Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Edge-]

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/0...cords-00091771

A federal appeals court panel on Wednesday rejected a bid by former Trump White House adviser Peter Navarro to retain hundreds of government records despite a judge’s order to return them promptly to the National Archives.

“There is no public interest in Navarro’s retention of the records, and Congress has recognized that the public has an interest in the Nation’s possession and retention of Presidential records,” the three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals concluded in a unanimous two-page order.

The losses keep increasing. Wonder what's in there that he's so desperate to hang onto them?

[Breccia]

suing someone into submission

Isn't that witness intimidation?

[cubby]

Isn't that witness intimidation?

Unfortunately, it's not - although the way Trump and other rich people abuse the legal system it should be something illegal. Witness intimidation is when you specifically threaten or otherwise coerce a witness in a trial that you are a part of or have standing in in order to influence the outcome. Suing someone into submission is just part of our fucked up legal system.

[Breccia]

The House GOP introduces a bill named after one of the Chipmunks for some reason.

The bill would cause any state or local law enforcement that investigates a former President to return all federal funding, even if they didn't use it to investigate that former President.

This weaponized prosecutor’s office has spent thousands of federal taxpayer dollars to subsidize this political indictment and is demanding millions more in federal grants

-- the bill's sponsor, Briggs

"Didn't Bragg specifically, directly, and personally say that was false?"

Yes. In public.

"Does the bill say they can keep the federal funding if it turns out the target is really a criminal?"

No. The bill blocks investigation -- well before any indictment. You aren't even allowed to look.

"Um...so if this passes, Hunter Bi--"

Family members are not mentioned in the bill. Hunter Biden is a valid target.

"Um...so shouldn't Georgia be concerned right now?"

Well, no. The bill has a sub-zero chance of becoming law. They should feel like it addresses them, and they should voice their concerns accordingly, but if they stay silent nothing happens because the bill is dead in the water.

Remember, the issue isn't if Trump is guilty. The issue is that we know Trump is guilty. The problem is the investigation, that's why the investigation is retroactively illegal.

- - - Updated - - -

Suing someone into submission is just part of our fucked up legal system.

Lovely.

I earlier suggested Cohen would shrug this off, on the grounds of "I was forced to do so by law enforcement". That might have sidestepped any issues about Cohen saying things in public, now that I think about it.

But no way does someone who had to borrow $130,000 against his house have $500 million. The lawsuit is still ridiculous.

[Edge-]

Really making productive use of that majority, I see.

Speaker Jordan...Greene? McCarthy? I can't tell who's supposedly leading House Republicans at this point, is really making the best out of the (hopefully) only two years they control the House.

[gondrin]

The House GOP introduces a bill named after one of the Chipmunks for some reason.

The bill would cause any state or local law enforcement that investigates a former President to return all federal funding, even if they didn't use it to investigate that former President.


-- the bill's sponsor, Briggs

"Didn't Bragg specifically, directly, and personally say that was false?"

Yes. In public.

"Does the bill say they can keep the federal funding if it turns out the target is really a criminal?"

No. The bill blocks investigation -- well before any indictment. You aren't even allowed to look.

"Um...so if this passes, Hunter Bi--"

Family members are not mentioned in the bill. Hunter Biden is a valid target.

"Um...so shouldn't Georgia be concerned right now?"

Well, no. The bill has a sub-zero chance of becoming law. They should feel like it addresses them, and they should voice their concerns accordingly, but if they stay silent nothing happens because the bill is dead in the water.

Remember, the issue isn't if Trump is guilty. The issue is that we know Trump is guilty. The problem is the investigation, that's why the investigation is retroactively illegal.

- - - Updated - - -



Lovely.

I earlier suggested Cohen would shrug this off, on the grounds of "I was forced to do so by law enforcement". That might have sidestepped any issues about Cohen saying things in public, now that I think about it.

But no way does someone who had to borrow $130,000 against his house have $500 million. The lawsuit is still ridiculous.

Honestly, if they wanted to stop all of this, the person suing should have to pay for ALL lawyer fees and court costs of both parties UNLESS both parties settle or the person suing actually wins their case. That way, if you are being sued by someone like Trump, all you need to do is find a lawyer and go to court if you know you would win. Also, there needs to be an Anti-SLAPP law on the books in every state.

[cubby]

Honestly, if they wanted to stop all of this, the person suing should have to pay for ALL lawyer fees and court costs of both parties UNLESS both parties settle or the person suing actually wins their case. That way, if you are being sued by someone like Trump, all you need to do is find a lawyer and go to court if you know you would win. Also, there needs to be an Anti-SLAPP law on the books in every state.

The English have that punitive damage in their court system, a "third" outcome if you will - wherein the jury/judge can come back with "not-just-not-guilty but so-not-guilty-that-the-plaintiff-has-to-pay-the-defendant's-court-and-attorney-fees". The United States left that part out of their tort system. Which is why we can see so many bad actors taking full advantage of the sue-into-submission strategy.

[Gorsameth]

Honestly, if they wanted to stop all of this, the person suing should have to pay for ALL lawyer fees and court costs of both parties UNLESS both parties settle or the person suing actually wins their case. That way, if you are being sued by someone like Trump, all you need to do is find a lawyer and go to court if you know you would win. Also, there needs to be an Anti-SLAPP law on the books in every state.

Its not just about getting the money back (and then some), unless your rich your not going to have the money to pay a lawyer to win the case to begin with. Not with all the side cases and stalling you can pull, as we see Trump do almost every week.

[Breccia]

Once again, it's time for Guess the Speaker!

We have never adopted a rule that has determined that a certain type of conduct is per se within (or outside of) the scope of employment, and we decline to do so now

That's the appeals court refusing Trump's defense that, when he defamed Carroll, he was shielded by absolute immunity.

You can't sue the government for defamation, but it's mostly been argued that someone who happens to be a politician who says direct, personal things about a private citizen is not acting as a governing official. The appeals court, by not taking the ruling, kick it back to NY.

[Flarelaine]

I genuinely thought you guys had that. Seems like an obvious thing to have in the US, actually. Guess not.

With the entire American court system so openly being a tool for whoever can throw more money at it, it would actually punish the small people trying to get their rights upheld in courts. I mean, even more than now.

[The Stormbringer]

The legal shitstorm of truly epic proportions that's raining on Trump is truly a blessed thing to see. I only hope he continues to lose and suffer until it finally shatters his ego and tears apart his hopes and dreams. He is truly a disgusting, foul little man who deserves everything bad that's happening to him.

[gondrin]

I genuinely thought you guys had that. Seems like an obvious thing to have in the US, actually. Guess not.

Nope. You can also sue to include those things such as court costs and lawyers' fees. However, everyone is responsible for their own part of it outside of a few states that have anti-SLAPP laws. Worst part is, even if it is a junk lawsuit that the person suing would outright lose, if you don't show up to court, you automatically lose and get judgement against you.

For someone who is wealthy or has some other means, such as the ACLU or some other organization that does pro-bono work, yeah, those lawsuits won't go anywhere. But for someone like myself, if I were to be sued by some rich person, it would probably bankrupt me trying to fight it off quite quickly.

This is why you show up to court, even if you have to represent yourself, if you get sued by anyone. Regardless if you can afford it or not, regardless of anything else as you will automatically lose if you do not. At least if you represent yourself, there is a chance you'll fight it off.

That is why the person suing someone else in a civil case should be required to either pay for all costs if they lose OR pay about 25% or however much would work of both parties costs and lawyer fees(it would be a standard rate by the court and can be adjusted when the actual bills come in) ahead of time as a means to deter people like Trump from using the court system as an intimidation tactic. Look up Robert E Murray for another person who sues anyone who says anything negative about him or his business.

- - - Updated - - -

The legal shitstorm of truly epic proportions that's raining on Trump is truly a blessed thing to see. I only hope he continues to lose and suffer until it finally shatters his ego and tears apart his hopes and dreams. He is truly a disgusting, foul little man who deserves everything bad that's happening to him.

And just to think, if he would have never run for president the first time, none of this would be coming outside of possibly the falsifying of his business documents for dodging taxes, not for the payment of towards Daniels.

I said it back then that this had to be the dumbest thing that man has ever done. It still holds true. And that man has done some really dumb things over the years.

[Dontrike]

And just to think, if he would have never run for president the first time, none of this would be coming outside of possibly the falsifying of his business documents for dodging taxes, not for the payment of towards Daniels.

I said it back then that this had to be the dumbest thing that man has ever done. It still holds true. And that man has done some really dumb things over the years.

The night he was elected you could see it on his face that he couldn't believe it, not in a good way, but that he was suddenly in deep. Of course he relished in the attention, but perhaps there was one small part of him that saw the dozens of targets he painted on his back with it, though I doubt it.

[The Stormbringer]

The night he was elected you could see it on his face that he couldn't believe it, not in a good way, but that he was suddenly in deep. Of course he relished in the attention, but perhaps there was one small part of him that saw the dozens of targets he painted on his back with it, though I doubt it.

Yeah, from what I heard, he was genuinely shocked and surprised. He didn't expect to win. He was ready to concede and create his Trump TV news network or whatever, to capitalize on all the attention. I think the whole world would've been better off if that had happened instead...

[fwc577]

Yeah, from what I heard, he was genuinely shocked and surprised. He didn't expect to win. He was ready to concede and create his Trump TV news network or whatever, to capitalize on all the attention. I think the whole world would've been better off if that had happened instead...

Imagine the GOP being able to hold hostage 3 scotus seats during Clinton presidency if we couldn't get a Senate majority, lmao. I would've loved to see the excuses.

[Breccia]

Summarizing across multiple sources, but just for an example citation, this Newsweek article is as good as any.

Trump was in NY testifying for seven hours yesterday. Reports are saying he did not take the Fifth. At least, not like last time.

Experts are saying that he's fucked either way. This is old ground we've covered, but not recently, so indulge me.

This is the civil NY case for fraud, namely, having one value for your property for taxes and another for loans and insurers. We have long known that Trump could easily also face a criminal case on exactly the same thing: if he personally and specifically directed these acts or did them himself, his company can get fined (or even shut down), but Trump himself could go to jail.

Trump knows this. Even an incompetent lawyer has known this for quite some time. We've known this for quite some time.

Problem is, as Vanity Fair puts it, he might be fucked either way. Okay I'll cite that one, too.

Had Trump taken the Fifth another few hundred times, the civil jury could have been not just allowed to, but instructed to, take that into consideration. Like, the AG would have brought it up over and over in closing. If the AG provides facts, testimony, and other evidence, while Trump refuses to clear anything up, the only reasonable conclusion would be Trump Org is "guilty". As we've covered before, not only would this require massive back-payments with interest, but also fines, and could have Trump Org lose a lot of its abilities, like the ability to sell real estate. You know, it's entire purpose of being.

Trump ran in 2016 with the sole claimed qualification of being a successful businessman. He lied, but that's what he said at the time. He got some indy's to vote for him, at least in part due to that claimed (but false) qualification. If Trump Org is basically shut down for being a massive tax fraud, as well as hundreds of millions in judgements against it for being a massive tax fraud, that qualification isn't just tossed, it's reversed. I mean, he also has his one-term record coming back to bite his monstrous ass, but every single candidate in every party will bring up how Trump Org is a giant crime scene.

...but he didn't take the Fifth.

As the NYTimes puts it, okay fine I'll cite them too, anything Trump said under oath is now evidence in any other case. Okay, we already knew that. Fine. But apparently, he can't take the Fifth again. Once he's answered a question that opens him up to criminal risk once, he can't refuse to answer later, because the risk of self-incrimination has already happened.

This leaves Trump with four choices. All of them are bad.

1) Let the facts and evidence speak for itself, and fight the case on the merits. This is also known as "calling a wipe".

2) Say exactly the same thing both times. The smartest move, but considering James is no idiot, the questions were both substantive and leading. While there were surely some "did you sign this paper I'm holding that has your signature?" evidence confirmation bits, Trump was almost certainly asked questions about evidence -- testimony -- that hasn't been presented yet. Evidence that could be waiting for the criminal trial. Basically, letting Cohen camp with a shotgun and getting Trump to chase her around a corner.

3) What I Meant Was. Saying two different things under oath is a great way to get arrested for perjury. Considering the deposition went on for seven hours, answers like "Oh I forgot" "Oh I don't remember" "Look it was just $250 million in fraud, I do that so many times it gets lost in the shuffle" were not permitted. Although to be fair, an on-record admission that Trump didn't remember decades worth of business would also be 2024 damning. Trump won't be able to change his tune in a criminal trial. "When I said XXX under oath, I meant YYY" won't play out very well in a jury.

4) The most likely option: Trump goes off-script and starts saying random shit his lawyers begged him not to. As the NYPost fine I'll cite them too and others noted, Trump spent part of these seven hours bragging about his "success" story. If he starts bringing up dollar figures that were involved in the case, oh no, that's on record now.

While it was highly likely Trump's lawyers coached him to dance around incriminating questions, Trump is too slow, fat, and stupid to dance. We've all seen the videos. He's a sociopathic narcisist and very likely said things he was told not to say, opening doors to further lines of inquiry. See also: seven hours.

All of this...and it's just one of the court cases Trump has on his plate. About to slide off into his lap, making a huge mess.

- - - Updated - - -

The legal shitstorm of truly epic proportions that's raining on Trump is truly a blessed thing to see.

En stercus veritum.

Trump files an appeal to keep Pence from testifying.

"Didn't you already post that?"

Apparently today he updated with "I meant now".

As a reminder, Pence has said he would not appeal -- that alone could make or break this legal decision. The appeal is under seal, so we don't know on what grounds, but I have a theory:

"Your Honor, I object!"
"And why is that?"
"It's devastating to my case!"

Things do not look good for Trump in this context.

One, basically no judge has ruled in his favor in this context yet.

Last week, the federal appeals court denied Trump’s motion to block the testimony of several of his senior aides. The decision came after U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell ruled in March that Trump’s former chief of staff, Mark Meadows, and other aides, including Dan Scavino and Stephen Miller, must testify despite Trump’s invocation of executive privilege.

Two, trying to block someone else's testimony when they want to testify is not particularly simple. Especially when there is a subpoena involved.

Third, I don't know that there's a point that can be raised here. Pence's defense, already both destroyed and abandoned, was that he was doing legal Senate things as a legal Senate member. This defense pre-supposes that there's something Pence, as a Senator, could do in the certification process. Pence already said repeatedly that he had no such role. Everything else is a re-election campaign, for which Pence has no privilege. Discussions Trump had with Pence were neither WH nor Senate business. Trump is claiming they were, at least that seems to be his attempt in the past, but the WH has no role in certifying the vote, and Pence has no role in drafting legislation because no legislation was being drafted. Even Trump's SCOTUS is going to have a hard time with this one.

And of course, fourth, Pence being unable to testify about the murderous insurrection that was tasked with murdering him personally is not in the public interest, which as we've seen in repeated recent court decisions, is absolutely relevant.

By the way, I love the closing paragraph:

The case is just one of multiple criminal probes into Trump.

One might even say "legal shitstorm" and Trump doesn't have an umbrella.

- - - Updated - - -

Speaking of "can't be blocked from testifying" and "legal shitstorm" this NYTimes piece is about Smith's investigation.

It says stuff we already know, but also, this:

Among the first people to engage in this debate [EDITOR: that's the privilege debate] were Marc Short and Greg Jacob, two of Mr. Pence’s top aides, who went into the grand jury in July and asserted privilege in response to certain questions, prompting prosecutors to file motions compelling their full testimony. Setting a pattern for the months that followed, Mr. Trump’s lawyers fought those motions but ultimately lost their case in front of Beryl A. Howell, then the chief federal judge in Washington, and subsequently in front of a federal appeals court.

With the privilege waived, Mr. Short and Mr. Jacob testified for a second time in October. They were followed two months later by Pat A. Cipollone and Patrick F. Philbin, the two top lawyers in Mr. Trump’s White House, who went through the same process.

The fight dragged on into this year as another round of aides — including Mr. Miller; Dan Scavino, a onetime deputy chief of staff; and Mr. Scavino’s boss, Mark Meadows, Mr. Trump’s final chief of staff — all tried, and failed, to assert forms of privileges. The last skirmish took place just a couple of weeks ago when a new chief judge, James E. Boasberg, turned down efforts to limit Mr. Pence’s testimony.

While getting these witnesses in front of the grand jury has been challenging and time consuming, the accounts they have given — or will eventually give — are only a fraction of the total body of evidence that Mr. Smith and his predecessors have gathered.

Well before Mr. Smith arrived, another prosecutor, Thomas P. Windom, obtained grand jury testimony from pro-Trump figures like Ali Alexander, who organized several prominent “Stop the Steal” events, and from a wide array of state officials involved in a plan to create fake slates of pro-Trump electors in swing states that were actually won by President Biden.

That is a lot of people testifying against Trump. And that's not even getting into things like phone siezures. By the way, Windom is now working with Smith.

Everything I said about Pence applies here, except more so. Maybe if any of them are lawyers they have a valid defense. Maybe. Fraud/crime exception, of course. Re-election campaigns are not WH business, and executive privilege does not apply.

Incidentally, has anyone seen Melania? Trump might need her help.

See, Trump apparently has an option in the hush money case that, near as I can tell, we haven't paid much attention to. As Business Insider points out, one way Trump could attempt to defeat the "election fraud" Bragg case is to say the hush money was paid to stop his wife from finding out.

The motive of Bragg's 34 felony indictments is key. While Trump would have to explain away the coincidence of having to suddenly pay someone by telling their wife about the affair, right before he was elected by sheer random chance, he could try this.

But...it would require two things.

One, Trump would have to admit, on the stand, the affair happened. While he's running for a Christian theocracy. Trump cultists will accept that, but not Pence or the classic conservatives.

And two, Melania would have to personally testify. Trump cannot use "my wife didn't know" and expect Melania not to get involved.

"Wait, can you force a spouse to testify?"

Excellent question. No. But if Trump brings that up as a supposedly factual statement, and Melania refuses to back it up, neither the judge nor the jury are likely to buy it. The Stormy Daniels story has been in the news for well over a decade now. For Trump to say that, somehow, his wife didn't hear about it until 2020 or later would not be taken on faith.

No Melania testimony, no Melania defense.

Rumors fly that Melania is only staying with Trump because she's been paid to -- renegotiating the prenup or the like. Hell, I've posted such myself. This seems like it wouldn't have been part of the deal. I don't think Trump's lawyers, even his divorce attorneys, are that good. And this could involve perjury. If Melania told even a single person she knew about the affair, that person testifies, and the defense is once again broken.

For the record, I don't see this happening. For one, I think Trump still thinks he can win this in the court of public opinion. Admitting the affair under oath just doesn't seem his style. For two, based on public appearances etc, I don't think Trump should trust that his wife will defend him in this context. They say untrustworthy people don't trust others, and Trump has cheated on every one of his wives. Even if Melania would take that legal bullet, I don't think Trump knows that.

[Breccia]

Parler yoinked.

"Off of what?"

Yes.

Parler, a social media app that with low content moderation measures that catered to conservatives, will be taken down by its new owners, according to a Friday announcement.

The app was acquired by the digital media company Starboard, formerly known as Olympic Media. Parler had been floundering after it was briefly pulled from mainstream app stores and Amazon’s web hosting service.

Starboard’s announcement said that the app as it is “currently constituted will be pulled down from operation to undergo a strategic assessment.”

“No reasonable person believes that a Twitter clone just for conservatives is a viable business any more,” Starboard said in the announcement.

Ryan Coyne, CEO of Starboard, said the team at Parler “has built an exceptional audience and we look forward to integrating that audience across all of our existing platforms.”

Wow. Has Trump seen the bolded?

Starboard has a point. Parler has fallen since Jan 6, 2021 and can't get up. Also the Kanye West deal apparently never happened.

Also, let's be clear about this: Starboard intentionally bought Parler to shut it down. They paid good money -- for an unknown amount of money -- just to kill it, cut it into pieces, and eat those pieces. Or, maybe, to turn Parler into something that isn't Parler, which is just as much a kill as far as I'm concerned.

"Will they do that with CyberTrump 2077?"

No. There's no reason. It's dying all on its own.

[fwc577]

One might even say "legal shitstorm" and Trump doesn't have an umbrella.

Hopefully no sharpie as well

[Breccia]

Trump launches attack on DeSantis, saying he'll cut SS, raise retirement age, cut Medicare, and eat pudding with his fingers.

No, really.

Wanna see the video?

For those of you who don't remember, Trump promised to cut Medicare and SS himself. So this attack, like everything else Trump does, is disingenuous.

[gondrin]

Trump launches attack on DeSantis, saying he'll cut SS, raise retirement age, cut Medicare, and eat pudding with his fingers.

No, really.

Wanna see the video?

For those of you who don't remember, Trump promised to cut Medicare and SS himself. So this attack, like everything else Trump does, is disingenuous.

Of all the nicknames he could give DeSantis, that is the one that will "stick" to him the most. Ron "Puddin' Fingers" DeSantis. Good ole political mud slinging.

Name sounds like one of those B rated horror movie villains that make people laugh more than scare them.