Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Breccia]

You're fired.

1) Wanna see the video of Giuliani personally destroying the defense of Team Trump in the Cohen case?

They funnelled it through a law firm, then Trump repaid it. When I heard Cohen’s retainer while he was doing no work, I said, ‘that’s how (Trump’s) repaying it

-- 2018 Giuliani

Now, he didn't say it under oath, but he did say it on FOX News, which means Trump supporters are assumed to accept what Giuliani said as fact and must now acknowledge that Trump used political money to pay off the whore he fucked. I mean, I guess they could admit either FOX News and/or Giuiliani is a liar, but you know the rules, if they don't in 24 hours we may safely assume they have accepted Giuliani's take and therefore that Trump broke the law.

2) Remember this?

Long story short, Tapioca met with Daniels and the two of them talked business. While Daniels did not hire Tapioca, Tapioca is not allowed to divulge information about Daniels' case. It's illegal.

UPDATE: Burning the CNN point from the previous part of this very post to cite a CNN exclusive. Stormy Daniels has turned over communications with Tapicoa, yes they are from 2018, to the relevant authorities.

Tapioca cannot divulge or use anything between himself and a client, or potential client. That's still confidential. As he's currently representing Trump in this case, proof that he discussed the matter with Daniels is likely disqualifying.

3) DWAC fires CEO and president Orlando.

He's still on the board, he still owns stock. But he no longer leads the merger-esque company.

Digital World Acquisition Corp.
, the publicly traded blank check company that planned to merge with former president Donald Trump’s social media company, fired its CEO earlier this week, according to a Wednesday filing.

The former CEO, Patrick Orlando, will remain as a director for the company. He and his other company ARC Global Investments each own 10% of DWAC. The DWAC board appointed Eric Swider, another director, to serve as interim chief executive while the board works on executing a final succession plan. Orlando and a DWAC representative didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment.

In a Wednesday announcement, DWAC cited “unprecedented headwinds” that necessitated a leadership change in order for the company to enter a “new phase.”

The company had aimed to merge with Trump Media and Technology Group, the parent of Truth Social, but has delayed finalizing that deal. In November, the company secured a deadline extension for the Trump Media merger until September 2023. If it had not gotten that extension, it faced liquidation. The delays have cost the company $100 million.

“I know it has been a challenging process for the shareholders,” Swider said in Wednesday’s announcement.

I imagine it's very challenging for the stockholders who weren't the original stockholders, i.e. the board. The board is getting their money back. Literally every other shareholder who bought later has lost money since.

Actually no, the price went up 1%-ish today. I guess DWAC is in such peril that firing the CEO is good news.

4) A lot of sources are citing the story that Melania Trump is, as one would expect, still not happy with Trump paying $130,000 to a whore when (a) she's his wfe (b) she's the mother of one of his children (c) she's the woman he cheated on his second wife with, and she wanted to be the last and not the middle of the Human Adultery Centipede¹ and (d) she's a fucking supermodel.

"Melania is leading her own life, and still feels happy being at Mar-a-Lago, surrounded by people who love her and who never talk about reality, or bad things about her husband," a social source tells PEOPLE.

But that doesn't mean she's supportive of her husband's role in the alleged hush money payment, which stems from a rumored extramarital affair with Daniels. The former porn star has claimed the affair took place less than four months after Melania gave birth to the couple's son, Barron, in 2006.

"She remains angry and doesn't want to hear [the alleged hush money payment] mentioned," the source tells PEOPLE. "She is aware of who her husband is and keeps her life upbeat with her own family and a few close friends."

bla bla bla court case stuff we know

Melania, meanwhile, "wants to ignore it and hopes it will pass, but she doesn't sympathize with Donald's plight," the source tells PEOPLE.

While the source tells PEOPLE that Melania and Donald live in separate quarters of their Mar-a-Lago estate, the two are still often spotted eating dinner together or attending events at the private club.

"She does very well with all of her socializing duties," the source continues. "They still see friends for dinner at the club, but live separately and do what they want on their own. They don't spend that much time together."

But oh, there's more. Maybe PEOPLE isn't your favorite source, despite that this is celeb gossip and their forte. The Washington Examiner and WaPo might be more your style.

You may remember that the first lady remained in New York City while her husband moved into the White House at the beginning of his presidency. While it was reported at the time that Melania stayed behind to finish out the school year of her son Barron, a 2020 biography by Mary Jordan revealed that she was actually renegotiating her prenup. While the Daniels saga only became public knowledge in 2018, during the 2016 general election, numerous women alleged that Trump had sexually harassed them after his 2005 wedding to Melania. While Trump made headlines for his infidelity during his first marriage, the 2016 deluge of allegations marked the first time Melania was publicly humiliated in this way. At the start of a presidency the entire pundit class dreamed would be disastrous, Melania thus had enormous leverage.

"According to three people close to Trump, Jordan writes, Melania had finally renegotiated the prenup to her liking," the Washington Post relayed from Jordan's biography. "She had already been looking out for Barron’s future by making sure he had dual citizenship in Slovenia, which will position him to work in Europe for the Trump Organization when he comes of age. Now, she had made sure he was not shut out of the family business."

A re-negotiated prenup would be very interesting indeed. And yes, Melania would have had massive leverage. The Republican Party, especially around 2016, had accepted they were putting an incompetent, inexperienced, unqualified failure at the head of their party. A divorce would have sunk things at the time and is even more dangerous now, since in 2016 they gave up on all other alternatives like fucking spineless Pences, but in 2024 they clearly have options.

Speaking of: Inside Edition says Melania has little interest in standing by a man of conviction. Hardee har har.

"She's not lending him a whole lot of moral support and I'm sure she's still thinking: 'You got yourself into this mess. I'm certainly not going to walk beside you and support you as you try to get out of it."'

Those are the words of Stephanie Grisham, who is speaking out about her former bosses Melania and Donald Trump as the former president face possible indictment this week by a Manhattan grand jury.

Grisham says that this time around, Melania is unlikely to be standing by her man — or attending court hearings.

"I would be very, very surprised. I would be very surprised to see her in court," Grisham tells Inside Edition. "Because it has to do with Stormy Daniels. It's just not in her to stand by her man for something like that."

Grisham says that like many wives, Melania was disgusted when she learned her husband allegedly had an affair with the legendary porn star.

"She always said to me, 'this is his problem,'" Grisham tells Ann Mercogliano.

I've said for a while that Melania would divorce Trump while her half was worth something. Didn't know about the prenup, of course, so I'll admit I had inaccurate intel. But her leverage now is arguably even stronger. It's one thing for someone, who was already a mistress, to accept the "grab 'em by the pussy" tape. It's another for Trump to fuck another woman so hard, it's a federal election issue.

While Melania's new prenup, like her old one, probably spells out "even if Trump cheats on Melania, Melania loses everything if she leaves" but Trump is in a situation to lose more than everything. Trump is a narcisitic sociopath, he's terrified of being viewed as a failure, but it's less insane of him that he's insane of going to jail.

The grand jury on the whore payment continues Monday. I do not believe the aforementioned Tapioca issue was the reason, although I admit it's possible if he illegally introduced evidence...in a grand jury, that doesn't make sense, nevermind. But bear in mind, this is a grand jury not a regular jury, it doesn't require a unanimous verdict to indict, only a majority.

---

¹ Not apologizing for that image. His wives and whores are the ones lining up to be fucked in order. I'm just the one pointing it out.

[Edge-]

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2023...-investigation

Once again, Republicans go to the tried-and-true "flood the zone with shit" strategy of just projectile vomiting out so many lies and so much bullshit that nobody can keep up, much less rebut each one.

The Ohio Republican, a longtime top ally to the former president, has already cast potential charges against Trump as an “unprecedented abuse of prosecutorial authority”—even though Alvin Bragg still has yet to file any. And now, Jordan is escalating his nascent probe into Trump’s investigators, demanding the testimony of two former prosecutors who worked with the Manhattan district attorney: Mark Pomerantz and Carey Dunne, both of whom resigned last year after Bragg apparently declined to seek the indictment against Trump that they had recommended. “The inference from the totality of these facts is that Bragg’s impending indictment is motivated by political calculations,” Jordan wrote in letters to Pomerantz and Dunne Wednesday, saying the prosecutors’ “efforts to shame Bragg have worked.”

Note: None of this is true, implied, or even likely. It's all truly irrelevant.

In his missives, which made note of Pomerantz’s recent book about the investigation, Jordan claimed that he was acting in the interest of “oversight” and “potential legislative reforms.”

If Jordan ever mentions any of these "legislative reforms" let me know, until then the shit he's flooding the zone with goes flushed down the toiled unlooked at, because looking at your own shit is kinda weird (unless like, you need to for medical reasons).

It’s a pretty weak conspiracy theory, particularly given how thin Bragg’s ties to Soros are. But the point of all this isn’t to make sense—it’s to “flood the zone with shit,” as Steve Bannon would say. Jordan and his ilk aren’t trying to defend Trump’s innocence. They’re trying to erode trust in the legal system itself with a lot of vague claims of bias: “There’s been reports in the news that Democrats have been working with Bragg, pushing Bragg, helping Bragg in this direction,” Jordan said on Real America’s Voice, the far-right network where Bannon himself has a platform. “So that’s something we think is important to understand.” Of course, this isn’t the first time the GOP has tried to muddy the waters on Trump’s behalf. But in seeking to use their congressional power against a state prosecution, they seem to be taking their efforts to protect Trump to a new level.

Again, there are no "reports", because these things aren't happening. This isn't worth a point-by-point rebuttal, with citations and documentation.

[masterhorus8]

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2023...-investigation

Once again, Republicans go to the tried-and-true "flood the zone with shit" strategy of just projectile vomiting out so many lies and so much bullshit that nobody can keep up, much less rebut each one.



Note: None of this is true, implied, or even likely. It's all truly irrelevant.



If Jordan ever mentions any of these "legislative reforms" let me know, until then the shit he's flooding the zone with goes flushed down the toiled unlooked at, because looking at your own shit is kinda weird (unless like, you need to for medical reasons).



Again, there are no "reports", because these things aren't happening. This isn't worth a point-by-point rebuttal, with citations and documentation.

When can we go after these chuckle fucks with obstruction of justice?

[Breccia]

The civil war in the Republican Party just had its Antietam. Or possibly "the Battle of Bullshit Run".

Trump just told the Republican Party to stop using his name and likeness without paying for it.

That's right: the head of the Republican Party has just told the Republican Party they may not use the likeness of the head of the Republican Party.

I think this story is not getting the attention it deserves, because this is massive. There are four possible results.

1) The Republican Party has to start using what I assume would be political donation money, to hand to Trump, as non-political-donation money, just a regular old licensing fee. I believe this is called "money laundering" and it sounds a lot like Trump paying himself for his hotels at an upcharge.

2) The Republican Party stops using the likeness of Trump, and one would assume, gives up on Trump being the head or even a part of it, out of understandable outrage. How could they promote someone if they can't use their face and name?
2a) The letter does not say, or even suggest, that this is just a few smaller groups, as it was aimed at the National RNC and their biggest colleagues. If Trump is overreacting, if it is just a few smaller groups, then this result becomes "the RNC tells the small-fry groups to knock it off" and they just get less donation money, because Trump is right about his name getting money. Again, his PAC took a lot of 2020/2022 money that was never used for other people...or even Trump, in 2022's case.

3) The Republican Party changes nothing, and Trump caves like a little bitch, because he thinks he needs the Republican Party's support. This would be a pretty big admission on Trump's part, and an opening DeSantis would seize.

4) The Republican Party changes nothing, Trump sues, and the bloodshed begins in earnest. I don't think the Republican Party will allow someone to be its leader while that someone is suing them for the millions they don't have (because donations are going to Trump, who kept them all). And I don't think Trump will want to be the head of the Republican Party, if they ignore his orders and don't give him money.

This is the letter Trump sent to the RNC and a bunch of its allies.

It has been brought to our attention that your company has been sending digital fundraising messages using President Trump's name, image and likeness, under the guise of “supporting,” “standing with” and “defending” him. Many of the messages make it appear as if the funds raised in response to these solicitations will go to Trump's campaign.

The purpose of this outreach is to advise you that Trump does not consent to the use of his name, image and likeness in unauthorized fundraising appeals for candidates he has not endorsed and committees he may or may not support. Going forward in determining which candidates he will support, Trump and his team will consider whether the candidate is paving a digital fundraising vendor that routinely fundraises off of his name, image and likeness without his authorization. It is highly unlikely that Trump will endorse, sign letters for, appear at events with or post on social media about candidates who use such vendors, or invite such vendors' clients to join him on stage or otherwise recognize them at his rallies and other events.

Trump has built the most powerful, successful brand in the history of American politics — at great personal expense and toll to him and his family. When you deceive Trump's donors and usurp his brand for your own profit, you drain him of the financial resources his campaign needs to defeat Joe Biden and Make America Great Again.

It is not enough to claim that your clients support Trump. They must endorse his candidacy. If you wish to seek the President's authorization to solicit contributions for your company's clients using his name, image, and likeness, stuff that was blacked out

Now Trump has some real hypocrisy saying the RNC is stealing money from his donor pool.

Him patting himself on the back for his "most powerful, successful brand" is a little premature when the Republican Party still calls themselves "the Party of Lincoln".

But yep, that's a threat. Trump is finally doing what all those musicians did to him when he used their music without their permission or paying them.

Looking forward to seeing where this goes. Hey, who here thinks the RNC is still stoked about Trump being the head of the Republican Party? Who thinks they're delighted and happy? Let me know what you think is going on, and what you think will happen.

[Edge-]

When can we go after these chuckle fucks with obstruction of justice?

"I wasn't attempting to sew mistrust and spread doubt about a lawful investigation with the intent to impede it, I was expressing my First Amendment right to just literally make up whatever the fuck I want and say it with the full authority of my officer as a Representative and my position as the Chair of this literal fishing expedition."

[Breccia]

Trump, on his Chinese/Russian knockoff Twitter clone, brags about his polling and election numbers (yeah, still claiming he got more votes in an election he lost) also says

also known that potential death & destruction in such a false charge could be catastrophic for our Country?

and

along with Radical Lunatic Bombthrower Jack Smith, who is harassing and intimidating innocent people at levels not seen before

Trump lashing out at other people who are not Trump is nothing new. Suggesting Smith is causing record-breaking levels of intimidation, with no source or evidence of course, is as a Trump thing to say as it is false.

But it's the "potential death & destruction" that I want to discuss. Leaving aside Trump's claims that he committed no crime, where is the "potential death & destruction" coming from? I think it's from Trump's followers. I think Trump is not just saying that his followers will literally kill people if he's arrested, but I think he's encouraging them to do it.

Has anyone, anyone, seen Trump tell his followers not to cause violence? I've seen others do that, just scroll back a few pages, but has Trump in the last, I dunno, month? Told his followers "don't hurt anyone, don't kill anyone, don't break anything on my account"?

Has literally anyone seen such?

Yes, I know when he claimed (falsely) he would be arrested by now, he told his followers to protest. But I have not seen anything from him where he specifically said "don't cause violence" which is a big deal, considering
(a) this is not the first time he's suggested his followers will cause violence and kill people, and
(b) they have already proven their willingness to do so

Now, what happens from here could be...involved, so before I continue, I think I need a rules question addressed.
@Rozz @Flarelaine

What are the rules about calls for violence on these forums? Actual real-world violence, not in-game of course.

The rules call out the following as forbidden:

Graphic violence or gore images/videos
Content that is dangerous or considered illegal

and

Do not post inappropriate or offensive content.
Do not post illegal content or links to illegal content.

Many acts of violence would be illegal and dangerous, and therefore prohibited. That's great, it should be, but it's not clear enough in this context. So I need a specific, direct response on the topic. We talk about wars in real life all the time. And Trump has not spelled out that what his followers do would be illegal or inappropriate -- in fact, I think he's suggesting the opposite.

"Trump isn't posting here" is not specific enough. I think we all need this question answered, as it's increasingly relevant and increasingly likely.

Would Trump, by saying "potential death & destruction" would stem from his arrest, from his own followers, be considered a post that would get him infracted or banned?

I know asking a rules question is, itself, against the rules. I'll take the hit for that. But after posts like this one, and of course Jan 6th, I think everyone here needs to know what line is being drawn.

And you might know where I'm going with this, but I haven't gone there yet, so that's not an excuse either.

Please, answer this very specific, very direct question, in public, so we can all benefit from the rules clarification.

[Edge-]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pac...-investigation

Yes, the source is intentional.

Emergency personnel have responded after a package with suspicious powder was delivered to the New York City building housing the Manhattan District Attorney's office, according to police.

The New York Police Department said the package was delivered by USPS on Friday. No injuries were reported, and as of yet no one has been ordered to evacuate.

Police responded to the scene shortly after 12 p.m.

District Attorney Alvin Bragg is currently weighing whether to proceed with an indictment against former President Donald Trump for alleged hush money payments made to porn star Stormy Daniels in 2016.

Oh boy.

[masterhorus8]

District Attorney Alvin Bragg is currently weighing whether to proceed with an indictment against former President Donald Trump for alleged hush money payments made to porn star Stormy Daniels in 2016.

He better fucking do it.

[Draco-Onis]

He better fucking do it.

He may as well hand in his resignation if he doesn't since the optics and precedent would be really awful.

[cubby]

That's a harsh accusation. It's along the lines of saying a cop planted a gun on an innocent man. If there was even a shred of evidence of this, Team Trump would have brought it to court already, because that shit's not allowed.
@cubby will explain, but prosecutors can't do that, and some random nameless asshole on TikTok didn't magically find out about something Trump's defense didn't know. The end.

In general prosecutors have to share all their evidence with the defense. Not doing so and being found out typically results in a reversed conviction (or more).

For this case, in which for the first time we are about to bring a formed President on criminal charges, you can bet the lead team is literally following every single rule in the book - to the letter. And if I were running the team, I would a second group of prosecutors playing the Red Team (the Defense), and having them "receive" and "respond" to all incoming documents and evidence and etc.

So it's highly unlikely that there is a pile of evidence out there exonerating Trump - much less sitting in the prosecutor's office being withheld. And as @postman1782 pointed out, most of this is coming from fake news sites. I'm sure Fox will run it shortly.

No one, anywhere, wants to get this wrong.

[postman1782]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pac...-investigation

Yes, the source is intentional.



Oh boy.

The comments on that article aren't unsurprising. People are claiming he did it to himself like Jussie Smollett.

[Edge-]

The comments on that article aren't unsurprising. People are claiming he did it to himself like Jussie Smollett.

I've almost had a mind to make an account there to see how quickly I'd get banned for simply posting factually accurate links. Only took like 5 posts on the bastion of Freeze Peach that is /r/conservative

[postman1782]

I've almost had a mind to make an account there to see how quickly I'd get banned for simply posting factually accurate links. Only took like 5 posts on the bastion of Freeze Peach that is /r/conservative

I did better than that, I only posted one post there and got banned. I posted Trump lost in 2020 and they banned me right away.

- - - Updated - - -

In general prosecutors have to share all their evidence with the defense. Not doing so and being found out typically results in a reversed conviction (or more).

For this case, in which for the first time we are about to bring a formed President on criminal charges, you can bet the lead team is literally following every single rule in the book - to the letter. And if I were running the team, I would a second group of prosecutors playing the Red Team (the Defense), and having them "receive" and "respond" to all incoming documents and evidence and etc.

So it's highly unlikely that there is a pile of evidence out there exonerating Trump - much less sitting in the prosecutor's office being withheld. And as @postman1782 pointed out, most of this is coming from fake news sites. I'm sure Fox will run it shortly.

No one, anywhere, wants to get this wrong.

They were one of the other sites posting it on Fox Business.

[D Luniz]

https://twitter.com/keithedwards/sta...91071655616512

Trump, in another very calm ALL CAPS "TRUTH" complains that Alvin Bragg is a "SOROS BACKED ANIMAL" hitting on both antisemitism and racism at once.

I wonder when he's going to "truth" out some allcaps DO SOMETHING!!!! again.

no different than his lawyer conveniently mangling the phrase "Throwing a monkey-wrench in the works" to "I think I threw a wrench in their monkey works."
bigots gonna be bigots

[Breccia]

So what else has very stable genius Trump been up to?

1) This:



"Oh, he took time to pray, as such a devout Christian leader as Trump does often no doubt."

Count the fingers.

"...what the hell?"

That's an AI generated image. Trump had AI make a picture of him praying.

"Why didn't he just go pray and have someone take a picture?"

Hmm. What happened the last time Trump had a photo op at a church?

"Well, he gassed a bunch of...oh. Right."

Trump is not a Christian. Someone who worships themselves first and money second, someone who steals, commits adultery, who preaches hate, and who incites violence, is not following the teachings of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

"But Trump says he's a Christian."

And I say I'm fucking Sen. Graham's wife. Wake me when either one is true. Until then, this image is Trump's equivalent of masturbating in public, and the image is sickening.

2) Speaking of things which aren't appealling, Trump hasn't appealled the Corcoran decision, despite his clear and routine view that SCOTUS owes him. He's wrong, they don't, but he seems to think they do.

There is an interesting theory on the topic, and I'll yet again harass @cubby after hours to weigh in.

The issue, as we know, is evidence existing that Corcoran and Trump tried to use privilege to hide evidence of a crime. The evidence, so far, has been strong enough to break privilege then survive one challenge.

If Trump appeals this ruling to SCOTUS, SCOTUS has no choice but to review the evidence. Then, SCOTUS will know for a fact Trump is a criminal. While they haven't been 100% siding with him so far anyhow, this will be too far for even a rapist to side with. Team Trump could be hoping they bring the trial of the crime itself to SCOTUS, without having to bring this evidence to the table, leaving SCOTUS some room to free him despite, you know, all that stuff he did.

"Is that realistic?"

Since it's looking more and more like (a) there is objective evidence Trump is a felon and (b) Smith etc. will probably know this too and try to present the evidence anyhow, not very realistic, no. But if you're trapped in an elevator when the cable snaps and you're plunging to the basement, why not jump at the last second? Like, what choice do you have?

3) Heavily related: Corcoran testified for 3 hours and did not comment to the press afterwards.

Obviously it's sealed. But I think the length of the testimony, plus the fact that he didn't march up to the cameras and spew Trumpaganda, is telling.\

But it isn't just Corcoran.

A federal judge has rejected Trump's claims of executive privilege and has ordered Mark Meadows and other former top aides to testify before a federal grand jury investigating Trump's efforts to overturn the election leading up to the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, multiple sources familiar with the matter tell ABC News.

Meadows, Trump's former chief of staff, was subpoenaed along with the other former aides by Special counsel Jack Smith for testimony and documents related to the probe.

Yeah, as a reminder, re-election campaigns are not WH business. (More on that in another thread shortly) Committing crimes is also not WH business. Unlike Corcoran, I expect Meadows to do nothing but take the 5th. He thinks he can get out of this. Corcoran knows he's well and truly Trumped.

Trump is also in court for...everything, let's be honest, he's in court for everything. But he's also arguing his "absolute immunity" bit again. Specifically, the DOJ has claimed that Trump's incitement for civilians to commit political violence...you know, terrorism...isn't standard WH actions and, therefore, Trump wasn't shielded when he told his violent cultists to commit terrorism. Team Trump is arguing "fight like hell" was metaphorical, and also, that Trump did eventually tell them to stand down.

Without condemning the attack.

Yeah...that's going to be a tough sell.

4) Remember this?

"federal officials have been unable to find a life-size painting of Trump given by the president of El Salvador"

UPDATE: We found the painting.

In the bowels of the Trump National Doral hotel in Miami, in a small space leading to electrical rooms, an enormous portrait of Trump rests on a piece of deteriorating purple-colored foam.

Stored next to a stack of old yoga mats, Trump’s portrait sits underneath a halogen light and the metal sheen of air ducts, propped between two doors with placards that read “ELECTRICAL ROOM No Storage.”

The tiny room is overwhelmed by the grandiose portrait, standing about eight feet tall and featuring a grinning Donald J. Trump.

While the hunt is still on for many of the missing items, The New York Times found the artwork only a few days after profiling the Salvadoran artist who painted it. After that article was published, a reader emailed a tip that he had seen the portrait at the hotel back in October.

The reader, who requested anonymity so he would not be barred from future visits to the hotel, said that he and his son had attended a golf tournament last fall at the Doral and decided to have a peek around the grandiose property. They began opening up random doors to discover ornate ballrooms, marble clad hallways and wooden furniture with golden filigree.

The Times sent a reporter to the Doral on Thursday to see if the portrait was still stored in this obscure spot. Yes, there it was, next to yoga mats piled up to one side and collecting dust. The purple foam patch the portrait is resting on, ostensibly to protect the gold frame, is starting to show some wear and tear, crumbling a bit onto the floor.

"Wait, if the portrait isn't at Mar-a-Lago, doesn't that mean stolen classified intel could als--"

Yes.

5) Three activists got #desantis2024 trending on CyberTrump 2077, all with the goal of forcing Trump to see that hashtag on his own platform.

At its peak, #Desantis2024 had more than 3,500 mentions on Truth Social. But as #Trump2024 began trending as a response, it soon overtook the former’s top spot under “Trending Topics” despite #Desantis2024’s having nearly double the traction. By Thursday, both hashtags had been bumped off the top-four trending list even as they continued to outperform every other hashtag.

6) And finally, in future news, Trump's rally later today is already looking to be a failure. Nobody is going to be there, with a few reasons given.
a) Some Republicans expressed that Trump's rally, during which he was likely to incite violence on the anniversary of the event Waco is best known for, suddenly remembered they had other plans. (Some people, including The Houston Chronicle, believe Trump is using the location and anniversary on purpose)
b) Other Republicans are just not willing to show Trump support while he's, you know, being investigated for everything.
c) And good ol' Mary Trump asked people to reserve a bunch of seats and then not show up.

[Breccia]

The Waco local newspaper reports on Trump's rally. And how the rally-goers are insane.

Tiffany Brooks, 38, from Riesel, said she likes that Trump is plainspoken.

“He says what is on his mind, and really doesn’t mind if what he says offends you,” Brooks said. “And he does what he says he will do.”

“When the mainstream media attack Trump, they attack us,” Waco businessman Daryl Smith said, referencing Trump backers as a group. “Look at this crowd. Biden couldn’t fill up a coffee shop. But they say he won the election. That’s ridiculous. The media slam Waco and defame Trump.”

“He deserves the four years he earned in the first place in 2020,” Diana Guajardo said. “More Hispanics support Trump than people realize.”

[Local] Restaurant [Uncle Worm's] employees delivered brisket sandwiches to Waco Police Department officers parked in the vicinity, while also offering $5 brisket sandwiches to motorists stuck in traffic on China Spring Road.

That last part is pretty cool.

Now, the newspaper went out of their way to avoid making crowd size guesses, other than "thousands". They did quote an anonymous local cop who suggested 15,000 baesd on his personal experience. Considering the rally started at 8AM and people came and left, he could be right.

But if you follow the link and look at the picture at the top, it's clear Trump did not get 15,000 people at his speech.

That audience seemse to be divided into wedges of bleachers, which I estimate to be 30 people across and 20 people deep, which therefore includes the ground-level seating. So, 600 per block. Based on the angles/wedges formed the way the picture is taken, I think there's six such wedges. That's 3,600 people.

Okay, but that's not Trump speaking yet. Scroll down to the second picture. There's a lot of people squeezed together...but the camera is zoomed in, as per usual. Even under the assumption that every single seat I counted before was now quadruple booked, even the ones off-camera (and not, oh I don't know, everyone being moved behind Trump to give the illusion of a packed crowd) and that's still not 15,000 yet. Also, anyone else notice how small the event is compared to some of his others? I know it's an airport and...hey why was it an airport? And not, like, a stadium? Anyhow, the venue feels small and cramped for such a hyped rally by the only Republican running. In Texas. Did Trump pick a small venue so that even a few people showing up would seem like a crowd? You know, the same overstuffing strategy he does with his shirts and suit jacket?

Also:

Trump arrived shortly before 6 p.m., his plane circling the airport as attendees intently looked to the heavens. He wrapped up at 7:32 in the evening, though quite a few fans did not last that long.

About 30 minutes into the rally, the crowd began to thin, with people getting a head start on the walk back to the parking lots, designated and otherwise. Several leaving early said they accomplished what they wanted to achieve by showing up for the rally, enduring traffic and long lines. Some said after hours on the tarmac, they were tired, hungry or both and wanted to get home.

I don't know about you, but I think the Waco local newspaper -- remember, this is the town Trump chose on purpose -- is not Trump's biggest fan. Oh, the article doesn't outright say "Trump has continued to repeat false claims about the 2020 election" or...actually wait.

Trump has continued to repeat false claims about the 2020 election, and none of his or his supporters’ formal actions to challenge the results were upheld.

They did say that. Oh, dear. Well at least they picked an appropriate selection of pictures.



Yep, that's a Trump campaign hearse. I am not making this up -- check the link for yourself. The Waco Tribune had all sorts of picture options, and this was one they went with. On purpose.



Trump's rallies already have a casualty, it seems.

Not only did Trump attract a small crowd to a small venue, they left while he was talking, and the locals don't seem to be impressed. I scrolled through and only recognized three other names, Greene, Lindell, and Nugent. Let me take this opportunity to remind everyone that Trump is the head of the Republican Party, he was in 2020 according to the RNC and is basically the only candidate running. Considering those three are the ones who showed, I think it's safe to say that their views are mainstream Republican views, and will be treated like such. Any Trump supporters on these forums that disagree are simply wrong because that's the party they asked for.

Guys...this is pathetic. This is the best Trump can do? And the rest of the Republican Party is okay with this being their leading contender? What a pathetic fat sad orange loser.

- - - Updated - - -

Did I mention that Trump opened up his speech, yes the one people walked out of, with a song pieced together from Jan 6th insurrectionists?

No? Well FOX News did.

Kilmeade on “Fox & Friends” criticized Trump for the rally’s spotlight on Jan. 6 and the former president’s focus on ongoing investigations into him, rather than on his record or on other issues important to his party.

“Instead, the president of the United States, the former president of the United States, opened up with Jan. 6 video, which is insane. He should be running from that period. I don’t care his point of view. That is not a good thing for him,” Kilmeade said.

“I thought that was absolutely awful. Even though he is winning in the polls, that will not.”

Trump opened up his rally with a rendition of “The Star-Spangled Banner” sung by inmates incarcerated for their role in the Jan. 6 Capitol riot.

"Okay, that's bad, but at least he didn't play footage of the riots themselves."

Um...

"No."

Some footage from the insurrection was shown on big screens displayed at the rally site as the choir sang the national anthem and a recording played of Trump reciting the Pledge of Allegiance.

Normally this is where I challenge Trump supporters to sound off, but they won't, they're cowards. So I will answer for them.

"As a Trump supporter, seeing Trump recite the Pledge of Allegiance while footage of the January 6th attack on the Capitol plays is something I am 100% okay with, by virtue of (a) acknowledging it happened, or intentionally refusing to see the evidence that it happened, such as by ignoring Breccia (b) being a Trump supporter and (c) refusing to condemn it or even speak on the matter. My silence is not just consent, but approval, until I break my silence to say anything else."
-- all Trump supporters

But while FOX and Friends at least was saying

I think for Trump to spend 80 percent of his time complaining about court cases instead of just looking at his own record, and what he would have done.

He does that, or other candidates do that, they’re going to be unbelievably successful because that’s going to be the conversation at the kitchen table

that's rejection of Trump's actions, but not Trump. Not everyone agrees.

Since the Trump supporters here are cowering in their bunkers, I had to look elsewhere for opinions. I will now quote the entire NYPost OP ED from their editorial board, not merely one writer. I will bold the parts I think stand out the most.

As some of his allies are trying to rewrite January 6 as an afternoon stroll, Donald Trump is having none of it.

In the face of a possible criminal case in New York, he screamed that “death and destruction” would follow any indictment.

He posed with a baseball bat aimed at the head of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg.

"Whoa whoa what the fuck?"

THIS is Donald Trump.

He hasn’t changed in the slightest.

There is no shame.

After riling up rioters, cheering for a coup, and agreeing that his vice president needed to be hanged, he’s back to making violent threats against fellow Americans.

But wait, you say.

This is a biased prosecution.

Trump has every right to be upset.

We don’t disagree.

This is not a felony case, and Bragg trying to turn it into one is pure politics.

But rather than seek his vindication in the courtroom, or even just make an impassioned speech, Trump wants to inspire a mob.

Time and time again, Trump’s responses have been unhinged, indicative, and self-defeating.

And don’t buy for a second when he says he’s “fighting for you.”

If you actually “rose up” and were arrested, Trump would abandon you, just as he has every ally who wasn’t useful to him anymore.

What did he do for those locked up for months over Jan. 6?

What cash did he hand over for the candidates he endorsed in the recent midterm elections he torpedoed for Republicans?

Ever given Trump money?

If you stop, and even if you don’t, the angry pleas come fast and furious.

Don’t you care!?

How could you abandon him?

We understand voters who rallied to his cause because he vows to fight for them.

There is much wrong with the country.

And yes, it will take someone strong to wade through the thicket of Establishment opposition to change.

But Trump is not trying to make America a better place.

He’s not offering anyone apart from himself a better future.

He’s out for revenge.

This is how Trump has been spending his time since announcing his run for president.

Stewing in Mar-a-Lago.

No grievance is too small.

When he found out that Rihanna once criticized him, he took to Truth Social — multiple times! — to bellow how bad her Super Bowl halftime show was.

He once posted a screed, at 5 o’clock in the morning, about MSNBC’s programming decisions.

When Trump ran in 2016, he was an unknown entity.

Independents took a chance, wanting to break from the stagnant political machines that sought to anoint Hillary Clinton.

But he’s not a mystery anymore.

Americans know that Trump can’t stop himself from nursing piddling grudges and throwing out childish insults.

The emperor has no clothes.

Perhaps you don’t mind.

But there are plenty of middle-of-the-road voters who do.

They saw this behavior in 2020 and the 2022 midterms and said we need less anger and more hope.

Less rage and more rational action to fix the problems facing our nation.

You want a leader who will fight for you?

Then you have to pick someone who can actually get elected.

Republicans can’t throw away their shot in 2024.

Obviously I don't agree with all of that, but the fact is that Trump supporters who don't speak up are lumped in with the "you don't care" the NYPost was talking about. Their silence will be treated as admission that Trump is a horrible, violent human being, one who now has not only said "death and destruction" will follow his arrest, but is also posing suggesting violence against Bragg, and playing video of violence at a rally behind him while he recites the Pledge of Alleigance.

Which reminds me.

Before the weekend, I asked @Rozz and/or @Flarelaine to comment on the issue.

Now, what happens from here could be...involved, so before I continue, I think I need a rules question addressed.
@Rozz @Flarelaine

What are the rules about calls for violence on these forums? Actual real-world violence, not in-game of course.

They didn't answer. And Trump has gone even further in that time.

Since calls for violence are, provably, through Trump's words and actions, going to be an even bigger deal than I thought three days ago, and because I still don't have an answer, I'm going to ask some blues this time. Once again, the situation demands a public answer, so we can follow the rules in a constructive way.

@Radux
@Tziva

Or any other blue for that matter: What are the rules about calls to violence on these forums? We need these answered, because the topic of the forums themselves, Politics in this case, are heading in that direction due to causes outside these forums. A clarification is called for, a clarification is needed.

Thank you for your time.

[Edge-]

What is this, like the 10th time conservatives and conservative media are "seeing him for who he really is and slowly backing away."?

Where's Van Jones at, nowadays? Can he say that Trump has finally grown into his presidency, again? I miss those times idiots like him fell over themselves to praise Trump for something as simple as "sticking to a script for an hour" as if that's a life-changing moment.

I look forward to Fox and the NYPost lining up behind him if he wins the nomination again, as almost every Republican has specifically committed to "Supporting the nominee" when asked while specifically refusing to reject Trump if he's the nominee.

- - - Updated - - -

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/d...crypted-emails

Peter Navarro, Trump’s former trade adviser and a key Big Lie booster, has been harboring hundreds of government records that he’s appealing in federal court to keep. The Justice Department sued him over the records last August. Earlier this month, U.S. District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly ruled against Navarro. But Navarro isn’t giving up.

Last week, Navarro said he intended to appeal the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, and asked District Judge Kollar-Kotelly to stay her ruling while he appealed. On Saturday, DOJ lawyers filed a motion pushing back on his efforts to hold onto the documents after months of courtroom bickering.

“Dr. Navarro, as this Court found, has no possessory right to the records; he does not own the records; and he was statutorily obligated to have incorporated them into the White House records system within twenty days of creation, which he concededly did not do,” the DOJ wrote. “Defendant cannot be irreparably harmed by producing documents he has no right to possess in the first place.”

Somehow, the legal battle over Peter Navarro refusing to turn over government documents he stole and retains to this day is still ongoing.

Most people steal something and they get charged straight away. I guess if you're a rich white dude they give you like a year of polite requests so you can drag your feet or something.

[Myradin]

What is this, like the 10th time conservatives and conservative media are "seeing him for who he really is and slowly backing away."?

They're either backing away so slowly that they're still in the process of baking away when the next thing happens, OR they back away, realize they don't have much else, and then go back to him anyway.

I mean who else do republicans have to back at the moment? Desantis? Former trumpies?

[Endus]

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/d...crypted-emails

Somehow, the legal battle over Peter Navarro refusing to turn over government documents he stole and retains to this day is still ongoing.

Most people steal something and they get charged straight away. I guess if you're a rich white dude they give you like a year of polite requests so you can drag your feet or something.

If he'd taken a bag of cash off the back of an armored car, SWAT would've rammed his door in and searched his entire house and hauled him off in cuffs before the end of the day (assuming they knew who he was that quickly). The court's response on issues like this should be "we asked you nicely, once. Now the police are coming in and taking everything and arresting you for obstruction."

[Edge-]

I mean who else do republicans have to back at the moment? Desantis? Former trumpies?

DeSantis, though his star seems to be fading a bit and he's heading straight towards a confrontation with Trump. While he steps in poop realizing that his particular brand of Republican politics might be popular in Florida but is a bit less so nationally.

Also, Nikki Halley! She's running! She's got...policy positions! She's not Trump!

And I think we can count in Mike Pompeo, he had that surgery to help him lose weight and look more presidential! He used to be Secretary of State just like Hillary Clinton, except he was arguably far worse at the job!

And isn't that Tiger King guy running? Did he announce what party it's for? Maybe him?

Then there's Vivek Ramaswamy! Who I hear you ask? I don't know much either, but he's pretty brown for the Republican ticket so I'm skeptical.

Mike Pence could throw in! You know, the guy the Trump supporters came to hang on Jan. 6?

We could throw in some other elected officials who seem to have larger ambitions like Virginia governor Glenn Younkin, who threaded the, "I'm not a Trump guy but I'm a Trump guy." needle very well in his state. Or Krisi Noem, who has proven quite popular despite governing over a state of like 50 people.

You could also go for some of the hilarious longshot-literally-why-bothers like Liz Cheney because of course she's floated running to stop Trump, as if it would matter. Or former national security advisor John Bolton, who probably floated running just to sell more copies of a book or something.

There are some other options like NH governor Chris Sununu, but it's unlikely that his more moderate social views will see much traction from the far more extremist modern Republican party.

- - - Updated - - -

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/don...orme-rcna76793

Former President Donald Trump's 2024 campaign has decided that anyone who works for Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, including on a potential presidential bid, will be ineligible to join the Trump campaign or another Trump White House.

Trump aide Justin Caporale confirmed the decision to NBC News, and it's a warning shot to political operatives mulling their next moves. The development, first reported by RealClearPolitics, comes as Trump holds onto a substantial polling lead and the DeSantis operation begins to materialize.

And Republicans continue to make it clear that they will always place petty personal vendetta's over actually doing the best job possible.