Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Edge-]

He.

Literally.

Was.

His father bought one. He has a platform.

A platform anyone watches/reads*

[DarkTZeratul]

The typical "no one's talking to me, it must be because I'm censored" act. It honestly baffles me every day how people can be conned by these turds and their terrible outlook on things.

"I've said it before, conservative voices are being silenced. I said it on my Youtube channel. I said it on Joe Rogan. I said it on Jordan Peterson's kayaking podcast. I said it on Tucker Carlson - twice, actually. And I said it in my New York Times bestselling book, Conservative Voices Are Being Silenced. It's a point I have to keep making over and over and over again."

[Breccia]

Well, things are not looking good for Donald Trump.

1) The DA in the "$130,000 whore payment" case has asked the judge if Trump could please stop attacking lawyers and witnesses in the case and naturally Team Trump is insisting that he still be allowed.

The filing is in response to a motion last week from prosecutors in Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's office who are seeking to bar Trump from publicly disclosing evidence that is due to be turned over to his defense team as the case moves toward trial next year.

The filing by Assistant District Attorney Catherine McCaw argued that “safeguards that will protect the integrity of the materials” are necessary because the “risk” that Trump would use them “inappropriately is substantial.” She asked the judge to ensure that the defense could use discovery materials only for trial purposes and that Trump view the evidence only in the presence of his lawyers.

McCaw cited Trump’s record of speaking out against witnesses, investigators and court officials involved in the swirling probes in his orbit.

“Donald J. Trump has a longstanding and perhaps singular history of attacking witnesses, investigators, prosecutors, trial jurors, grand jurors, judges, and others involved in legal proceedings against him, putting those individuals and their families at considerable safety risk,” McCaw wrote.

She pointed to Trump’s attacks against his former personal attorney Michael Cohen as one such example. Cohen is expected to be a key witness in the DA’s case, which involves hush money payments Cohen was involved with.

Trump's lawyers return filing was, basically, "he's running for President".

No, really.

"The People have proposed what would be an unprecedented and extraordinarily broad muzzle on a leading contender for the presidency of the United States," Trump attorneys Susan Necheles, Joe Tacopina and Todd Blanche wrote to New York state Judge Juan Merchan, who is overseeing the case.

“The People’s Proposed Protective Order infringes upon Trump’s First Amendment right to freely discuss his own character and qualifications for federal office and the First Amendment rights of the American people to hear Trump’s side of the story,” it said.

So that's the deal, people. Want to discuss the case you're in despite a gag order? Just run for office.

2) It's time for the chorus, ladies and gentlemen, sing along, you all know the words!

Ninety-nine bottles of beer on the wall,
Ninety-nine bottles of beeeeer,
I never thought Trump would turn on me
Ninety-eight bottles of beer on the wall.

Trump attacks McEnemy in broad freaking daylight.

Trump reshared a post from McEnany on his Truth Social platform and wrote, “I guess Kayleigh is no longer speaking so favorably about DeSanctimonious now that his Polls are shot!”

In February, McEnany urged Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) to join the 2024 GOP presidential race and challenge her former boss. McEnany argued at the time, “How can you wait when you are currently the hottest governor in Republican politics…?”

Then things spilled out onto the streets as various MAGA people took sides. Of note:

Over the last few months, she’s been a cheerleader for @GovRon DeSantis even though she owes her career to Trump.
She still hasn’t endorsed him for 2024.

-- Laura Loomer

vs

McEnany doesn’t owe her career to Trump. She was a CNN contributor and the RNC spokesperson prior to her roles with Trump’s campaign and Admin. She’s also a graduate of Harvard. Her own hard work and faithfulness to Christ advanced her career.

Kayleigh and many other strong women (including Katrina Pierson, Erin Perrine, me, and others) had careers long before and will long after working for Trump. We simply moved forward with our lives like normal women. This is embarrassing from idiots like Loomer whose own focus now is just desperately trying to get where we were.

-- Jenna Ellis

I'm not typically one to yell "Catfight! CATFIGHT!" but "MAGA fight!" is different.

3) Team Trump hands Jack Smith a roadmap to their defense strategy for the stolen intelligence documents case.

"Don't you mean 'the Mar-a-Lago case'?"

No. The issue is stolen federal documents, some of which were top secret. Which privately-owned building they were in isn't really my concern.

While speaking on MSNBC's The Katie Phang Show on Sunday, Coleman Jr. discussed a letter that Trump's attorneys sent to House Intelligence Committee chairman Mike Turner, an Ohio Republican, asking for the GOP majority House to take over the federal investigation. Coleman Jr. noted the letter included how Trump's attorneys view his innocence, which would give Smith's office a glimpse of how they will present their case.

"I think it is very interesting though from a lawyer's perspective to see them lay out their entire defense basically before this has even happened," Coleman Jr. said. "It is right there. So, if you are looking at that, and you are thinking about how you are going to prosecute this case, you have just given Jack Smith a roadmap into what you do need to cover during the grand jury presentation to make sure, not only that you are able to get an indictment, but then how you are going to structure your prosecution."

On Sunday, Coleman Jr. concluded his comments about Smith, adding, "It will be interesting to see moving forward, if he [Trump] is indicted for this, which I do believe he will be, how that impacts Jack Smith's presentation of the case and then ultimately their theory of how they move forward."

For the record, I think Coleman might be a bit optimistic, but not too much. It's going to be hard to defend Trump on this case, considering the FBI raid did find stolen federal government (not privately-owned) documents which Trump said he didn't have. Trump cannot argue "I didn't do it" only "it was okay that I did" in some form...which he just gave to Jack Smith to plan a counter-attack.

"Couldn't Team Trump come up with a secondary defense? Swap tactics?"

His options are already few. There isn't much to swap to. So unless there's evidence that the documents were declassified -- and I'm just calling it now, no there isn't, Trump's claims that he declassified them with telepathy tells me he never signed anything -- his only option really is "I'm innocent, because I say I am".

4) And finally, it hasn't been a good day for Trump on Twitter.

Someone posted an AI image of Trump in Vietnam and Twitter slapped a clarifying note on it almost immediately.

"Wait, did the poster claim the image was real?"

Actually funny story, no. If they actually think Trump served, the poster never said that. And quite frankly the image is clearly fake.



Trump's face is clearly too old for the Vietnam War. And, no expert, but that uniform looks way more recent, too.

"Can you link it?"

Uh...no. It was taken down. But that's not the point.

Twitter flagged that with a "clarification"

This is AI-generated picture of Donald Trump.

Donald Trump has never served in the military.

linked to a NYTimes article, citing that Trump dodged Vietnam, and yes, "bone spurs" that mysteriously appeared once he graduated, diagnosed by a friend of the family whose office was in Trump Tower.

"Are you calling Trump a draft dodger?"

Yes, but I don't put a negative connotation to that term in and of itself. My father joined the National Guard, for example. Difference is, my father never ran for a pro-war Republican Party insisting on using US troops as armor for Saudi oil tanks.

But that's bone spurs under the bridge. Twitter flagging even a clearly fake image to remind everyone Trump never served should come as a warning to Trump and his rabid fanbase. Gosh, it looks like Trump and Twitter aren't friends, you guys.

[D Luniz]

https://www.thedailybeast.com/donald...in-nine-months



Donnie Jr., complaining that he's not given a platform he believes he's owed because his family has become legally toxic. Also, because he's now the son of an ex-president, not exactly the most newsworthy person around.

I don't think they're going to be taking all this well.

I guess he thinks cause they keep trying bring up Hunter, he needs air time.

[Breccia]

In an 18-page letter with no legal standing, he's demanding a mistrial.

UPDATE: I guess it was a real filing. The judge denied it, on the grounds of "duh", handwaving it with apparently little to no comment, then allowed Carroll's testimony to continue.

I checked several sites, including CNN and Reuters. None of them said anything other than "denied". Granted, I suggested the motion had no legal standing, but I thought there would at least be a sentence or two I could quote. Nope. Handwaved.

That's Team Trump's crack legal team, ladies and gentlemen. They no longer have anything to present that even deserves a sentence in response.

Well...maybe a prison sentence.

[AntiFascistVoter]

UPDATE: I guess it was a real filing. The judge denied it, on the grounds of "duh", handwaving it with apparently little to no comment, then allowed Carroll's testimony to continue.

I checked several sites, including CNN and Reuters. None of them said anything other than "denied". Granted, I suggested the motion had no legal standing, but I thought there would at least be a sentence or two I could quote. Nope. Handwaved.

That's Team Trump's crack legal team, ladies and gentlemen. They no longer have anything to present that even deserves a sentence in response.

Well...maybe a prison sentence.

That was basially his defense lawyers whole strategy. They have nothing after that. Now's it's Jean Carroll's turn to present.

[Breccia]

So Team Trump made at least one good decision in Trump's rape trial: Trump didn't testify.

In a trial that has been going quite badly for Trump, he is not going to bother making a last-ditch effort to win over the jury by testifying that he did not rape E. Jean Carroll and then facing cross-examination. In essence, his defense now rests on his attorneys’ cross-examination of E. Jean Carroll, which was abysmal.

Even though Trump’s decision not to testify makes it much more likely that the jury will rule against him, I believe that he and his lawyers are making the wise decision. The former president is currently under indictment in New York for 37 counts of false statements. He also faces an open investigation in Fulton County, Georgia, where District Attorney Fani Willis has announced that she will disclose whether she plans to indict Trump by early summer.

Special Counsel Jack Smith is likewise deciding whether to seek an indictment of Trump for hoarding the classified documents discovered in his office and residence at Mar-A-Lago and/or for his role in the Jan. 6 insurrection.

It’s important to note that any statement Trump would make on the witness stand during this trial could be used in any of those cases as well.

In addition, Trump faces the theoretical possibility of criminal indictment for the rape of E. Jean Carroll. In New York, there is no statute of limitations for the crime of first-degree rape. If he were to take the stand and melt down (like Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Men), he could be indicted by Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg. So, while choosing not to testify is a bad option, it’s likely the least bad option available to Trump right now.

For more on the bolded above, the same site has an article headlined Trump Lawyer Joe Tacopina’s Terrible Cross-Examination Gets Even Worse. I'll quote the one line I'm sure @cubby would agree with the most:

Tacopina also forgot the cardinal rule to never ask a question where you don’t know the answer.

But, that brings up this next point: he gave a deposition before fleeing the continent. And it's going to be played in the courtroom.

Which means, Trump can't clarify, he can't change his mind, he can't What I Meant Was. Carroll's lawyers, by contrast, can only "ask Trump" questions where they know the answer. Because, effectively, they're cross-examining at VHS tape.

Oh, also, a second victim testified and it is not good news for Trump.

Jessica Leeds, 81, of Asheville, North Carolina, told jurors at a civil trial arising from Carroll’s lawsuit that Trump grabbed her chest and ran his hand up her skirt as they sat side by side in first class on a New York City-bound jet. After a few seconds, she said, she wriggled free of Trump, told him “I don’t need this” and stormed to the back of the plane.

“There was no conversation. It was like out of the blue. It was like a tussle,” Leeds testified. “He was trying to kiss me, trying to pull me towards him. He was grabbing my breasts. It was like he had 40 zillion hands. It was like a tussling match between the two of us."

If that attack sounds familiar, it's because Carroll described it about the same way. The article I cited said they might call a third victim.

Which directly goes against Trump's VHS tape statements like "she's not my type" when there's a demonstrable pattern of behavior by Trump.

"How do we know they're telling the truth?"

Besides the fact they're taking the stand while Trump is five time zones away? Let Trump take the stand, let him go under oath, let him deny the accusations in the courtroom. Then I'll admit it's he said/they said. Until then, the only evidence is against Trump.

"But you said Trump taking the stand would be stupid!"

Yes. I did. He probably shouldn't have committed all those crimes, huh? If you knock over a Five Guys, flee from the cops, and end up cornered behind a dumpster with nothing but a Little Cheeseburger with green peppers and A1 and three bullets when there are four patrol cars at the other end, surrendering would be stupid because your ass is going to jaili. But it's the choice that doesn't get you shot and killed. The issue isn't that surrendering would be stupid in a vacuum. The issue is that surrendering would still be your best shot at not going to jail, or the morgue, forever.

I know it's not a perfect analogy. Trump would never get the single-patty burger. But he grabbed the goods and fled.

"Could Trump have settled? This is a civil case."

Well, unlike Dominion, I don't think Carroll had a number she'd accept. I mean, not one Trump could afford. Maybe she'd have taken something hyperbolic like TEN BILLION DOLLARS! because you can do a lot of good with that money. Maybe. I don't get that vibe, but we'll never know. Trump doesn't have that. More importantly, someone running for public office effectively admitting rape with a nine-figure payout is committing political suicide. Yes, even in the Republican Party. Enough classic conservatives have backed away already that Trump can't afford to lose more by saying, with a huge check, "I had sex with this woman for way more than $130,000".

- - - Updated - - -

And of course, there's more.

So in addition to the witnesses I already cited, there's Dr. Leslie Lebowitz who is, you guessed it, a psychiatrist who specializes in trauma.

Her testimony went exactly how you think it went.

"Well surely she's some hack off the street Carroll's lawyers knew would lie for them."

Actually this is not her first case. She attempted to defend someone who'd been brain damaged, then convinced by their lawyer to plead guilty to a death sentence.

And before that, in 2011. Incidentally, The Daily Mail calls her Ms. Lebowitz. Not doctor. Shame on you, DM.

"Okay, but I bet she's still an unqualified hack."

"She got her PhD at Duke. The #12 best school for psychology in the USA.

"Pfft. Anyone can graduate with a PhD. I meant besides that."

She's been published and/or cited 22 times since 1988.

"Pfft. Any--"

Wait, here she is in the Columbia Law Review too.

"Um...I mean, those are just--"

Also, she was the one who devised the Air Force sexual abuse training/reporting program.

"...um..."

In her book "Adaptive Disclosure" she talks about how veterans with war-zone exp--

"Okay okay. Fine. But nobody can trust a diagnosis from a few minutes of observation."

She spent 22 hours with Ms. Carroll.

"Whatever. She's clearly just some objectively qualified, routinely published, highly-valued expert who spent sufficient time with the victim in her field of expertise. That doesn't mean anything."

Hmm. What did Trump say on the stand?

"You just posted that he didn't."

Fair enough. What did Trump's doctor say on the stand.

"Trump's doctor that examined Carroll, or Trump's lawyer that examined Trump?"

Either.

"Uh...(flips through notes)...uh...I can't find one."

Exactly. I will admit, as Trump's legal team has proven repeatedly, there will always be people willing to risk their career and good name taking a longshot or losing case purely for publicity. It doesn't typically work out. Dr. Lebowitz shows no signs of this.

Like I said a few hours ago, Trump has no evidence in his favor. Carroll took the stand, Trump didn't, other than the deposition which can't be cross-examined. Tapioca's cross of Carroll was counterproductive. Carroll has witnesses and experts, Trump doesn't, or at least if he does they haven't been mentioned yet. And Carroll might not be allowed to mention the physical evidence, but that's because Trump refused to counter it with what would clearly be proof of innocence if he was. It's not part of the court case, but it's part of reality, and we're allowed to take it into consideration ourselves.

By various articles I've read, Carroll has enough witnesses to last till next week, and Team Trump has literally nothing but closing arguments.

I don't see how he waddles away from this one.

- - - Updated - - -

In the ongoing effort to prove that grabbing someone against their will isn't like him at all, NBC and WaPo report that, coming back from the Waco rally...anyone remember that?...that Trump was interviewed about Bragg's charges, got frustrated, grabbed the reporter's phone from him, called him a fucktard, and demanded the reporter be thrown off the plane.

But...the phone was still recording...so...yeah, now the recording is everywhere.

The NBC reporter was asking about Trump's own words, specifically, the "death and destruction" posts Trump put on his own platform on purpose.

Funny story, when asked for comment, Team Trump said this:

We extended invites to four other mainstream reporters/outlets and they all said they could not due to either [White House Correspondents’ Dinner] events that week or because their editors refused...

Yeah. Team Trump admitted that, while Trump was on the way to his biggest 2024 rally so far, reporters were RSVPing with "no thanks, we have Biden plans" or better yet "No thanks, we'd rather sit at home and do nothing than interview your boss".

Team Trump said that, as a defense to Trump, on purpose.

[Edge-]

I don't believe you covered this yet @Breccia but - https://www.thedailybeast.com/judge-...pay-legal-fees

A New York judge has tossed out Donald Trump’s lawsuit against The New York Times, and ordered the former president to pay all attorneys fees, legal expenses, and associated costs.

Trump filed the lawsuit in 2021, alleging that the newspaper, three of its reporters and his niece Mary Trump engaged in an “insidious plot” to obtain his private records for a Pulitzer-winning story about his tax issues.

While the court tossed out Trump’s claims against the newspaper and its reporters, the claims against the ex-president’s niece have yet to be ruled upon.

“The New York Times is pleased with the judge’s decision today,” a paper spokesperson wrote in a statement to The Daily Beast. “It is an important precedent reaffirming that the press is protected when it engages in routine newsgathering to obtain information of vital importance to the public.”

The twice-impeached former president’s claims against the defendants “fail as a matter of constitutional law,” New York Supreme Court Justice Robert R. Reed wrote in his ruling filed on Wednesday afternoon, deeming the paper’s newsgathering as being at “the very core of protected First Amendment activity.”

Reed further ruled that Trump failed to demonstrate any tortious interference when the Times provided his niece with a burner phone to communicate about the records. Furthermore, the judge said the ex-president failed to prove unjust enrichment or negligent supervision on the parts of the Times or reporters Susanne Craig, David Barstow, and Russell Buettner.

In the original lawsuit Trump alleged that the Times colluded with his niece to “smuggle records out of her attorney’s office and turn them over ” to the paper despite a confidentiality agreement she signed in 2001 during a family dispute. He further claimed that Craig, Barstow, and Buettner were “motivated, at least in part, by their actual malice” in reporting on the details within tax returns he’d refused to disclose.

After her uncle initially filed his lawsuit in September 2021, Mary Trump told The Daily Beast: “I think he is a fucking loser, and he is going to throw anything against the wall he can. It’s desperation. The walls are closing in and he is throwing anything against the wall that will stick. As is always the case with Donald, he’ll try and change the subject.”

Another legal failure to add to the list, and he owes the NYT some money now!

But I guess if he really wants to continue to pursue the case against his niece he might have a chance there as that hasn't been ruled on yet!

[Breccia]

“I think he is a fucking loser,"

As a reminder, Trump sued for one hundred million dollars. The fact that he got less than nothing is...actually a tad surprising, releasing tax records is awkward territory.

Also worth noting: the NYTimes effectively said, and got a Pulitzer for, "Trump is not very rich at all, and cheats on his taxes". Trump has yet to sue for defamation. It might have something to do with the Trump Org being sued for cheating on his taxes.

[Templar 331]

I thought his ass couldn't leave the country because his passport was confiscated? Imagine if any of us were arrested for 32 felonies and left the country. But then again it's not like we don't know where he is ALL the time.

[Breccia]

So, Trump ran away to Scotland

… and said literally nothing new.

Perhaps, but repeating the old stuff is still dangerous.

1) There is only one way to end the war in 24 hours: end US involvement and tell Russia they can have the country. There is no reality in which Trump offers Zelensky a deal where Russia legally gets part of Ukraine, and Zelensky just takes that offer. And Russia will not voluntarily leave empty-handed. I suppose "nuke Russia" would work, but Trump is very pro-Russia and pro-the money he gets from Russia and did not mean that.

2) Trump saying a political opponent is sick or unhealthy is a theme with him. Remember when Clinton had a stroke?

3) How do you recognize a sociopath?

The number is $50 to 60 trillion dollars. They can never pay that, nobody can. You could have ten Chinas and they couldn’t pay it. I’m not even talking about the lives, which--

That. They money is more important than the lives.

"But he said--"

Eventually. He got to the lives eventually.

4) Trump says he knows Zelensky well. The last time they talked, he got impeached for it.

5) Trump talking about the coronation is technically new, as it hasn't come up before. Trump objecting to Biden following tradition is, of course, him just trying to paint everything Biden does as bad. Trump doesn't care about the coronation. Didn't the royal family snub him?

6) And forget about the math on $50 trillion, because anyone who says

there are many people who believe it wasn’t

cannot be trusted. Science is not decided by a Family Feud poll. The origin of COVID is not dictated by audience participation.

I thought his ass couldn't leave the country because his passport was confiscated?

It's hard to be more famous and harder to hide than Trump. He both can't and won't hide.

Also, his passports were returned. The issue was that he stole government documents and just left them in his desk drawer, with his passports.

[Edge-]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/don...wife-rcna82852

Jurors hearing E. Jean Carroll's civil suit against Donald Trump on Thursday were shown a deposition video of the former president confusing the accuser with his ex-wife Marla Maples.

"It's Marla," Trump said during a deposition for the case when shown a picture of him, Carroll and Carroll's ex-husband in the 1980s. "That's Marla, yeah. That's my wife," Trump continued before being corrected by his lawyer, Alina Habba. "No, that's Carroll," Habba said.

Trump then responded the photo was "very blurry."

The video is likely all that jurors will see of the former president — Trump's lawyers said Wednesday that he will not testify in the case.

Person, man, woman, camera, TV.

[masterhorus8]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/don...wife-rcna82852



Person, man, woman, camera, TV.

So wait, Trump goes from saying Carroll "isn't his type" to confusing her with his ex-wife? Yikes.

[Edge-]

So wait, Trump goes from saying Carroll "isn't his type" to confusing her with his ex-wife? Yikes.

She wasn't his type either, why do you think he ended up divorcing her?

[Poopymonster]

She wasn't his type either, why do you think he ended up divorcing her?

He leases women.
He chooses immigrants because he's a fan of outsourcing.
He's proved no American wants to touch his penis, so he finds a cheap source in another country who'll do the job.

[Edge-]

https://www.newsweek.com/marjorie-ta...r-blow-1798293

The Rasmussen poll asked 1,050 U.S. likely voters who they would vote for when presented with a hypothetical presidential ticket. The survey was conducted from April 27 to May 2 and had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percent.

The survey found a Biden/Harris ticket would defeat a Trump/Greene ticket with 44 percent support to the Republicans' 40 percent.

Two other potential presidential and vice presidential pairings fared notably better against the Biden/Harris ticket.

Fifty-one percent of likely voters would back a Trump ticket with Florida Governor Ron DeSantis as his running mate, the poll found, while just 43 percent of respondents said they would support Biden/Harris.

"Trump/DeSantis also wins the national popular vote, which would be a first for Republicans in 20 years. Trump does well head-to-head against Biden, but adding DeSantis to the ticket is powerful," Larry Ward, president of Political Media Inc., said in a statement on Wednesday.

DeSantis is widely expected to announce his own bid for the Republican presidential nomination, though he has not yet formally entered the race, and Trump has publicly criticized DeSantis, accusing him of being "disloyal."

The Rasmussen poll also found that Trump would defeat a Biden/Harris ticket if he were to choose former Arizona gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake as his 2024 running mate.

A Trump/Lake ticket won 47 percent support among the poll's respondents, compared to 42 percent for Biden and Harris.

Well that's sure interesting polling.

[Kaleredar]

https://www.newsweek.com/marjorie-ta...r-blow-1798293



Well that's sure interesting polling.

I don’t think trump adding an arguably even more deranged VP in the form of Greene/lake is going to get him much clout with the independent voter.

Look at McCain and the trash fire that was palin. She looks sane next to those two loons, and McCain was a far stronger candidate than trump was and certainly is now.

[Breccia]

So wait, Trump goes from saying Carroll "isn't his type" to confusing her with his ex-wife? Yikes.

Indeed.

And I'm just going to call it now: no, the photo was not blurry. I haven't seen it, don't know if we will, I'm still calling it.

[Edge-]

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...-probe-report/

The Justice Department has found an “insider witness” as investigators probe former President Trump’s handling of classified documents, according to a new report.

The New York Times, citing people familiar with the matter, reported that the unidentified person now cooperating confidentially with the investigation has worked for Trump at Mar-a-Lago.

According to the report, the scope of how the insider witness has helped the federal prosecutors is not yet clear, nor is the timeline of the person’s cooperation, but the witness reportedly gave investigators a picture of the storage room where some materials were held.

The investigation, led by Special Counsel Jack Smith, has shown signs of intensifying. The new insider witness, the Times reports, appears as part of a broader effort to figure out whether Trump personally ordered boxes of the sensitive material to be moved out of the storage room.

Investigators are looking into whether Trump failed or refused to comply with the government’s requests for certain records to be returned after the end of Trump’s tenure in the White House, as is required under the Presidential Records Act.

After the DOJ subpoenaed Trump for the documents that were believed to still be in his possession, FBI agents last summer executed a search warrant at Mar-a-Lago and recovered classified documents.

The Times also reported, citing two people familiar with the matter, that “nearly everyone” who works at Mar-a-Lago has been subpoenaed in the probe.

The inquiry into the former president’s document handling is one of two probes into the former president led by Smith. The second investigation focuses on efforts by Trump and his allies to interfere with the transfer of power after the former president lost his reelection bid in 2020.

Emphasis mine.

/popcorn

[Breccia]

Emphasis mine.

We don't know the timeline, but it doesn't sound like one of Trump's now targeted lawyers.

One, they weren't in trouble until after the raid, so I don't see how a picture of the storage room would have helped. "You should have looked here" after the fact isn't worth a sentence reduction.

Two, if one of Trump's lawyers turned, they wouldn't need to subpoena everyone else. They'd have all they needed.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, the jury heard this.

A: Well, historically, that’s true with stars.

Q:True with stars that they can grab women by the pussy?

A: Well, that’s what — if you look over the last million years, I guess that’s been largely true. Not always, but largely true. Unfortunately or fortunately.

"There is no way Trump said that under oath."

It's in the deposition, whose video was played for the jury. So...yes, he did.

"Fortunately?"

He's a sociopath. It's good for him, therefore, fortunately.

"This was a rape deposition! Is he trying to paint a poor picture of himself?"

I mean...since the eighties, yes.

As predicted, Team Trump rested their case immediately, offering no evidence of any kind. In fact, they rested so quickly the judge didn't buy it.

Late on Thursday, after Ms. Carroll’s lawyers ended their case, Mr. Trump’s lawyer, Joseph Tacopina, rested his case as well — sort of.

Trump, who has been traveling abroad, said Thursday morning while playing golf in Ireland that he might return to New York to attend the Carroll trial. “I have to go back for a woman that made a false accusation about me, and I have a judge who is extremely hostile,” Mr. Trump said, according to Reuters.

But in court Thursday afternoon, Mr. Tacopina made it clear to the judge, Lewis A. Kaplan, that Mr. Trump would not testify, which he said he had confirmed with his client before arriving at court that morning.

Judge Kaplan, noting that he was aware of news reports of Mr. Trump’s comments from Ireland, said that he would allow Mr. Tacopina to file a motion as late as 5 p.m. Sunday asking the judge to allow Mr. Trump to testify on his own behalf.

“If he has second thoughts, I will at least consider it,” Judge Kaplan said.

Yep, once again, what Trump says is worth nothing. Trump said, in public, on purpose, that he would go back for the trial. His lawyer, in court, said "He told me he would not". Trump is a serial liar, and this is just another--

"You're saying there's zero chance he'll show up?"

I'm a mathematician and statstician, I won't say "zero" on professional principle. But I would bet any amount of money. Trump's lawyers are begging him to stay off the stand, even though Trump is almost certainly averse himself.

In fact, I am predicting that Trump will say "the judge wouldn't let me testify" by intentionally missing the deadline, then feigning outrage. This court case was hardly a surprise. This lawsuit has been going on for years. He fled the continent knowing full well what was going on. He chose to do that. Yeah, that's my guess. Next week he'll say something like "I couldn't back in time and the biased judge is being unfair" despite every single line above saying the opposite.

This is where I should ask Trump supporters how they reconcile what Trump is saying in public vs. what his lawyers are saying in court. But I do not believe they would view this development positively, so I can't do that. I will say, that they are free to volunteer that information...until closing arguments begin, ending the timer that for once I am not enforcing. At which point, I will answer on their behalf:

I strongly suspected Trump would not enter the courtroom, despite Trump saying he would enter the courtroom. As closing arguments have begun and he did not enter the courtroom, it is clear that he was lying to the public. This is something I have come to accept Trump does routinely but I support him anyhow

-- any Trump supporter who does not say otherwise before closing arguments