Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[postman1782]

Indeed. It looks like he's objectively guilty of having WH property, but there may yet be a loophole or bullshit excuse a Trump judge could just decide to accept.

https://twitter.com/MikeSington/stat...56459965087746

Did you see this? He is pissed at Jared Kushner and Ivanka didn't secure him a 2nd pardon for the January 6th Insurrection. Its funny when criminals record their crimes.

[Breccia]

Did you see this?

No...what is that from? That watermark, is that from the documentary?

[postman1782]

No...what is that from? That watermark, is that from the documentary?

Yep, that was from the documentary that was shot from the people from Europe. I believe it was released yesterday as well.

[Breccia]

Yep, that was from the documentary that was shot from the people from Europe. I believe it was released yesterday as well.

Normally I would say we should get some kind of confirmation, but my opinion isn't the one that matters. Trump has surely seen it by now. What matters is his opinion on the subject. If he goes full Trumper Tantrum, we'll see it soon enough, and Stone will no longer have any need to stop testifying.

[Twdft]

https://twitter.com/MikeSington/stat...56459965087746

Did you see this? He is pissed at Jared Kushner and Ivanka didn't secure him a 2nd pardon for the January 6th Insurrection. Its funny when criminals record their crimes.

The fact that you only get a pardon if you were actually convicted means he knew the shit he did was so bad that even in a world were Trump remained president he would be convicted for it.

[Edge-]

The fact that you only get a pardon if you were actually convicted means he knew the shit he did was so bad that even in a world were Trump remained president he would be convicted for it.

That's...not true. You don't need to be convicted to get a pardon, hence why Matt Gaetz was fishing for one despite not even being indicted.

[postman1782]

The fact that you only get a pardon if you were actually convicted means he knew the shit he did was so bad that even in a world were Trump remained president he would be convicted for it.

Nope, you can be pre-emptively pardoned. There were dozens of Republicans looking for pardons after their schemes with Matt Gaetz, Stone, Bannon, and all of the fake electors scheme.

[Fugus]

The fact that you only get a pardon if you were actually convicted means he knew the shit he did was so bad that even in a world were Trump remained president he would be convicted for it.

Like edge said, also, I believe Nixon was pardoned by Ford without ever being convicted as well.

So he could have been pardoned without being convicted, to my knowledge, that is also a default admission of guilt and also a pardon can't be preemptive.

Roger stone had to get a pardon after the terrorist attack but before Trump left office to avoid getting into legal trouble. But Trump likely didn't want to pardon him for an attack that didn't work and implied he supported it while also going through a new round of impeachment hearings.

- - - Updated - - -

Nope, you can be pre-emptively pardoned. There were dozens of Republicans looking for pardons after their schemes with Matt Gaetz, Stone, Bannon, and all of the fake electors scheme.

No, they couldn't get preemptively pardoned, they were asking for blanket pardons on Trumps way out the door for the stuff they had already done.

[Ripster42]

No, they couldn't get preemptively pardoned, they were asking for blanket pardons on Trumps way out the door for the stuff they had already done.

In this context, preemptively pardoned is in contrast to a pardon post conviction because of this comment:

The fact that you only get a pardon if you were actually convicted means he knew the shit he did was so bad that even in a world were Trump remained president he would be convicted for it.

Not a pardon for actions that will take place post pardon.

[Breccia]

More info about that 14-page letter Trump wrote to the Jan 6th committe: it's basically proof Trump won't testify.

THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION OF 2020 WAS RIGGED AND STOLEN!

-- literally the first line of the letter's body

Trump knows full well he can't say that under oath. So does everyone else. If he testifies he will be asked to read that letter into the record. Trump wants the rabid fanbase to hear him, but doesn't want them to know he's lying to them.

And two of the fourteen pages are pictures.

Trump is a frightened little baby coward who knows he can't say the same thing on the stand as he's said in public, and that's why he'll have to be dragged there on threat of jail time. Until he says it under oath, nothing he says should be given even a grain of credit. He does nothing but lie.

[gondrin]

So, who was the person who provided evidence to the FBI of Top Secret documents still being at Mar-A-Lago? This one comes from left field.

It is the guy who brought Donald Trump his Diet Cokes whenever he pushed the red button while he was in the President. The man followed Trump to Mar-A-Lago and worked for him there. This man is named Walt Nauta.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...462e435d8099d6

Trump Was Betrayed by His Diet Coke Valet

Donald Trump could ultimately be done in by his Diet Coke habit. Not physically (though drinking 12 diet sodas a day doesn’t seem great for your health) but legally. The Washington Post reports that his former White House valet — the man who had to respond every time the president pressed his famous Oval Office Diet Coke button — provided key evidence that led to the FBI’s search of Mar-a-Lago in August.

A Trump employee told federal agents the former president personally directed them to move boxes of documents from a Mar-a-Lago storage area to his private residence, according to the Post. Hours later, the New York Times said this was corroborated by surveillance footage that showed the aide moving boxes both before and after Trump’s advisers received a subpoena from the Justice Department in May for classified documents taken from the White House. Together, the witness account and the footage provided the most direct evidence that Trump tried to illegally obstruct the government’s search.

The Post’s original report said the witness’s account was a “closely held secret” within the Justice Department and FBI because authorities were “concerned that if or when the witness’s identity eventually becomes public, that person could face harassment or threats from Trump supporters.” But on Friday, the paper identified him as Walt Nauta. Nauta, 39, served in the Navy and worked his way up from being a cook in the White House mess to performing a key duty in the Trump administration: ensuring that the president was properly caffeine and aspartame fueled at all times. Per the Post:

Not long after Trump took office, Nauta left the mess to become one of Trump’s valets, spending some of his workday in a small passageway that connects the West Wing to a private dining room. From there, he had access to a small refrigerator stocked with Diet Cokes, which he brought to the president in the Oval Office when Trump pressed a call button on his desk, said a former White House staffer who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss activities inside the White House.

Nauta frequently served as a kind of gofer, fetching any items the president might need throughout the day and tidying up the room, the former staffer said. When Trump left the Oval Office for the night, it was Nauta who brought his coat. Their daily proximity meant that the two developed a close professional relationship, and Trump “trusted him completely,” this person added.

Nauta followed Trump to Mar-a-Lago at the end of his term, and campaign-finance records show he was on the payroll of Trump’s Save America PAC, making about $135,000 a year. It seems Trump’s trust wasn’t entirely misplaced; the Post reports that Nauta resisted betraying his boss at first but eventually changed his story:

When FBI agents first interviewed Nauta, he denied any role in moving boxes or sensitive documents, the people familiar with the situation said in interviews before Nauta’s name became public. But as investigators gathered more evidence, they questioned him a second time and he told a starkly different story — that Trump instructed him to move the boxes, these people said.

Nauta’s alleged disloyalty is a crushing blow not just for Trump but also for Downton Abbey fans, who were led to believe over six seasons and two movies that a valet is someone who will hand-wash unmentionables, happily accept their lower station in life, and never, ever tell their wealthy employer’s dark secrets.

I hope this man has actual bodyguards for the rest of his life because he will most definitely be targeted. This man may have single handedly took down Trump with something he cannot wiggle his way out of.

[RaoBurning]

Not the kind of coke I expected to be the undoing of any Trump family member but I'll take it.

[Kaleredar]

So, who was the person who provided evidence to the FBI of Top Secret documents still being at Mar-A-Lago? This one comes from left field.

It is the guy who brought Donald Trump his Diet Cokes whenever he pushed the red button while he was in the President. The man followed Trump to Mar-A-Lago and worked for him there. This man is named Walt Nauta.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...462e435d8099d6



I hope this man has actual bodyguards for the rest of his life because he will most definitely be targeted. This man may have single handedly took down Trump with something he cannot wiggle his way out of.

Especially if trump decides not to testify.

“The witness for the prosecution says that the defendant personally instructed him to take illegal actions on his behalf “

“Does the defense wish to refute this information?”

“Your honor, my client pleads the fifth.”

Not a great look.

[Gorsameth]

I'm sorry its kind of off-topic but this sort of thing always makes me angry.

The Post’s original report said the witness’s account was a “closely held secret” within the Justice Department and FBI because authorities were “concerned that if or when the witness’s identity eventually becomes public, that person could face harassment or threats from Trump supporters.”

So naturally we printed his full details as soon as we found them...

Publishers should be held criminally liable for publishing the details of anyone who's identity is being kept private for fear of threats.

[Poopymonster]

So, who was the person who provided evidence to the FBI of Top Secret documents still being at Mar-A-Lago? This one comes from left field.

It is the guy who brought Donald Trump his Diet Cokes whenever he pushed the red button while he was in the President. The man followed Trump to Mar-A-Lago and worked for him there. This man is named Walt Nauta.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...462e435d8099d6



I hope this man has actual bodyguards for the rest of his life because he will most definitely be targeted. This man may have single handedly took down Trump with something he cannot wiggle his way out of.

Trump betrayed by his personal bitch.
"Which one?"

[Breccia]

No doubt smelling blood in the water, DOJ asks 11th to just end the "special master" entirely.

In a 53-page letter loaded with clear arguments, the DOJ basically says what everyone else said: Cannon fucked up. There never should have been a "special master" in the first place. And, with the 11th's own ruling, the "special master" would not provide anything of real value anymore. And the DOJ's need to see the WH property Trump stole outweighs any damage to Trump, which again, is no damage at all, because he does not own these items.

And, just to drive the point home, the DOJ point out, probably in boldface, that Trump continues to say "declassified" everywhere but the one place that matters: under oath. (They also point out the claim is irrelevant, but it seems yet another attempt to force Trump into a corner)

UPDATE: Newsweek asked some experts about Trump's chances and the answer might just surprise you: the Crunchwrap Supreme Combo has a drink and an extra taco for $7.99, so three people could get that and still be under the $28 dollar fictional price tag.

I did say it would surprise you.

But Trump's chances, no they wouldn't, his chances are poor.

Teri Kanefield, an author and former appellate court defender, predicted in a tweet that the DOJ was likely to prevail because Cannon didn't have the legal authority over the case.

She wrote in a tweet that Cannon previously acknowledged that Trump's rights had not been disregarded, and the DOJ would succeed in arguing before the appeals court that the ex-president didn't have any need for keeping government documents.

"There you go. End of story," Kanefield tweeted. "If there is no jurisdiction, the case gets dismissed. The whole thing goes poof."

Ryan Goodman, a law professor and former Pentagon special counsel, tweeted that Cannon's lack of jurisdiction over the case means the "DOJ will win hands down."

"It was an essential condition for Cannon to have jurisdiction," he wrote. "Cannon admitted Trump made no showing to meet the condition. End of story."

With this challenge in play, Trump has until Nov 10 to rebutt. Then the DOJ has a week after that to, let's face it, smack Trump's reply like they're going for a birdie on a par five. Neither the 11th nor their security Clarence has shown any real push to help Trump as much as Cannon did, so barring a legal wording or technicality, I don't see much hope for Trump here.

And the only thing I've seen from Kise in the last week was "could not be reached for comment". Possibly because he's in Georgia.

And I'll end with another round of Guess the Speaker!

Trump’s unelectability will be palpable by [2024]. We all know that he’s much more likely to lose the White House than anybody else running for president on our side of the aisle, so why would we want to go with that?

Whether he runs or not, I don’t really know if it matters. He’s not going to be the nominee, I don’t think.

Guess before clicking the link.

- - - Updated - - -

People on Fox New think the economy is so bad they spend $28 on lunch at Taco Bell.

(sighs)

Fox News contributor responds after going viral over $28 Taco Bell order

Yep, apparently, political site TheHill says this is an important topic...and the FOX News guy intentionally fought back...so...yeah, this is a thing we're doing.

Martin, who is the chief investment officer at the fiduciary advisory firm Kingsview Partners, posted a picture of his receipt to show he paid almost $28.

The receipt shows that Martin bought a burrito, two tacos, one order of nachos and a large drink, which he said during a Friday appearance on “Making Money with Charles Payne” is not that much food. He said the order is about what he typically orders.

He went on to say "It's not a lot of food, it is expensive food I'll give you that" forgetitng, of course, that ordering four cheap things does not make them four expensive things. I can walk to a McDonalds right now and order 20 small fries, they're not expensive, I just ordered twenty of them.



That's not the best quality, I grabbed a screenshot from foxnews.com's video player, but for those of you playing the game from home, that's a $6 burrito supreme, $7.50 Nacho Bell Grande, $4 Baja blast Freeze (large), $3 Doritos taco Supreme, and $5 Cheesey Gordita Crunch (nacho cheese)

Yes, the FOX News immediately said "yes I know that's $25 not $28, big deal" which is a strange way of saying "I was caught lying". Then he blamed sales tax in Chicago.

"Oh, he ordered in Chicago?"

No.

"Is Chicago average for sales tax?"

No, it's about the highest.

"So he's defending himself with, $28 is close enough to $25, because he eats two entrees and two extra tacos in the most expensively taxed city there is, routinely."

Yes.

"How many calories is that?"

Oh for f--..fine. The drink is 190, the burrito is 370+guac, the nachos a whopping 700+, the taco 190 and the Gordita 500. That's about 2,000 calories, and no, you don't get to say "that's less than 2000" when he handwaved "that's $25 not $28" sarcastically. Yes, he said 2,000 calories is not a lot of food.

And I have to estimate, for while Taco Bell for some reason has the best fast food nutrient menu I've seen (yes, I surf those, I use them in class every semester) that screenshot of someone ordering food on a dying battery (DUDE, walk up to the fucking counter) did not show the protein choices so I had to guess. Actually, hold on.

(goes to tacobell.com, places order)

Okay, so, the choice of meat is a customization, and he's getting the default. Okay, that tracks. Seasoned beef across the board, add another...I think 60-80 calories.

"...do his coworkers complain about sitting downw--"

So the moral of the story is, when caught exaggerating--

"Because talk about a toxic work envi--"

Just admit you exaggerated. What we're looking at is some kind of Strawman Cherry Picker, in that he had to reach this far to get something even remotely in the range he said, then defended that.

If someone is talking politics and eating $28 of Taco Bell in one sitting then my immediate follow up question is what their thoughts are on Biden’s executive order on cannabis rescheduling

-- Rep Ocasio-Cortez, who I'm just going to guess, does not commonly eat $28 at Taco Bell, as she's a buck twenty soaking wet.

[gondrin]

No doubt smelling blood in the water, DOJ asks 11th to just end the "special master" entirely.

In a 53-page letter loaded with clear arguments, the DOJ basically says what everyone else said: Cannon fucked up. There never should have been a "special master" in the first place. And, with the 11th's own ruling, the "special master" would not provide anything of real value anymore. And the DOJ's need to see the WH property Trump stole outweighs any damage to Trump, which again, is no damage at all, because he does not own these items.

And, just to drive the point home, the DOJ point out, probably in boldface, that Trump continues to say "declassified" everywhere but the one place that matters: under oath. (They also point out the claim is irrelevant, but it seems yet another attempt to force Trump into a corner)

UPDATE: Newsweek asked some experts about Trump's chances and the answer might just surprise you: the Crunchwrap Supreme Combo has a drink and an extra taco for $7.99, so three people could get that and still be under the $28 dollar fictional price tag.

I did say it would surprise you.

But Trump's chances, no they wouldn't, his chances are poor.



With this challenge in play, Trump has until Nov 10 to rebutt. Then the DOJ has a week after that to, let's face it, smack Trump's reply like they're going for a birdie on a par five. Neither the 11th nor their security Clarence has shown any real push to help Trump as much as Cannon did, so barring a legal wording or technicality, I don't see much hope for Trump here.

And the only thing I've seen from Kise in the last week was "could not be reached for comment". Possibly because he's in Georgia.

And I'll end with another round of Guess the Speaker!



Guess before clicking the link.

- - - Updated - - -



(sighs)

Fox News contributor responds after going viral over $28 Taco Bell order

Yep, apparently, political site TheHill says this is an important topic...and the FOX News guy intentionally fought back...so...yeah, this is a thing we're doing.



He went on to say "It's not a lot of food, it is expensive food I'll give you that" forgetitng, of course, that ordering four cheap things does not make them four expensive things. I can walk to a McDonalds right now and order 20 small fries, they're not expensive, I just ordered twenty of them.



That's not the best quality, I grabbed a screenshot from foxnews.com's video player, but for those of you playing the game from home, that's a $6 burrito supreme, $7.50 Nacho Bell Grande, $4 Baja blast Freeze (large), $3 Doritos taco Supreme, and $5 Cheesey Gordita Crunch (nacho cheese)

Yes, the FOX News immediately said "yes I know that's $25 not $28, big deal" which is a strange way of saying "I was caught lying". Then he blamed sales tax in Chicago.

"Oh, he ordered in Chicago?"

No.

"Is Chicago average for sales tax?"

No, it's about the highest.

"So he's defending himself with, $28 is close enough to $25, because he eats two entrees and two extra tacos in the most expensively taxed city there is, routinely."

Yes.

"How many calories is that?"

Oh for f--..fine. The drink is 190, the burrito is 370+guac, the nachos a whopping 700+, the taco 190 and the Gordita 500. That's about 2,000 calories, and no, you don't get to say "that's less than 2000" when he handwaved "that's $25 not $28" sarcastically. Yes, he said 2,000 calories is not a lot of food.

And I have to estimate, for while Taco Bell for some reason has the best fast food nutrient menu I've seen (yes, I surf those, I use them in class every semester) that screenshot of someone ordering food on a dying battery (DUDE, walk up to the fucking counter) did not show the protein choices so I had to guess. Actually, hold on.

(goes to tacobell.com, places order)

Okay, so, the choice of meat is a customization, and he's getting the default. Okay, that tracks. Seasoned beef across the board, add another...I think 60-80 calories.

"...do his coworkers complain about sitting downw--"

So the moral of the story is, when caught exaggerating--

"Because talk about a toxic work envi--"

Just admit you exaggerated. What we're looking at is some kind of Strawman Cherry Picker, in that he had to reach this far to get something even remotely in the range he said, then defended that.


-- Rep Ocasio-Cortez, who I'm just going to guess, does not commonly eat $28 at Taco Bell, as she's a buck twenty soaking wet.

Right now, I can get 3 chicken soft tacos and 2 chicken quesaritos, with the chicken adding nearly $7 to the order, come out around $3.50 less than him, have a large meal and consume less calories and eat a bit healthier. Yes, I know it is Taco Bell, healthy generally isn't part of the menu. However, chicken is healthier than beef. Around $24 with a drink. Still comes out less than him in cost plus get more. Granted, I live in Ohio so it might be a bit cheaper where I am at so there is some bias there but the point stands. That is still a BIG meal. And if I am going to eat big, I'll make it at home and spend far less.

[Ivanstone]

All this talk of Taco Bell is making me want to.....

Ralph.

Taco Bell is shit.

PS The local buritto joint I can get a Grande Beef Burrito and a bottled soft drink for $20 CAD tax included. I know one Burrito sounds unimpressive but its the size of a fucking brick and its packed solid. And its real beef not fucking soy.

[s_bushido]

Taco Bell is shit.

Nah, man. Taco Bell gets a bad wrap. *wink*wink*nudge*nudge*

[postman1782]

@Breccia @Edge-

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news...s/10500627002/

The group that the convicted felon that was pardoned by Trump after the fact, Dinesh D'Souza, used to make his bullshit "documentary" and recalled and cancelled book is now having the Arizona Attorney General asking the FBI and IRS to investigate them. They are called True the Vote, they claimed to have data that there were thousands of mules that dropped of thousands of votes across all states to steal the election for Joe Biden, though they won't provide the evidence to anyone. The Arizona AG asked for it, but they were never given the data. They promised to release the data, but haven't. All while bragging that they have released it. On top of that, they have also made money off of this deal, which is strictly against their nonprofit status, which is why the IRS is also being called in.