Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[cubby]

Trump seeks to move hush-money case to federal court because he was president during alleged crime

Before I begin, let me just say that I know practicing law is a difficult, well, science. I know people like "Doctor @cubby " have to spend years learning the various rules and how they interact, and that there's details and minutia and fine print in everything.

So, yes, I admit, there's probably some backing for this move.

With this out of the way: this is fucking retarded.

Trump is charged with breaking NY laws. The fact that, and yes his lawyer said so, he also broke federal laws while doing so is irrelevant. The DOJ can charge too, not instead.

The fact that

This case is unprecedented in our nation's history

is not the prosectution's fault. Trump broke the law. If this case is unPresidented, that's on Trump for breaking the law. Not for prosecutors charging him. Prosecutors charge people for breaking the law all the time.

Trump has repeatedly claimed, in public of course where it means nothing, that he committed no crime. If that's true, that should be the defense. Not "I want to swap to other crimes my client committed but wasn't charged with, instead of these".

First, thank you (lol "Doctor").

Second, your analysis is spot on. This is yet another of the plethora of examples of Trump throwing "everything including the kitchen sink" at the wall to see what sticks in a hopeless effort to avoid responsibilities for his actions.

Finally, a prediction: he'll eventually actually be convicted of a crime (or plead guilty - it's possible given all the evidence against him), but will invoke a diminished mental capacity defense for sentencing and spend out his days in Mar-a-lalaland (assuming he doesn't stroke out before then).

[Gorsameth]

First, thank you (lol "Doctor").

Second, your analysis is spot on. This is yet another of the plethora of examples of Trump throwing "everything including the kitchen sink" at the wall to see what sticks in a hopeless effort to avoid responsibilities for his actions.

Finally, a prediction: he'll eventually actually be convicted of a crime (or plead guilty - it's possible given all the evidence against him), but will invoke a diminished mental capacity defense for sentencing and spend out his days in Mar-a-lalaland (assuming he doesn't stroke out before then).

I question if his narcissism will allow him to claim diminished mental capacity.

[Breccia]

Finally, a prediction: he'll eventually actually be convicted of a crime (or plead guilty - it's possible given all the evidence against him), but will invoke a diminished mental capacity defense for sentencing and spend out his days in Mar-a-lalaland (assuming he doesn't stroke out before then).

Trump is a sociopathic narcisist. In my non-expert opinion, he probably could get a reduced mental ability defense attempt due to (a) years upon years of public evidence and (b) he's clearly bribed doctors to lie about his health before.

But...a sociopathic narcisist would never admit they were insane. It would crush their own world view.

Trump would literally, not figuratively, literally rather die than admit under oath that he was insane in general, let alone insane in the White House.

And of course, it would kill his 2024 bid...but you were suggesting afterwards, I believe?

In any event, we might never find out, but I do not think Trump will ever attempt the insanity plea. He might literally become violent and attack the lawyer who suggests it.

That said, maybe we agree on this: someone else might enter the plea for him. That's do-able, right? Someone being so insane, they can't act on their own behalf? I don't know if they would, Ivanka and Melania know they'd lose all their money if they opened themselves up to follow-up lawsuits ("we loaned you money and you neglected to tell us Trump was insane") and Don Jr. and Eric are still begging for even the tiniest shred of their father's love (see also: Trump's father). Maybe his lawyers could conspire with his doctors.

[Fugus]

@Breccia

Didn't mean he would successfully argue it, I meant he would attempt to and likely get it slapped down but still use it to further delay and fuel his base claiming it as more evidence of some grand conspiracy against him.

I figure he would attempt once again to try and get stuff in front of the Supreme Court he thinks owes him for what good that would do him beyond just simply delaying again.

[Poopymonster]

I question if his narcissism will allow him to claim diminished mental capacity.

This. Bigly.
Coming from the man who aced the mental acuity test that gave us "Person Woman Man Camera Tv Dog"

[Breccia]

Didn't mean he would successfully argue it, I meant he would attempt to and likely get it slapped down

Agreed there. But in this case, his lawyers might refuse to follow his orders. They have to know how bad of an idea that is -- they have seen plenty of examples.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm going to burn a couple of CNN points to remind everyone of two things:

1) Trump put up zero defense. No items entered into evidence, neither Trump nor any other witnesses. Carroll did, and one of them was a journalist who

The jury on Wednesday also heard from Natasha Stoynoff, a journalist who’s accused Trump of sexually assaulting her. Trump has denied Stoynoff’s claims.

Stoynoff said Trump forcibly kissed her on December 27, 2005, during a photoshoot and interview session at Mar-a-Lago.

Stoynoff was at Trump’s property with a People magazine crew working on a story about Donald and Melania Trump’s first anniversary and imminent birth of their son, Barron.

Stoynoff grew emotional at times on Wednesday wiping her face with a tissue, testifying that Trump told Stoynoff he wanted to show her another room in the house on a break between interviews when Melania stepped away to change into another outfit for a photoshoot.

(it gets bad)

Trump stopped only when a butler walked into the room to let them know Melania was ready for the next interview.

Later that day, Stoynoff testified, “He said, Oh, you know we are going to have an affair, don’t you? You know, don’t forget what – don’t forget what Marla said, best sex she ever had. We are going to go for steak, we are going to go to Peter Luger’s. We’re going to have an affair.”

I'm bringing it up because of the bolded, and this:

2) In a book about Melania which cites over one hundred interviews, we learned that Melania renegotiated her prenup in 2017, specifically to benefit her son, after news of Trump's indiscretions went public -- specifically the "grab them by the pussy" which he defended in the deposition, now famously shown publicly. Which was about the same time as the incident the reporter described, under oath.

The timeline makes perfect sense, lending a lot of credibility to the journalist victim. There is no reasonable explanation to why Trump would willingly brag about his indiscretions to someone, an indiscretion he later admitted was true, but not also move on another victim like a bitch.

Thing is, I don't know if Melania knew about Stoynoff. I know she went public about that time, but her story was kind of drowned out. She published the story mid October 2016, after Trump claimed he'd never assaulted anyone. I do not believe the story was widely circulated, and I do not believe Melania was looking. I think she was mad enough with the story that was making headlines every day.

Melania is in a real position of power right now. By all credible accounts, Trump is going to lose this case. The GOP is different now than it was 30 years ago, no question, but I do not think they can rally enough classic conservatives to a candidate (especially a failed one) whose wife is divorcing that candidate, with the reason specified "he cheated on me by raping a woman". I also don't see a lot of classic conservatives taking his side -- I mean, what could Trump possibly say? "I'm glad she's leaving, I never loved her" like he discards everyone else who refused to stand by his crimes? At this point, his adultery is damn near objective and we have nothing but rumors, if that, about Melania.

But what else have we talked about? Trump trying to get back in the WH to get "absolute immunity"? Yes, maybe if Melania leaves, the wording in even the new prenup might mean she loses quite a lot. But Trump will lose much more. Melania Trump is the single person who can do the most damage to Donald Trump's 2024 chances, and everyone knows it, especially Donald Trump.

And he's not even contesting the charges with anything other than "nuh-uh, also I'm in Ireland".

Barron Trump turns 18 March 20th of next year. If Melania hasn't left by then, expect Barron to get a birthday present that would shame a Middle East nation. Something along the lines of his own real estate company with hundreds of millions in assets. Something that gives him a lot to work with, but also something that Trump could potentially try to ungift -- something that 100% fits his history -- if things get worse.

The same book I cited earlier said that Melania is a calming influence on Trump. But where is she? It's not like she'd go to the trial of course, but...did she go with Trump to Scotland?

It is possible that, instead of going for a divorce like anyone with self-respect (or anyone who isn't trying to get hundreds of millios of dollars) she might just sit out the 2024 campaign entirely. Satisfying Trump by not divorcing him, but at least removing herself from being used as a prop. Party of Trump or classic conservative, we know Trump supporters will...what was the description?

You know, it doesn't really matter what [the media] write as long as you've got a young and beautiful piece of ass

Thanks, Trump in 1991. Trump's numbers are low enough. Being left by Melania will kill his chances, but being neglected isn't going to help.

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out. But to use a highly appropriate quote:

Don't get mad. Get everything!

[Flarelaine]

I question if his narcissism will allow him to claim diminished mental capacity.

But...a sociopathic narcisist would never admit they were insane.

Does this make his situation a reverse catch-22?

[Drutt]

....and spend out his days in Mar-a-lalaland (assuming he doesn't stroke out before then).

Yeah, I don't see him going to prison either. The logistics just tseem oo difficult given his security protection and status as a former President. I agree that he'll probably be under house arrest for the rest of his life.

Built himself a tomb to die in.

[Breccia]

Does this make his situation a reverse catch-22?

Only if you meant the common saying and not the book which I haven't read since high school.

- - - Updated - - -

As expected, closing arguments have begun because Trump did not show up like he said he would.

Well, you know what this means.

By my silence on the very public nationwide news matter, I have affirmed that I knew Trump was lying when he said he would return for the trial. I knew he was lying but did not say anything about it, because I want to continue to support Trump even though he routinely lies to his own supporters. I admit that my failure to speak out causes me to self-identify as a coward, and also, that people not speaking out when Trump objectively lies only encourages him to objectively lie further -- something we're seeing happen right now.

I do not apologize, for that would require me to admit what I'm doing is wrong. I will continue to support someone who lies, cheats, steals, and encourages violence, while pretending he is a good person that should hold public office, because I might literally rather die than admit I made a mistake.

I reserve the right to put specific posters' names on that from here on out. If they have a problem with that, they should have spoken up by now. Having me on ignore is not an excuse -- Trump's lies made headlines everywhere except FOX News.

Back the trial. As expected, Carroll's lawyers took all the evidence seen by the jury so far and, holy shit, went IDKFA on it. It's not over, and you can read the article on your own (expect better summaries later), but here's my favorite line so far:

After the mistake was pointed out to Trump by his lawyer, he said the picture was "blurry." Kaplan displayed it for the jury. “It’s not at all blurry,” she said, and Carroll was "exactly his type."

It is going to be hard to top that. Trump said the picture was blurry, the picture was shown to the jury. Trump thought the woman in it looked enough like his own wife to prove that, yes, she was his type. Objectively.

I have a guess about Team Trump's closing arguments, but I have to admit it's a guess. They put on no case. They presented no witnesses. I don't think they presented a single piece of evidence.

"What about the deposition?"

Trump fought that tooth and tiny nail. I'm fairly sure they fought against even that. And considering how badly it went and how harshly it was used against them, even Trump-level lawyers would have raised objections to Trump's own words, because they were devastating to their client who's not going to pay them.

So my guess involves three factors.
1) Painting Carroll as a money-hungry attention whore who wants to sell her book. Good luck with that. Carroll has not been a public figure outside of being raped by Trump. Her book isn't selling. And a forensic psychiatrist said she has problems socializing. All three of which her own team put into evidence.
2) That she hates Trump. First of all, that's a stupid thing to say about someone raped by your client. Of course she hates Trump. Trump raped her. Second of all, "she hates Trump" has been overused -- it's Team Trump's defense against everything. Third of all, she took the stand and brought up evidence. Hating Trump does not make evidence appear out of thin air.
3) Team Trump was already warned they couldn't refer to the dress, because their own client refused to take a DNA test and, for some reason, the judge agreed. Whatever. Anyhow, Team Trump is likely going to back door into that by saying things like "all we have is her word" and trying to reasonable doubt their way out of this. Honestly, this is their best bet, and even that's not a very good one, just the best option they have left. Because their client got a miracle of a ruling on the DNA case, Carroll is left with the remaining evidence, which in a civil case should be enough. She has friends she talked to immediately afterwards, a forensic psychiatrist who is apparently really good at trauma cases, corroborating victims who have similar stories establishing a pattern, and of course the strongest evidence of all, Trump not once taking the stand.

Team Trump's defense(s) above are marginally better than pleading guilty. What I'm hoping happens, is that Tapioca leans too hard on the "she has no proof" button that the judge follows through on his instructions that he can't reference the dress, you know, proof, and then instructs the jury afterwards in a way that neuters that defense. I don't know that it'll happen, but I despise the idea that, somehow, Team Trump blocked the physical evidence of the rape and are likely going to claim Carroll has no physical evidence therefore Trump is innocent.

Carroll broke down in tears on the stand.

Trump joked about being able to assault women on a video tape.

There is only one way this ends in a just world. We'll find out if we live in one soon enough.

- - - Updated - - -

It's been a while. How's DWAC stock doing?

Well, it's up for the day.

"Yeah! MAGA!"

By half a percent.

"...um, yay! MAGA! I guess!"

And it's almost back over thirteen dollars.

"Wait, isn't ten the floor?"

Yes. How kind of you to remember. Yes, the stock will not drop below $10 unless there's a legal move to, well, defraud their investors. The type of company DWAC is, says they have to return the original investment, $10 per share, if the deal fails. The stock price will only drop below $10 if DWAC makes a move to void their own contract with their remaining stockholders.

DWAC is down for the week, month, and beyond. It has more or less plateau'd.

There's not much else to say, really. If DWAC was going to crash on, say, Trump being arrested, it would have happened by now. That said, I did find this one guy with this one article saying the stock was worth $0.

"So he's saying it's a bad stock."

I think he means, literally worth nothing.

If you read Bill Browder’s second book, Freezing Order, you’ll understand why DWAC is losing altitude. Donald Trump has never been a wise person. There’s no reason why he should start this late in life. I find it amazing that there are nearly 4,900 stocks listed on the NYSE and Nasdaq, and yet thousands, if not millions, of retail investors own shares in this special-purpose acquisition company. Mind-boggling

By comparison, investing in AMC Entertainment (NYSE:AMC) seems like a brilliant idea. At least people like to go to the movies. But, unfortunately, Trump’s latest endeavor provides little value to people. That being said, I believe it’s only a matter of time before Trump’s Truth Social stock goes to zero.

"Didn't you just say--"

Yes, and I'm standing by that. But this guy at least claims to be an expert. I will post the slimmest version I can.

Twitter is a Disaster

Whatever happens to Twitter, it’s hard to imagine worse things not happening to Truth Social with so few users.

DWAC Loses Its CEO

If it wants to make a move to instill confidence, Devin Nunes, CEO of Truth Social parent TMTG, should be made to walk the plank. Donald Trump likely handpicked his appointment as CEO of Truth Social. Until Nunes is gone, Truth Social has no hope.

Little Institutional Investment

But, generally, a significant institutional buy-in does the trick for most growth businesses.

DWAC has approximately 6% institutional ownership.

Why Support a Company Whose Main Asset Is Indicted?

There’s a saying, “Where there’s smoke, there’s fire.” This is only the beginning for Trump, legally speaking. Intelligent investors usually walk away from businesses facing significant uncertainty. Truth Social is at DEFCON 1.

"Whoa whoa whoa, Trump hasn't been arrested for anything."

*clears throat*

"Convicted! I meant to say convicted of anything. Fuck."

Indeed. But stocks don't move on the past. They move on the future. By the time the headline hits the front page, it's too late to sell off.

Truth Social Has Little Revenue and Cutting Staff

"Isn't that happening at Twitter, too?"

Then see that point and just read it a second time.

As Bloomberg reported, Truth Social’s website and desktop visits have fallen by half in less than eight months, from 11.5 million in August 2022, to 5.7 million in Feb. It would never be easy for Truth Social to generate revenue from legitimate businesses.

It May Never Go Public

We've reached the part where this author's knowledge of stocks greatly surpasses mine. So I'll quote more here.

In Nov. 2022, at least 65% of DWAC shareholders approved the delay of its merger deadline to Sept., giving it an additional nine months to complete the combination with TMTG. If Sept. comes and there’s no merger, there’s a real possibility that investors won’t vote for another extension. It’s especially true if Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg lays any more charges.

In Sept. 2022, Patrick Orlando invested $3 million into DWAC to ensure it wasn’t liquidated. He might not be CEO now, but he’s got a vested interest in seeing this through to completion.

The New York Times recently reported that the SEC and federal investigators are investigating two aspects of the merger agreement. First, preliminary discussions between the two groups violated securities laws. Secondly, some of DWAC’s early investors, brought in by Orlando, made improper trades of its stock. Trump Media executives feel the SEC is purposely delaying their investigations to scuttle the merger. They think the agency has a bias against Trump. Yes, a bias to limiting the number of bad actors participating on Wall Street.

Trump’s 76

"Wait, is that a refer--"

No, it's not a Fallout 76 reference. I wish, the parallels write themsel--

[SERVER: Disconnected]

[Legacies Removed]

[We cannot find your friends list]

[Chinese Daily OPs]

The section headline should have been "Trump Is 76". As in, he's an old man who doesn't know how social media, you know, works.

More importantly...he might, well, die.

Trump has health issues like all people in their mid-to-late 70s. Should he pass away or be incapacitated, who will be the face of Truth Social? Donald Trump Jr.? I highly doubt it.

"Barron? I hear he knows 'the cyber'."

Yeah, see my previous post about Melania. Melania is not letting Barron get handed this steaming pile of feces as a bribe to staying with Trump. Melania is a lot of things, but it's hard to be a successful gold-digging whore if you're that stupid. I'd wager actual money that she asked for cash and real estate.

So there you go, an alternative viewpoint on the subject. I still don't think the stock price can literally hit zero in the current condition and context. But I do agree the whole thing is a bad idea wrapped in worse ideas, and the fact that it outlived a goldfish is shocking.

[Edge-]

Oh shit, I forgot Devin Nunes was still CEO of Truth Social. Probably for the best, last I recall the last of his lawsuits against media for reporting on his family farm's use of undocumented workers were tossed out.

[Moralgy]

Did trump do something this week to rile up his fans? The past few days my town has been extra af about Trump. People yelling about him out their windows at 9pm a significant amount lol.

[Edge-]

Did trump do something this week to rile up his fans? The past few days my town has been extra af about Trump. People yelling about him out their windows at 9pm a significant amount lol.

Uh...check Q boards?

- - - Updated - - -

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/05/08/p...ers/index.html

Lawyers representing David Shafer, the embattled chairman of the Georgia Republican Party, are arguing their client should not be charged with any crimes for his actions following the 2020 election because he was following advice provided by attorneys working for former President Donald Trump, according to a letter sent to Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis last week.

Specifically, Shafer’s attorneys say their client was relying on “repeated and detailed advice of legal counsel” when he organized a group of “contingent” electors from Georgia and served as one himself, thus “eliminating any possibility of criminal intent or liability,” according to a copy of the May 5 letter.

The letter, which was first reported by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, comes as Willis and her team of prosecutors investigating efforts to overturn the 2020 election results in Georgia are planning to make an announcement on possible charges against Trump or his allies later this summer.

Shafer, who sources previously told CNN could be among those indicted when Willis makes her charging announcements, has come under scrutiny for his role in the effort to put forward alternate slates of electors to block the certification of the 2020 presidential vote.

In their letter to Willis’s office, Shafer’s lawyers say he was “given very direct, detailed legal advice on the procedure he should follow, and he followed those instructions to the letter.”

“I believe that any fair-minded person, with possession of all the facts, would conclude that Mr. Shafer and the other presidential elector nominees acted lawfully and appropriately,” the letter adds.

The district attorney’s office declined to comment.

Oh boy the, "I was just following orders." is always the best defense. You know this because it's the defense a bunch of Nazi concentration camp guards used, which means it's really good!

[Breccia]

"I was just following orders."

No they weren't.

Someone else's lawyer is not giving you advice. They are acting you to help their client.

Look, this is fucking stupid. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. This isn't entrapment, this is someone telling them to break the law and them doing it. I think they just admitted conspiracy. Just, you know, not under oath.

Also, aren't the lawyers they said they listened to targets of the same investigation? What sense does this make? "What we did was not a crime, because the people we conspired with to commit the crime told us to do it".

So, here's what needs to happen. And @cubby please check my math because I'm so furious right now.
1) They need to say this under oath. Not "a letter sent to court". The actual defendants need to say this, before it is entertained in any way. We've already had enough "Trump's lawyers lied for him" going on that the judges should demand this.
2) If they confirm this letter, then guess what, the lawyers get dragged in immediately. Because these lawyers were working for Trump, therefore, they weren't working for Shafer, therefore, nothing they said to each other is privileged.
2a) Also fraud-crime so who cares.
3) Then, when the two sides inevitably turn on each other, lock them in jail cells and read from law textbooks about how criminal liability does not go away just because someone asked you nicely to commit the crime.

You do not get to commit treason, to attempt to overthrow a country and install a dictator, because the dictator asked you nicely. You get 15 to 25 years for that shit, and you count your lucky stars it's not a real dictatorship, where the second-to-last thing you'd hear is "hey, think his head will bigly explode when the rope goes taut?"

There is a reason you get your own lawyer. This isn't the best example, most people aren't traitors, but it should be framed and mounted on every law school wall from here to the Bahamas.

And, yes, like you suggested: even if "we were only following orders" is 100% contradicted by their own fucking stupid-ass narrative, it's admission that you know what you did was wrong, and you'd really like to not be held accountable for your actions. Let them testify against Powell, Giuliani, et al. Let them testify against Trump. Maybe then give them a...

(sigh)

It took me this long to figure out that's where those immunity deals went. Fuck, I'm angry. I am so fucking angry.

Every single one of these people needs to be lined up and mug shot.

- - - Updated - - -

Judge restricts what Trump can say about the 34 felonies he's indicted for.

good cause exists for il order to restrict, defer, and make such other order as is appropriate with respect to disclosure and inspection of discoverable materials and informadon, pursuant to Section 245.70 of the Criminal Procedure Law, it is hereby:

This is followed by four pages of things Trump is not allowed to do. Here's an example:

ORDERED that any person who receives the Covered Materials shall not copy, disseminate, or disclose the Covered Materials, in any form or by any means, to any thitd party (except to those employed by counsel to assist in the defense of the above-captioned criminal proceeding) including, but not lirnited to, by disseminating ot posting the Covered Materials to any news or social media platforms, including, but not limited, to Truth Social, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Snapchat, or YouTube, without priot approval from the Court;

If Trump were to, say, call out the names of any of the DA's office on the case, he breaks the court order. This could result in an immediate all-encompassing gag order. Or, it could simply lead to Trump being in contempt, and thrown in jail.

"Whoa whoa whoa, they can't throw Trump in jail."

One, he's beein indicted. Yes, they can.

Two, if it's so blatantly obvious that Trump won't be thrown in jail, let's see how long before he breaks the court order. If it really is the case that Trump cannot be tossed in jail for attacking the DA's office online, then he'll do it immediately.

I think Trump knows, Trump could go to jail. I think he'll act accordingly.

[Shadowferal]

If Trump behaves it's because he realizes that it isn't just about jail, so much as it's about his cellphone and any such communication would be completely cut off.

[CastletonSnob]

A recent poll says that 54% of Americans believe Trump did a better job handling the economy than Biden.

What planet do these people live on? Trump is the first President since Herbert Hoover to leave office with fewer jobs than he did when he took office.

[Captain N]

A recent poll says that 54% of Americans believe Trump did a better job handling the economy than Biden.

What planet do these people live on? Trump is the first President since Herbert Hoover to leave office with fewer jobs than he did when he took office.

People don't believe that the effects of the Trump Tax Cuts are one of the key causes of inflation. All they know is that Biden got into office and everything went up in price. As for the jobs thing -- that's an ongoing sign of ignorance that we've discussed endless times here. Both @Breccia and @Endus have even gone so far as to show the math and how even before COVID-19, that Trump was terrible at job creation.

[CastletonSnob]

People don't believe that the effects of the Trump Tax Cuts are one of the key causes of inflation. All they know is that Biden got into office and everything went up in price. As for the jobs thing -- that's an ongoing sign of ignorance that we've discussed endless times here. Both @Breccia and @Endus have even gone so far as to show the math and how even before COVID-19, that Trump was terrible at job creation.

Even if COVID didn't happen, the US would probably have gone into a recession because of Trump's tariffs.

[Nymrohd]

A recent poll says that 54% of Americans believe Trump did a better job handling the economy than Biden.

What planet do these people live on? Trump is the first President since Herbert Hoover to leave office with fewer jobs than he did when he took office.

They would say the same for ANY Republican president over any Democrat president cause facts don't matter and they media has drilled it in their heads that Republican are better at handling the economy. THis isn't about Trump, it's about the perception of the two parties and how little reality actually affects perception.

[Breccia]

People don't believe that the effects of the Trump Tax Cuts are one of the key causes of inflation. All they know is that Biden got into office and everything went up in price.

See also: 2008. W handed Obama a recession, then immediately Republicans blamed Obama for not magically fixing it.

They somehow forgot to give him credit 2 years later when things were stablized.

[Myradin]

See also: 2008. W handed Obama a recession, then immediately Republicans blamed Obama for not magically fixing it.

They somehow forgot to give him credit 2 years later when things were stablized.

The way they avoided it was complaining that it was slow. While trying to do everything they could to kneecap him.