

[Benggaul]

It should be more accurately stated as "Let the voters decide unless they don't side with us then we will do it anyway because fuck em".

Pretty much this, as can be seen by the anti-abortion bills being voted down by the populace of Red States but the legislature still trying to push measures through anyway.

[Jastall]

Pretty much this, as can be seen by the anti-abortion bills being voted down by the populace of Red States but the legislature still trying to push measures through anyway.

Or "let the voters decide, unless our guy loses then it's a sham fake election and it's OK if some of us assault Congress over it".

[DarkTZeratul]

It should be more accurately stated as "Let the voters decide unless they don't side with us then we will do it anyway because fuck em".

"If it's something you want to do, we should let the voters decide that you shouldn't do it. If it's something we want to do, the voters already elected us and therefore clearly want us to do it."

[Breccia]

Come down to Albany. We are saner here.

My boss's boss's bosses are in Albany. I'm safer here.

Zero credibility 'Letting voters decide'.

Pretty much this, as can be seen by the anti-abortion bills being voted down by the populace of Red States but the legislature still trying to push measures through anyway.

Or "let the voters decide, unless our guy loses then it's a sham fake election and it's OK if some of us assault Congress over it".

"If it's something you want to do, we should let the voters decide that you shouldn't do it. If it's something we want to do, the voters already elected us and therefore clearly want us to do it."

Indeed, all of the above, thank you!

By the way, if we are playing "let the voters decide" then they should shut up about Hunter Biden. Biden won, get over it.

[beanman12345]

Conservatives really are weak little bitches tho.

[Edge-]

Y'all, do alpha males cry and show emotion other than confidence and anger? I thought showing weak emotions like that was some betacuck shit? Are these all betacucks?

[Rasulis]

According to report from the New York Times, two different investigations are tying up the merger between Digital World Acquisition Corp. and Trump Media & Technology Group with $300 million at stake.

As the Times reports, "That deal has been waylaid by two intensifying federal investigations. One is focused on whether preliminary merger discussions between Digital World and Trump Media violated federal securities laws. The other investigation is looking at whether a group of early investors in Digital World — who were brought into the deal by [deal architect Patrick] Orlando — engaged in improper trading."

With a six-month deadline looming, there is concerns by executives from both companies that two federal investigations won't wrap up in time and they will have to refund the money dumped into the company's early investors.

My heart breaks for them.

[Breccia]

"The other investigation is looking at whether a group of early investors in Digital World — who were brought into the deal by [deal architect Patrick] Orlando — engaged in improper trading."

That...is news to me. We all knew about the first one, but this sounds like insider trading?

[SoulForge]

That...is news to me. We all knew about the first one, but this sounds like insider trading?

It would be shocking to no one. "Do as I say not as I do"

[Rasulis]

That...is news to me. We all knew about the first one, but this sounds like insider trading?

Yes. Apparently, Digital World Acquisition and Truth Social started negotiating the merger prior to Truth Social SPAC going public. Which is illegal. At least without disclosing it to the investors.

[Breccia]

Speaking of blatantly corrupt, Cy Vance just gave an interview and explained why he didn't move on Trump earlier.

Cy Vance appeared on NBC’s Meet the Press on Sunday to discuss news of the criminal indictment against the former president, which a grand jury voted to approve a few days earlier. During the interview, he was asked why his office did not empanel a grand jury during the Trump presidency to hear evidence related to Mr Trump’s hush payments to Stormy Daniels.

“Why didn't you charge the hush money case?” asked host Chuck Todd. “Why didn't you ever charge it in 2018, 2019, 2020?”

“[A]s I believe you know, I was asked by the US Attorney's Office in the Southern District to stand down on our investigation, which had commenced involving the Trump Organization,” said Mr Vance. “And as, you know, as someone who respects that office a great deal, and believing that they may have perhaps the best laws to investigate, I did so.”

But Mr Vance went on to say that he was surprised by – and apparently disagreed with – the decision of federal prosecutors not to pursue criminal charges against Mr Trump over the matter at the time.

“I was somewhat surprised after Mr Cohen pleaded guilty that the federal government did not proceed on the areas in which it asked me to stand down,” said the former DA.

Yep. Trump's DOJ told him to stand down. And, out of respect for the office, he did.

So for all those people saying "why wasn't he charged before?" you have your answer. It isn't that the charges were weak or political or FAKE NEWS! It was that Trump protected himself from Trump.

"Do former prosecutors speak so publicly so candidly about open cases like this?"

No. Vance's public statements should be taken as an endorsement of charges being filed.

In related news, wanna see the video of one Trump lawyer throwing another Trump lawyer under the bus? It's on CNN, the anchor clearly was not expecting it.

Meanwhile, Trump has already planned a rally at Mar-a-Lago shortly after he's arrested. Apparently he's expected to say the usual, including that he can't get a fair trial in New York.

"Why not?"

Because New York hates him.

"Why does New York hate him?"

Well, he committed all those crimes in New York.

"...by that logic, would any criminals get a fair trial?"

Oh, they would. Trump is using "fair" meaning "he gets no consequences for his actions".

"That's not what 'fair' means."

No, it is not. But Trump is insane, a narcisistic sociopath. He is literally incapable of using the term correctly.

Trump is expected to fight this case in the court of public opinion, continuing to attack Bragg for daring to hold Trump accountable for his actions. The Republican Party continues to rally against him saying all kinds of things except one: "Trump is innocent".

"Well, they are saying 'it was not a crime'."

I have 34 counts on the record that say otherwise. Actual crime, actual probable cause found. That defense is handwaved. Simply put, even if the prosecution was 100% fabricated, you can't go in front of a judge and (grand) jury without specific laws that were specifically broken. So, yes, it was a crime. And the Republican Party, especially the Trump cultists, are not defending Trump as innocent.

In fact, I think that we should all take people who say "it was not a crime" as confession that "okay it was a crime, and Trump did it". Because "it was not a crime" simply does not fit the context of the situation. They might as well argue that Trump should not be put on trial on the grounds that he's a livestock animal.

[beanman12345]

In related news, wanna see the video of one Trump lawyer throwing another Trump lawyer under the bus? It's on CNN, the anchor clearly was not expecting it.

That's how you get in Trump's good graces, by crapping on other's in Trump's good graces. He loves seeing his minions fighting each other.

Something I've noticed though, as you said, None of the clips of anyone defending him say he's not guilty. Even Eric in that video I linked said "he should get a free pass" implying that yes Trump is actually guilty of whatever they're going to charge him on, and none of us or them even knowing what it is. Like they could charge him with actual murder, pedophilia, bestiality, and raping Ivanka, and it would all be the same "it's political Soros motivated witch hunt" crap, because even they know he's nothing but a criminal mobster.

[Breccia]

"it's political Soros motivated witch hunt"

I agree that this is a bullshit defense for anyone who also says Trump should get a free pass because political.

[Kaleredar]

I agree that this is a bullshit defense for anyone who also says Trump should get a free pass because political.

So long as this doesn't affect the opinions and actions of the judges and juries for both this trial and any more coming down the pipes to hit Trump, I don't care what bullshit hand-wringing nonsense they claim. Their words of supposed condemnation, concern, and anger aimed at those prosecuting Trump for breaking the law are so hollow and hypocritical that they might as well all be meaningless noise. And they don't possess the capacity for shame required to ever realize it.

[postman1782]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...on-classified/
@Breccia, yay more possible charges coming from the classified documents case.

Investigators now suspect, based on witness statements, security camera footage, and other documentary evidence, that boxes including classified material were moved from a Mar-a-Lago storage area after the subpoena was served, and that Trump personally examined at least some of those boxes, these people said. While Trump’s team returned some documents with classified markings in response to the subpoena, a later FBI search found more than 100 additional classified items that had not been turned over.

Court papers filed seeking judicial authorization for the FBI to conduct the search of Trump’s home show agents believed that “evidence of obstruction will be found at the premises.”

The application for court approval for that search said agents were pursuing evidence of violations of statutes including 18 USC 1519, which makes it a crime to alter, destroy, mutilate or conceal a document or tangible object “with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency.”

A key element in most obstruction cases is intent, because to bring such a charge, prosecutors have to be able to show that whatever actions were taken were done to try to hinder or block an investigation. In the Trump case, prosecutors and federal agents are trying to gather any evidence pointing to the motivation for Trump’s actions.

[Breccia]

“evidence of obstruction will be found at the premises.”

The evidence is Donald Trump, of course.

We've had bits and pieces of this for a while. We know the footage was taken, we had heard stuff was moved, and we know even the raid didn't find everything.

This case and the current one share something Clinton can speak at length about: the coverup is worse than the crime. All Trump had to do was return everything and he wouldn't be looking at federal felony obstruction, which I think the sentence is "you die in prison fatass" years.