Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Gorsameth]

using PAC funds to pay for your lawyers isn't illegal. So long as they file it.
The problem with Stormy Danials hush payment wasn't that it happened but that it wasn't reported.

[masterhorus8]

using PAC funds to pay for your lawyers isn't illegal. So long as they file it.
The problem with Stormy Danials hush payment wasn't that it happened but that it wasn't reported.

Yeah, it's unfortunate... In this case, it very much can be argued as political expense as it affects his ability to be in office...

[Myradin]

Its because Trump expected the 'family values' party would take issue with the whole ordeal.

Oh how they proved him wrong.

[Huehuecoyotl]

So, a question for my American friends on here:

Given what we know about how Republicans operate, do we really want the principle to be set that people can be removed from a states ballot without a criminal conviction for the relevant act? Does this open the door for shenanigans from GOP run states to strike Biden off for some imaginary activity, for example?

Is setting this precedent dangerous?

[Edge-]

So, a question for my American friends on here:

Given what we know about how Republicans operate, do we really want the principle to be set that people can be removed from a states ballot without a criminal conviction for the relevant act? Does this open the door for shenanigans from GOP run states to strike Biden off for some imaginary activity, for example?

Is setting this precedent dangerous?

FYI this is already a thing. Plenty of states have various eligibility requirements, including many with "anti-spoiler" laws preventing someone who lost the candidacy for one party to add themselves to the ballot under another party.

The problem with this thinking, though I absolutely understand it, is this: It results in paralysis. The core problem is simply that Republicans dishonestly ratfuck everything. You can't really build guardrails around dishonest ratfuckery because well...there's always new ways to dishonestly ratfuck anything and everything. What you do instead is just unnecessarily restrict everyone else while not meaningfully resolving the problem.

It sucks, because there's no good/satisfying response.

[Milchshake]

So, a question for my American friends on here:

Given what we know about how Republicans operate, do we really want the principle to be set that people can be removed from a states ballot without a criminal conviction for the relevant act? Does this open the door for shenanigans from GOP run states to strike Biden off for some imaginary activity, for example?

Is setting this precedent dangerous?

Political hobbyism presents serious problems for a functioning democracy, especially when hobbyists confuse high stakes for low stakes.

NO

• Welcome to every year since 1994, the GOP is always threatening to break shit.
• Stop pretending that the GOP cares about precedent or principles.
• Welcome to every year since 1974, GOP shenanigans are already a constant.
• Stop pretending that the media will hold the GOP accountable for longer than a 24 hour news cycle.

Basically a similar threat level as; fake electors, state legislature electoral theory, coup shenanigans.


Answer is to remind voters to stay engaged and keep voting.

[Breccia]

Given what we know about how Republicans operate, do we really want the principle to be set that people can be removed from a states ballot without a criminal conviction for the relevant act?

Did I miss a memo? Which state is asking for this?

[Edge-]

https://www.thedailybeast.com/judge-...=home?ref=home

Banks and insurance companies trying to keep the public in the dark about their business dealings with Donald Trump ran into a ray of legal sunshine on Tuesday, after a judge ruled that he wouldn’t seal records in the run-up to the New York Attorney General’s upcoming trial against the real estate mogul.

A handful of firms associated with Trump made a last-ditch effort to hide documents that detailed the way they unwittingly became part of the Trump Organization’s alleged scheme to inflate assets. But the judge, Arthur F. Engoron, ruled that—aside from information like the home addresses of certain employees and bank account numbers—the public has a right to see the documents and communications.

The former president is just 34 days away from heading to civil trial in New York City, where his personal finances will be put under a microscope while the state’s AG tries to bleed his corporation dry over the way it routinely overstated its holdings on official documents.

Hawkward. Now these companies will have the public scrutinizing whether or not they ignored obvious warnings signs that their client was intentionally inflating and delating the values of his properties and assets as he saw fit in the service of securing loans or reducing his tax burden. Easiest way to avoid this would be to do what most reputable companies did over the years and not done business with him, but oh well.

[Huehuecoyotl]

Did I miss a memo? Which state is asking for this?

New Hampshire are apparently starting the process to remove Trump from the 2024 ballot. The fact that it's a Republican governor trying to set this precedent makes me.....concerned.

[Edge-]

New Hampshire are apparently starting the process to remove Trump from the 2024 ballot. The fact that it's a Republican governor trying to set this precedent makes me.....concerned.

It's not the governor. It's a conservative dude suing arguing that the 14th Amendment makes Trump ineligible. I don't think that argument has legs to it, especially before any trials happen.

[Milchshake]

New Hampshire are apparently starting the process to remove Trump from the 2024 ballot. The fact that it's a Republican governor trying to set this precedent makes me.....concerned.

Sorry, but you got scammed by Charlie Kirk of all people. He's spreading rumors that NH GOP wanted to remove Trump's ballot access.
It's not the govenor, but some random like Corky Romano that wanted to take Trump off the ballot.

Thank you for your concern, butr please dont fall for Charlie Kirk scams.

[Gorsameth]

It's not the governor. It's a conservative dude suing arguing that the 14th Amendment makes Trump ineligible. I don't think that argument has legs to it, especially before any trials happen.

yeah pretty sure the 14th needs a conviction to do the anything...

[Breccia]

So apparently, in the Mark Meadows trial, the most damning testimony came from...the judge.

Is there a role under Article II of the Constitution for the president in a state election or any election?

Judge Steve Jones asked Meadows that, to his face, on the stand. Meadows...refused to answer.

I don’t know enough to opine.

Now, that's a stupid fucking response. But the fact that the judge even asked that question in the first place should tell all of us how poorly this is going. Incidentally, at aother point in the same trial, the prosecutor asked Meadows if Meadows was asking as a federal official or a campaign aide. Meadows didn't answer that either, but came closer, saying that he assumed that federal officials had a role in federal elections. Assumed. That's admission he didn't even look.

Ignorance is no excuse. If I "assume" the bank gives money to whoever picks it up and walks out the door, that's on me for being an idiot. I'm still a thief, I'm just a stupid one. Otherwise, it would benefit any criminal to be intentionally unaware of the law they were about to break. Or, he could be insane, I guess, but I don't think that's what he's going for.

Meadows also peppered his testimony with "I don't remember" a lot over the timeline of late 2020-early 2021 when he was an active traitor to the United States.

It was a 24-hour, seven-day-a-week kind of job. It was a very broad responsibility.

I found myself on defense a lot with things coming at me from a million different directions.

-- Meadows, claiming he was so busy he forgot he committed treason

Meadows also attempted the defense that his role was just to keep Trump informed. Again, if he was keeping the Trump campaign informed that's still not his job, and Trump had no role in any official capacity. Meadows and his lawyers tried to argue that anything that would distract Trump would be Meadows' job, which again, false, but "everything is my job, therefore I can't be prosecuted for it" is a novel defense that seems easy to exploit. "I am a teacher, my students are my responsibility, I had to run that red light and run over a policeman".

The Meadows trial is ongoing, plenty of articles exist on it but none are flattering to Meadows. Meadows is trying to get out of contempt here, but he'll be on a more serious trial soon enough, and his testimony now will be evidence then, so, we can't even write this off as a trial run HARDEE HAR HAR of a defense.

Meadows can't even describe the scope of his job, but is saying under oath that everything he did fell under its role. That has to fail.

[Edge-]

Every time I see his face I'm unsure of whether it's a legit image or a shooped one. His face is just way too small for that big head and it explains why what comes out his word hole is so awful.

[Milchshake]

Every time I see his face I'm unsure of whether it's a legit image or a shooped one. His face is just way too small for that big head and it explains why what comes out his word hole is so awful.

Thats the face that has taken tens of millions from conservative donors...

There's a Country Song^TM in here ...
The Preppy Rich Kid from up north
Who conned Gran out of thousands
To fight the gay luxury space sandanistas

[Paranoid Android]

Every time I see his face I'm unsure of whether it's a legit image or a shooped one. His face is just way too small for that big head and it explains why what comes out his word hole is so awful.

I'm too lazy to look it up but what was the image or show(?) where people would put the real mouth imposed on a thumb. Conan O'Brien did something like this but idk if I'm right. Kirk is this w/o imposing the real mouth.

[Breccia]

New Hampshire are apparently starting the process to remove Trump from the 2024 ballot. The fact that it's a Republican governor trying to set this precedent makes me.....concerned.

Hmm.

First of all, this is a 14th Amendment case, meaning he'd have to be convicted or otherwise admit it. So it's way too soon to make that movement.

Second of all:

Messner met with New Hampshire’s Republican Secretary of State David Scanlan on Friday to discuss the issue, Scanlan said, prompting pushback from the state’s Republican Party, whose leader Chris Ager said the party “will fight to make sure that candidates are not denied access to the ballot.”

Scanlan has clarified to NBC News that he is “not seeking to remove any names from the presidential primary ballot, and I have not said that I am seeking to remove any names from the presidential primary ballot,” after conservative radio host Charlie Kirk falsely claimed the state was trying to keep Trump off the ballot, leading Scanlan’s office to be inundated with calls from Trump supporters.

Scanlan told the Boston Globe and NH Journal he intends to seek legal advice on the issue, but said he believes the issue is “for the courts to decide,” though as the state’s lead election official he could act himself to keep candidates off the ballot.

Messner has not yet formally filed a legal challenge questioning Trump’s candidacy. The Florida lawsuit, filed in federal court by a tax attorney, asks the court to issue a declaration saying Trump is barred from seeking the presidency and cannot participate in Florida’s 2024 primary election. Robert Davis’ Michigan lawsuit, filed Monday, urges Benson to declare Trump is ineligible to run for office in the state and asks her to make a decision on his candidacy within 14 days, the Detroit Metro Times reports.

Yes, the issue has been raised. No motions have been filed. Quite frankly, if Trump is convicted for overthrowing democracy, he should be kicked off, otherwise why have the Amendment? I get that you're concerned, but we're talking about a situation that, quite frankly, should never come up again. You're probably worried that, say, the House could unilaterally rule that Hunter Biden's continued existence is proof Biden is a traitor, but they have far too high of a bar to do that and have it stick.

Simply put, this doesn't seem like a slippery slope. Everything is stacked against this guy until Trump is convicted, at which point, it's not a slope, it's a flat plane.

[Poopymonster]

Every time I see his face I'm unsure of whether it's a legit image or a shooped one. His face is just way too small for that big head and it explains why what comes out his word hole is so awful.

It reminds me of this pic. And the series of pics spawned in this style.

[Breccia]

So Meadows' attempt to move his trial to federal court continued, and the judge apparently asked the prosecution if “at least one (but not all) of the overt acts charged occurred under the color of Meadows’ office" would that mean the case would go to federal court.

The prosecution had, to my non-expert mind at least, a great response, along the lines of "No, because that's not how RICO works." If Meadows conspired at least once, he's a co-conspirator, he goes to trial where everyone else goes to trial.

Meadows requires the movement to federal court, because he has a much better chance with the defense of "I was a federal official doing my federal job" there, a defense that has no effect in Georgia. Then, he'd claim double jeopardy. Again, Meadows doesn't seem to have a good case. Acting on a federal election is not only not his job, but would be illegal (Hatch Act) if he tried. But as it stands, he has no case. Hence the desperate move here. He needs a loophole.

The Georgia fake electors need to keep an eye on this. They have been trying to move their own cases to federal court as well, but as they were never federal employees, they have a much worse argument to make there. If Team Trump is trying to escape, that will leave them and the objective evidence of their guilt (the forms they signed and gave to Congress) with nobody left to rat out to save themselves. I'm guessing pawns don't always appreciate being sacrificed.

- - - Updated - - -

Date for Georgia grand jury report release set at Sept 8 by the judge who blocked it the first time.

As anyone with an internet connection now knows, the District Attorney has indicted nineteen individuals for their alleged participation in ‘racketeering enterprise’ purportedly designed to interfere with the lawful administration of the 2020 general election in Georgia. This exceedingly public development eliminates the due process concerns that animated the February Order --at least for any of the nineteen indictees who might have been named in the special purpose grand jury’s final report.

Consequently, the undersigned now intends to release the remaining portions of that report, just as the special purpose grand jury requested and as the Code of Georgia requires. Any concerned party that believes something less than everything should be published has until September 2023 to file an objection to complete publication. If no objections are filed by 5:00pm on September 2023, the remainder of the final report will be added to the docket of this matter at 10:00AM on Friday September 2023. If objections are timely filed, they will be carefully considered and new publication date will be announced.

I expect Team Trump to file a report about 4:30 on...huh...the article's dates are all missing. But yeah, just before the deadline, hoping to stall.

- - - Updated - - -

Glenn Kircshner, actual lawyer, says about judges

Defendants are almost never allowed to be on release, pending appeal, if they've been convicted and sentenced to prison

But that's all judges in general. What about this judge specifically?

She has been one of the stiffest sentences in January 6 cases, and I have a feeling she will hold Donald Trump accountable. And I don't think there's any way she would allow him to be on release pending appeal. I think the jury convicts him. I think she hands down an appropriate sentence. It will involve prison time, and she will direct him to report to the Federal Bureau of Prisons

Okay, but it's not like there's any experience in this specific situation, right?

Kirschner noted that one notable high-profile individual who was released pending appeal was Trump's former political adviser and conservative political commentator Steve Bannon, who was found guilty by a jury for refusing to comply with subpoenas from the House committee investigating the January 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol building. Despite the conviction, Judge Nichols allowed him to be released from prison awaiting his appeal.

Kirschner said the move to release Bannon "outraged the legal community, including a number of judges."

"That was just a dead wrong decision," he said.

So, if Trump is in fact convicted, him going to jail and staying there is a real risk. I'd say he should be careful about that, but since he committed the crime and is objectively guilty, his best chance of avoiding this has passed.

- - - Updated - - -

Rolling Stone reports that Agent Smith has been asking witnesses about Giuliani.

Specifically, whether Trump was taking the advice of a lawyer who was constantly drunk.

No, really. I am not joking, and I don't think they are, either.

In their questioning of multiple witnesses, Smith’s team of federal investigators have asked questions about how seemingly intoxicated Giuliani was during the weeks he was giving Trump advice on how to cling to power, according to a source who’s been in the room with Smith’s team, one witness’s attorney, and a third person familiar with the matter.

The special counsel’s team has also asked these witnesses if Trump had ever gossiped with them about Giuliani’s drinking habits, and if Trump had ever claimed Giuliani’s drinking impacted his decision making or judgment. Federal investigators have inquired about whether the then-president was warned, including after Election Night 2020, about Giuliani’s allegedly excessive drinking. They have also asked certain witnesses if Trump was told that the former New York mayor was giving him post-election legal and strategic advice while inebriated.

Furthermore, the special counsel’s office has probed how drunk witnesses and others believed Giuliani to be during specific and consequential moments of the tumultuous Trump-Biden presidential transition. Investigators asked for details that showed precisely how these witnesses knew firsthand the attorney was drinking while counseling Trump on subverting and overturning the 2020 presidential election.

"Who cares if Giuliani was drunk, honestly?"

Trump should have.

Federal prosecutors often aren’t interested in investigating mere alcohol consumption. But according to lawyers and witnesses who’ve been in the room with special counsel investigators, Smith and his team are interested in this subject because it could help demonstrate that Trump was implementing the counsel of somebody he knew to be under the influence and perhaps not thinking clearly. If that were the case, it could add to federal prosecutors’ argument that Trump behaved with willful recklessness in his attempts nullify the 2020 election — by relying heavily on a lawyer he believed to be working while inebriated, and another who he bashed for spouting “crazy” conspiracy theories that Trump ran with anyway.

Team Trump has been trying an interesting split defense:
1) I was only doing what my boss told me, therefore, it was not a crime, and
2) I was only doing what my lawyers told me, therefore, it was not a crime

This is why RICO is important, by the way. But if Trump was willingly following a lawyer who was clearly and obviously compromised, he cannot use that defense. No reasonable person can claim they were following reasonable advice from a drunk lawyer.

Of course, if Giuliani was also that drunk, he probably sent a few texts and emails he probably wishes he hadn't.

[Huehuecoyotl]

Sorry, but you got scammed by Charlie Kirk of all people. He's spreading rumors that NH GOP wanted to remove Trump's ballot access.
It's not the govenor, but some random like Corky Romano that wanted to take Trump off the ballot.

Thank you for your concern, butr please dont fall for Charlie Kirk scams.

Just to say in my defence, I was NOT scammed by Charlie Kirk, and I resent the implication that I was. But I was apparently scammed by David Pakman, who released this video.

I will hold my hands up to not checking into the source of this story more closely. But Pakman is, generally speaking, a pretty good journalist. I'd assumed that he had done his due diligence on this.

It just goes to show how dangerous disinformation is. All it needs is one respected source to fall for it, and suddenly it could be all over the place.