Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[arandomuser]

worried the NY case wil get thrown out by the court and just vindicate trump and gop, when in terms of criminal liability there is much better cases optically and legally already being investigated such as the georgia interference. While trump is definitely guilty of falsifying records, the case hinges on it being a felony that he did it in advance of the prosecutor interpreting election law.

[Mekh]

worried the NY case wil get thrown out by the court and just vindicate trump and gop, when in terms of criminal liability there is much better cases optically and legally already being investigated such as the georgia interference. While trump is definitely guilty of falsifying records, the case hinges on it being a felony that he did it in advance of the prosecutor interpreting election law.

The other cases aren't on hold and it would be even worse optics if multiple attorneys general colluded to somehow bring their cases in a particular, politically motivated order.

[Gorsameth]

worried the NY case wil get thrown out by the court and just vindicate trump and gop, when in terms of criminal liability there is much better cases optically and legally already being investigated such as the georgia interference. While trump is definitely guilty of falsifying records, the case hinges on it being a felony that he did it in advance of the prosecutor interpreting election law.

I heard that "the prosecutor interpreting" a lot. But this was a grand jury recommending charges right? Its not just 1 rogue prosecutor going way out of line to make up a case against Trump and people seem to conveniently forget that.

[gondrin]

I heard that "the prosecutor interpreting" a lot. But this was a grand jury recommending charges right? Its not just 1 rogue prosecutor going way out of line to make up a case against Trump and people seem to conveniently forget that.

This is true. The only thing that the prosecutor did was take the grand jury recommendation to bring charges against Trump. The grand jury is the one who looked at the evidence and saw sufficient cause that he committed the crimes that were being brought forth.

So anyone thinking that the prosecutor is the one interpreting anything hasn't been paying attention. For a LOT of white collar crimes, grand juries usually come into play and they are the ones who determine if the evidence fits the crime or not. Especially true for very high profile cases like this.

[Breccia]

Axios lays out an interesting timeline which brings up what I hope is the case.

NY: "You're being charged with one crime."
Trump: "That's just political!"
Republicans: "We stand with Trump!"
Georgia: "We're charging you with a separate, different crime."
Trump: "That's just political!"
Republicans: "We stand with Trump!"
Feds: "We're charging you with a third, different, separate crime."
Trump: "That's just political!"
Republicans: "We stand with Trump!"
Feds: "Oh, and here's a fourth, yet different, still separate crime."
Trump: "That's just political!"
Republicans: "Hold on, the primaries just started. Are we really going to keep backing someone who's that busy? Vote for me instead."
Trump: "What? I thought you had my back."
Republicans: "We still do. Good luck, we're all rooting for you."

[gondrin]

The other cases aren't on hold and it would be even worse optics if multiple attorneys general colluded to somehow bring their cases in a particular, politically motivated order.

As I stated much earlier in the thread, any case brought against Trump will take a long time to get to trial. Because it is so high profile, you have to get it right. You have to bring forth ironclad evidence that shows him personally committing the crime, not a crony or some other person that is connected to him. This is how mob bosses and the like get away with their crimes as they generally do not personally do the actual act.

Things like the hush money payment and the classified documents are the easy ones as in both cases he admitted to doing both.

[Edge-]

@Linkedblade

What happened, buddy? Are you really going to leave us without telling us about the first time Trump got indicted?

[Breccia]

Things like the hush money payment and the classified documents are the easy ones as in both cases he admitted to doing both.

Two additions.

One, he didn't need to admit them. We have proof of both. Daniels and Cohen were very clear as witnesses, and the FBI left with boxes and boxes of stuff. Trump's admission isn't doing him any favors, of course. Hell, throw in Georgia too.

Two, Trump's defense is the same entitled narcistic white-privilege bullshit: I did it, but it wasn't a crime because I did it.

Paying hush money? Not a crime, because Trump said so.
Taking classified intel? Not a crime, because Trump said so.
Threatening Georgia elected officials? Not a crime, because Trump said so.
Instigating a murderous insurrection? Not a crime, because Trump said so.

Trump hasn't declared he's innocent. He's declared that he did everything, but doesn't care that it was wrong. That's bordering on an insanity defense. All his cries of "they had to twist these laws so that I broke them" are his shattered, broken mind unable to grasp that rules actually do apply to him. He's just always been in a position of power that made him immune to consequences...often at the expense of other people's careers and lives.

Hopefully, the jury pool is filled with people who see that. That someone is asking for immunity to consequences which would be slapped down hard and unavoidable for any of them. What happens to a small business owner who doesn't pay their employees? What happens to any normal person who has their adultery broadcast to the city, the state, the country?

"I did it, but it wasn't a crime" is a perfectly valid defense in some cases, not denying that. Self-defense is the primo example. But what happens when someone uses it over and over for so many unrelated actions? Are they the victim of the world's cruelest set of coincidences? Or are they just a criminal for breaking all those laws?

[gondrin]

Two additions.

One, he didn't need to admit them. We have proof of both. Daniels and Cohen were very clear as witnesses, and the FBI left with boxes and boxes of stuff. Trump's admission isn't doing him any favors, of course. Hell, throw in Georgia too.

Two, Trump's defense is the same entitled narcistic white-privilege bullshit: I did it, but it wasn't a crime because I did it.

Paying hush money? Not a crime, because Trump said so.
Taking classified intel? Not a crime, because Trump said so.
Threatening Georgia elected officials? Not a crime, because Trump said so.
Instigating a murderous insurrection? Not a crime, because Trump said so.

Trump hasn't declared he's innocent. He's declared that he did everything, but doesn't care that it was wrong. That's bordering on an insanity defense. All his cries of "they had to twist these laws so that I broke them" are his shattered, broken mind unable to grasp that rules actually do apply to him. He's just always been in a position of power that made him immune to consequences...often at the expense of other people's careers and lives.

Hopefully, the jury pool is filled with people who see that. That someone is asking for immunity to consequences which would be slapped down hard and unavoidable for any of them. What happens to a small business owner who doesn't pay their employees? What happens to any normal person who has their adultery broadcast to the city, the state, the country?

"I did it, but it wasn't a crime" is a perfectly valid defense in some cases, not denying that. Self-defense is the primo example. But what happens when someone uses it over and over for so many unrelated actions? Are they the victim of the world's cruelest set of coincidences? Or are they just a criminal for breaking all those laws?

Funny thing is if it was just paying Daniels to not talk about his affair with her so that his wife didn't find out, that is actually not a crime. As long as it came out of his own pockets. Him taking money from his business then falsifying said records is when it became illegal.

Most NDAs are predicated on that fact that you will receive something of value and you cannot talk about the thing you saw.

[Breccia]

Funny thing is if it was just paying Daniels to not talk about his affair with her so that his wife didn't find out

I disagree with the bolded.

Melania knew what she was getting into, and Trump's third prenup almost certainly did not have any penalty for Trump if Trump cheated on her. I'm also fairly sure Melania already either "knew", or knew. The affair took place in 2006 and was publicly known.

Daniels knew what gold she had in Trump's 2016 run and 100% blackmailed him, or she would have cost him 70,000 votes and the election. Trump knew that. That's why what he did was a crime.

[Gorsameth]

I disagree with the bolded.

Melania knew what she was getting into, and Trump's third prenup almost certainly did not have any penalty for Trump if Trump cheated on her. I'm also fairly sure Melania already either "knew", or knew. The affair took place in 2006 and was publicly known.

Daniels knew what gold she had in Trump's 2016 run and 100% blackmailed him, or she would have cost him 70,000 votes and the election. Trump knew that. That's why what he did was a crime.

Paying Daniels still wasn't a crime. He would be perfectly in the clear if he didn't falsify records to hide the payment.

[gondrin]

I disagree with the bolded.

Melania knew what she was getting into, and Trump's third prenup almost certainly did not have any penalty for Trump if Trump cheated on her. I'm also fairly sure Melania already either "knew", or knew. The affair took place in 2006 and was publicly known.

Daniels knew what gold she had in Trump's 2016 run and 100% blackmailed him, or she would have cost him 70,000 votes and the election. Trump knew that. That's why what he did was a crime.

The crime wasn't the payment itself. It was the falsifying of business records. It isn't illegal for anyone, at least in the US, to pay someone else to keep quiet about a seedy act. As long as it comes out of their own pocket.

Granted, there could be other things that deal with the payment as far as election related but when it comes to paying her, no, it isn't a crime.

[Breccia]

Paying Daniels still wasn't a crime.

I mean, Bragg's case revolves around "yes it was". Falsifying documents is a felony it it's done to hide a crime, but a misdemeanor otherwise. Bragg's case revolves around Trump paying her off to help his campaign, a crime, and falsifying business records to hide it, therefore a felony.

Daniels came forward in 2016, and not, say, 2011 or 2013, for a reason. Trump paid her off for that very same reason.

Now, you might be trying to say "Bragg didn't charge Trump for the payoff" and you're correct. Pretty sure. But that's not necessary, and could be counterproductive. Imagine if the jurors are asked to decide first if the payoff was a crime. They could decide the answer is "no" and that rules out the falsifying documents felony charge. If they are not given that authority, they can't handwave the falsification.

It is this discussion that have some experts saying Bragg's case is weak, but as others have said, Bragg wouldn't kick down the doors of Trump Tower with anything other than ironclad proof of guilt. Daniels. Cohen. That Pecker from the National Enquirer. Maybe Weaselberg?

The case requires that paying Daniels be a crime, namely an undisclosed campaign contribution, which the context of the situation definitely fits. Otherwise, Trump might as well have been given 34 parking tickets.

- - - Updated - - -

As long as it comes out of their own pocket.

Well, you still can't make an illegal campaign contribution out of your own pocket. But yes, if Trump hadn't cheaped out like he does with everything else, the crimes he was charged with yesterday would not have been charged. At best, other crimes, likely involving tax fraud. At worst, no crimes from this case.

[Edge-]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/con...york-rcna78301

So I guess "DEFUND THE POLICE" is now a Republican platform position? Or at least "DEFUND THE FEDERAL POLICE" is.

Y'all, this is a weird as shit reality.

[Myradin]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/con...york-rcna78301

So I guess "DEFUND THE POLICE" is now a Republican platform position? Or at least "DEFUND THE FEDERAL POLICE" is.

Y'all, this is a weird as shit reality.

Its typical. They're all for things when they screw over people they don't like, but when these things effect them or what they care about, suddenly its a deep rooted issue that needs to be torn out.

Its just become especially obvious now that they're latched onto so many criminals and losing battles.

[Taifuu]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/con...york-rcna78301

So I guess "DEFUND THE POLICE" is now a Republican platform position? Or at least "DEFUND THE FEDERAL POLICE" is.

Y'all, this is a weird as shit reality.

Even if they kill 100% of the FBI and DOJ's budget AND prevent them from spending any money they currently have, that still does nothing about the NY and GA state investigations. This is truly the dumbest fucking timeline.

[Breccia]

So I guess "DEFUND THE POLICE" is now a Republican platform position? Or at least "DEFUND THE FEDERAL POLICE" is.

"We're going to defend the FBI! Then, we're going to investigate Hunter Biden!"
"How?"
"Uh..."

[Edge-]

"We're going to defend the FBI! Then, we're going to investigate Hunter Biden!"
"How?"
"Uh..."

In the House! Where they actually can't compel anyone to testify, especially without asking the DoJ, which they want to defund, to use their lawful authority to try to compel someone (IIRC).

So basically..."DO SOMETHING!!!"

[Breccia]

which they want to defund

I just want to add, Trump is still the head of the Republican Party. He's in the 2020 RNC platform, he's the leading candidate running right now, and he has the most support.

Any Republicans who disagree with "Republicans want to defund the police" is free to speak up, but unless they do, their political opinion shall be logically inferred by the party they're in.

Sorry. I don't make the rules. Y'all let Trump make the rules, and I'm just seeing to it they're enforced. Any Trump supporter who does not say otherwise, even those who previously criticized "defund the police", is now saying they want to defund the police by their silence until broken.

"Surely they mean the police should be defunded because of their improper actions. You know, like a fine."

Hmm. How did the whole "defund the police" issue start the first time?

"Democrats were upset about police acting improperly and wanted to penalize them. You know, like a fine."

And the circle becomes complete. I am 100% in favor of police found to act illegally or corruptly facing consequences for that. Cutting the FBI's budget for something NYPD did is just fucking stupid.

Also, wasn't "defund the police" started when talking about police abusing their power by arresting or executing innocent nonwhite Americans? Trump is facing some white-collar crimes. Well, they were white until he put them on, now they're orange. But to denounce the same campaign for wanting to save innocent lives, but to embrace it for business fraud, shows everyone where Republican loyalties lie.

Until they say otherwise.

Any day now.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaany day now.

[gondrin]

I just want to add, Trump is still the head of the Republican Party. He's in the 2020 RNC platform, he's the leading candidate running right now, and he has the most support.

Any Republicans who disagree with "Republicans want to defund the police" is free to speak up, but unless they do, their political opinion shall be logically inferred by the party they're in.

Sorry. I don't make the rules. Y'all let Trump make the rules, and I'm just seeing to it they're enforced. Any Trump supporter who does not say otherwise, even those who previously criticized "defund the police", is now saying they want to defund the police by their silence until broken.

"Surely they mean the police should be defunded because of their improper actions. You know, like a fine."

Hmm. How did the whole "defund the police" issue start the first time?

"Democrats were upset about police acting improperly and wanted to penalize them. You know, like a fine."

And the circle becomes complete. I am 100% in favor of police found to act illegally or corruptly facing consequences for that. Cutting the FBI's budget for something NYPD did is just fucking stupid.

Also, wasn't "defund the police" started when talking about police abusing their power by arresting or executing innocent nonwhite Americans? Trump is facing some white-collar crimes. Well, they were white until he put them on, now they're orange. But to denounce the same campaign for wanting to save innocent lives, but to embrace it for business fraud, shows everyone where Republican loyalties lie.

Until they say otherwise.

Any day now.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaany day now.

To be fair, people like MTG and the rest on the far right have been calling for the abolishment of the FBI and federal police departments for decades. Hell, Alex Jones used to make that a mainstay on InfoWars for years. They just now have the loudest person in the room asking for it.