Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Gorsameth]

He accuses the prosecutor questioning him of letting him ramble on in hope of making a mistake, comparing the prosecutor to TV defense lawyer Perry Mason."

I love this bit. He controls his own mouth right? (probably not entirely considering his mental 'issues') Its on him to not ramble and answers questions in a short and concise manner.

Ofc the prosecution is going to let him ramble on when he starts rambling. More chance he messes up and says something he shouldn't.

I kind of expect Trump's lawyer at some point to object to his client rambling while on the stand.

[The Stormbringer]

Is Trump really calling every damn court case "election interference" now? As if we're all supposed to buy some grand conspiracy where all these different states are coming after him to keep him from getting re-elected? Do people really buy this crap? Sigh.

[Breccia]

Is Trump really calling every damn court case "election interference" now?

Yes. It's the reason he declared he was running the very day after 2022 election ended. Anyone doing anything he doesn't like is therefore hurting his election chances...in that narrative, at least.

Again, if this was really a thing, I could just declare I was running for President and shoot him in the middle of 5th Avenue. Obvously I would not, but to be fair, he's about the only human being large enough that I would be able to hit what I was aiming at, but "I am running for office" is not a magical get-out-of-jail-free card.

[Poopymonster]

Is Trump really calling every damn court case "election interference" now? As if we're all supposed to buy some grand conspiracy where all these different states are coming after him to keep him from getting re-elected? Do people really buy this crap? Sigh.

Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
It's complete bullshit. That many people involved, all working together with no leaks is practically impossible.
Ask any project manager.

[Breccia]

I think if we get a fair trial in Fulton County, whether that’s in state court or federal court, I’m confident that we’ll be fully vindicated

-- Eastman, on FOX News

I would like to promise and pledge to all of my voters and supporters, and to all of the people of the United States, that I will totally accept the results of this great and historic presidential election ...if I win

-- Trump, during the debates, to America, in public

You cannot run for President if you are True Scotsman. Team Trump is, again, setting the narrative that if things don't go their way it's because it's rigged.

[Kaleredar]

-- Eastman, on FOX News


-- Trump, during the debates, to America, in public

You cannot run for President if you are True Scotsman. Team Trump is, again, setting the narrative that if things don't go their way it's because it's rigged.

I don't really care if Trump's zealots think the trial was "rigged" if it leads to a conviction. Because what they think doesn't amount to a hill of beans if Trump is behind bars, and they're too few, too scattered, and too disorganized to affect any actual change.

I'm sure a small handful of them will attempt to get violent following a conviction. Which is an unfortunate tragedy. Hopefully relevant investigative bodies can find and stop these individuals before they're able to do harm. But the majority of them will stew and fume in impotent outrage, deprived of their false god, as the rest of us watch him get his just desserts.

[Endus]

I don't really care if Trump's zealots think the trial was "rigged" if it leads to a conviction. Because what they think doesn't amount to a hill of beans if Trump is behind bars, and they're too few, too scattered, and too disorganized to affect any actual change.

It's no different than the Jan 6 terrorist fucks who thought the election was "rigged".

They don't have an argument, they're just describing their seditionist, insurrectionist views and intent.

If they want to step up to acting on that, they can join their terrorist fellows in a jail cell for 10+ years. Fuck 'em. Their views deserve nothing but contempt and open derision.

[Breccia]

Navarro starts begging for money on street corners.

So this Newsweek article talks about Navarro's fundraising efforts, and Navarro going on Real America's Voice (which I've now cited enough times to wonder if I should get CNN points for this, or another category like the Daily Show), and the conflicting amounts that Navarro says he's paid, he will pay, and he still needs. No matter which number he says you believe, or none, the fact is he's begging for supporters to come to his rescue for somewhere between $90,000 and $1,550,000 bookending the estimates.

This is in addition to the fines for contempt of Congress, which could be another $200,000.

Navarro is, of course, still claiming everything he did was for Trump and therefore completely okay, and that he's only being persecuted for loving Trump so much he broke the Constitution to help Trump stay in power illegally. Or that's what it sounded like to me, at least.

I have no idea if he's telling the truth where he says the court case he's facing plus the appeals...so he's assuming he'll lose...will coast $750,000 in legal fees each. I don't have a dollar amount I would sell my credibility for to defend a known traitor, twice. My figure is probably higher, but then again, we are talking about Trump-supporting lawyers, so maybe their reputation as an American isn't worth as much to them as mine is to me.

But I do know someone who's not being paid by Trump when I see them. Because, you know, that's literally everyone, bad example. But Navarro is out in the front, testing the "I was a federal employee and therefore immune to any consequences of my crimes" and Trump is just letting his canary in the coal mine die.

Which is a bad idea. Canaries have also been known to sing.

[postman1782]

Trump has until September 8th to finalize the merger with Truth Social and Digital World Acquisition. Otherwise he will be forced to pay back the $300 million of the money that they have gotten since news of the merger was first released almost 2 years ago now. They said the merger would be done in 12-18 months, that was 2 years ago.

https://thehill.com/business/4184405...ne-approaches/

[Kaleredar]

Trump has until September 8th to finalize the merger with Truth Social and Digital World Acquisition. Otherwise he will be forced to pay back the $300 million of the money that they have gotten since news of the merger was first released almost 2 years ago now. They said the merger would be done in 12-18 months, that was 2 years ago.

https://thehill.com/business/4184405...ne-approaches/

I'm going to guess he does none of that, ignores it, blames others when it comes up, claims he knew nothing about it, and when they attempt to sue him for the money attempts to indefinitely stall them out.

[postman1782]

I'm going to guess he does none of that, ignores it, blames others when it comes up, claims he knew nothing about it, and when they attempt to sue him for the money attempts to indefinitely stall them out.

He is pretty good at trying that til a court tells him he has to pay.

[Kaleredar]

He is pretty good at trying that til a court tells him he has to pay.

Well I’m sure he’s pinning his hopes on winning in 2024 so that such civil suits will be tossed as well.

I don’t think he has any plan beyond that. And I’m doubtful he has the money to pay them.

[Breccia]

Trump has until September 8th to finalize the merger with Truth Social and Digital World Acquisition.

Interesting. I thought they could vote to re-re-re-extend.

If Sept 8 is a hard deadline, then between the fact that DWAC is running out of money, Trump is going to trial, and Trump has already tweeted once, then the smart move would be...well, to never start in the first place, bad example. But the smart move from here would be to renegotiate. They have Trump over a barrel.

"But they have a contract!"

Yes, and it's an easy one for them to follow: give everyone their $10 and therefore a massive L and go home. They do that, Trump is stuck with a social media platform with no followers and no staff. Trump doesn't want to run Truth Social, that's been clear since the get go.

Trump may not need the money just yet -- his PACs are doing the job so far. But I think he'd rather have half the money for the shitty amount of work he barely did, than nothing and be stuck with a product that's intentionally flawed.

If what I suggested is impossible, or Trump says no, DWAC needs to realize all they've done is bleed money, and even Trump IN FULL ALL CAPS RALLY MODE isn't drawing people to his failing app. Add that Trump could easily go to jail.
@Kaleredar is probably right, Trump will blame DWAC backing out on everyone except his inability to make a product people actually want. But I recently cited a Forbes article that said Truth Social is worth less than $200 million. It's not worth what they're paying. Trump can spin a loss like few people, but it'll still be a loss.

But I'm guessing we'll hear about a renegotiation offer. DWAC is in a bad place, but they have two ways out before they are in a worse place.

- - - Updated - - -

Nikki Haley says the US is less safe due to stumbling, older politicians.

It is time to pass this down to a new generation of conservative leaders that want to take our country to a better place

"Did she say anything when Trump couldn't lift a glass of water?"

No.

"Did she say anything when Trump couldn't walk up a small hill?"

No.

"Did she say anything when Trump couldn't walk down a gentle ramp?"

No.

"Did she say anything when Trump intentionally exposed himself to COVID and nearly died?"

Yes, probably something along the lines of "maybe Pence can salvage 2020" but not in public at least.

"So, she's a hypocrite."

Yes. She might not be promoting Trump, but if age/infirmity was actually an issue she actually cared about, she would have brought it up somewhere between " the healthiest individual ever elected" and "covfefe".

- - - Updated - - -

What's a Garcia hearing?

Trump co-conspirator De Oliveira has dumped his Trump-paid lawyer and is getting independent counsel, as that court motion filed Aug 30 says. Apparently there was an issue between him and three unindicted witnesses, all of whom had the same lawyer. Had. They have now all dumped the same lawyer.

If I've been keeping track correctly, that's at least five Trump employees who fired their Trump lawyer, and at least two who have changed their story after doing so. We already talked about Nauta, now we have De Oliveira too. As their new filings with their new lawyers aren't public yet, we don't actually have proof they are now telling Agent Smith "oh, Trump told me to commit a crime and he's guilty" but I find it unlikely they're dropping a Trump lawyer for either a paid lawyer they can't afford, or a public defender, if they were going to stay loyal to Trump all the way through their trial.

There's a Twitter thread here on the topic. The lawyer in question has filed an opposition to the government's conflict of interest hearing, which of course, is what I would do if there was a conflict of interest.

- - - Updated - - -

Trump reportedly has $425 million in actual cash.

This is a relatively important figure.

One, several banks have dumped Trump already. When that happened, a bank called Axos stepped in with a large loan for cash. Axos is known as a bank that steps in when you have fewer choices, and as such, the loan probably has stricter rules than Trump usually gets. That said, Trump has in the past gotten away with not making payments and pushing things back based on his word alone. The holders of his remaining loans won't allow that, because Trump is going to jail.

Two, Trump has been surviving his legal bills by having PACs pay them for him. As I posted recently, he's not taking in as much as he's paying, and he's not going to the debates to pump publicity. Donors are drying up, especially big ones, such as Tommy Bagwell earlier this year.

Three, the DWAC deal is all but dead. I suggested earlier Trump would be forced to re-negotiate, but he was counting on that $300 million and could very easily get $0. (I do not believe Trump has to repay the $300 million, I think Trump never got it)

Four, the mug shot grift and NFTs did not pay out enough.

Five, the NY case against Trump Org looks to be a slam-dunk.

And six, Forbes has Trump losing money consistently since 2016. The exception is 2022 when Truth Social still had apparent value, it no longer does. Trump is not a good investment.

Put these all together, and Trump has some difficult choices ahead. At some point, he will need to start paying loans and start paying lawyers with his own money. He's running out of goodwill with each time he's arrested. Trump has no choice but to pay his lawyers, but also, may have no choice but to self-fund his campaign. With PACs running dry, and him slipping in the polls, putting up ads may be seen as a mandatory expense to try to keep him in the 2024 race so he could potentially pardon himself. With no new viable sources of income, and loaners not willing to give extensions, he may have to sell something off.

Note: declaring bankruptcy is also an option. Forbes has a list of how many properties Trump owns and what debt they have. Trump Tower, for example, is worth $161 million but Trump owes $100 million for it. Dumping a property and declaring it bankrupt is a stigma Trump has faced before, but not while running for office. It is, however, a known risk. If he declares bankruptcy, the loan is no longer his problem. If he tries to sell, it might not get a buyer.

Selling off a no-loan property with his name on it will be uncomfortable for him. It won't get the money he claims it's worth, because Trump is desperate and everyone knows it, plus Trump lies about values -- he's going to court for that. Same with bankruptcy. If Trump drops/sells "Trump XXX" mid-election and gets nearly nothing for it, his opponents make fun of his dying brand and Trump drops in the polls.

I think Trump still thinks he can claw his way out of this, and will try to sustain himself by selling smaller items without his name on them. Forbes shows a list of a dozen or so such items worth tens of millions each. I predict he'll start with golf courses, possibly overseas, hoping nobody remembers which ones he owns.

If Russia is paying attention, this would be a great time for them to make their move. Trump is on sale.

[Surfd]

Selling off a no-loan property with his name on it will be uncomfortable for him. It won't get the money he claims it's worth, because Trump is desperate and everyone knows it, plus Trump lies about values -- he's going to court for that.

I would imagine that his financial advisors (if he even still has any of those left) would probably tell him that selling almost anything is likely to be a really, really bad idea, because with everything that is coming out of the New York case, you can basically be guaranteed that any serious buyer will go through the records for the item being sold with a microscope to make sure they are getting a "real" value for the thing, and are probably just going to find more fraud, which would just add fuel to the fire. I doubt Trump has a single large asset anywhere that isn't covered in fraud from top to bottom.

Even better, is that he's under such intense scrutiny that even the vaguest hint that he might sell a property or something is going to have every regulator and watchdog in the country breathing down his neck to make sure a potential deal is above board and free of shady shenanigans.

He's basically fucked no matter what he does if he needs to start selling assets to stay afloat.

[Teriz]

Wow Donald Trump is bad with money. Maybe Jared will toss him a few dollars from his massive Saudi deal a few years back?

[Breccia]

I would imagine that his financial advisors (if he even still has any of those left) would probably tell him that selling almost anything is likely to be a really, really bad idea, because with everything that is coming out of the New York case, you can basically be guaranteed that any serious buyer will go through the records for the item being sold with a microscope to make sure they are getting a "real" value for the thing, and are probably just going to find more fraud, which would just add fuel to the fire. I doubt Trump has a single large asset anywhere that isn't covered in fraud from top to bottom.

I hadn't thought of that. Yes, anyone buying from Trump will be 110% cautious. Trump said on the stand that his asset valuations came with a giant warning sign that said "do not trust these". That is a stupid thing to admit if you're trying to sell. Good catch.

Wow Donald Trump is bad with money. Maybe Jared will toss him a few dollars from his massive Saudi deal a few years back?

Funny story: Forbes lists Trump's loans to his own children as assets. Because, well, they are.

But they total five million. It's not enough. Trump calling in his loans to pay his legal bills is the equivalent of trying to pay the pizza guy by going through your sofa cushions for loose change.

- - - Updated - - -

This TheHill analysis of Meadows' case by multiple experts goes into more details than I'd seen before.

I'll summarize, but it's a good read.

1) Meadows has basically no legal case. If this was decided purely on the merits, he'd be fucked. The issue is optics, and the judge in question is effectively ruling on the Trump case, not the Meadows case.

2) The judge has already suggested that, if one of Meadows' charges can be moved to federal court, the rest should go with it. Imagine a state charging a murderer, not with murder, but with murder and a parking ticket. Then saying "you can't move this case to federal court because there's no such thing as a federal parking ticket". It's not that Georgia is doing that, but we are talking about a blanket statement and blanket interpretation, not a specific one.

3) Meadows needs three things:

The legal dispute turns on three prongs: Meadows must show he was a federal officer, that the allegations relate to an act taken “under color of such office” and that he has a plausible federal defense.

Nobody disputes Meadows was a Trump employee. Meadows lawyers have insisted that everything he did was "under color" and ignored the third part entirely, mostly because the third part doesn't help him at all. Meanwhile, Georgia has taken pains to point out the "under color of such office" does not, in fact, apply here, in addition to that the third part (the Supremacy Clause) sides with Georgia. Interfering with elections is not part of the Chief of Staff's job, as it's not part of anyone else's job, either. That's why it's illegal. But even the WH Chief of Staff's job somehow magically included election oversight of a campaign, which it doesn't, in fact the Hatch Act proves that, then there's still no law that says he can commit a felony while doing so.

In the end, Meadows might win this one, but it's an uphill struggle and not related to the facts of the case. The judge in question could end up being far too cautious for America's own good, and purely by moving the case to federal court, allow Team Trump to be pardoned and therefore engage in seditious traitorous acts and get away with it.

[Huehuecoyotl]

In the end, Meadows might win this one, but it's an uphill struggle and not related to the facts of the case. The judge in question could end up being far too cautious for America's own good, and purely by moving the case to federal court, allow Team Trump to be pardoned and therefore engage in seditious traitorous acts and get away with it.

I was watching a No Lie video the other day, and BTC was talking to a lawyer about this very point. Turns out that even if the case is moved to a federal court, they STILL can't be pardoned for it, because it remains a state charge. Having the trial take place at a federal level doesn't change the state of the original charge. So moving the case might get them a more favourable jury, but wouldn't get them an out if Trump somehow gets the presidency back.

I'm taking the lawyers word on this, but it seems reasonable.

[ringpriest]

What's a Garcia hearing?

Trump co-conspirator De Oliveira has dumped his Trump-paid lawyer and is getting independent counsel, as that court motion filed Aug 30 says. Apparently there was an issue between him and three unindicted witnesses, all of whom had the same lawyer. Had. They have now all dumped the same lawyer.

If I've been keeping track correctly, that's at least five Trump employees who fired their Trump lawyer, and at least two who have changed their story after doing so. We already talked about Nauta, now we have De Oliveira too. As their new filings with their new lawyers aren't public yet, we don't actually have proof they are now telling Agent Smith "oh, Trump told me to commit a crime and he's guilty" but I find it unlikely they're dropping a Trump lawyer for either a paid lawyer they can't afford, or a public defender, if they were going to stay loyal to Trump all the way through their trial.

There's a Twitter thread here on the topic. The lawyer in question has filed an opposition to the government's conflict of interest hearing, which of course, is what I would do if there was a conflict of interest.

I cannot read your linked Twitter thread (I have Twitter blocked on my personal devices), but based on the filing you linked above and other news I'm seeing, I think you're getting ahead of events on this one. To the best of my knowledge, De Oliveria has not fired either of his Trump-owned lawyers.

Rather, what seems to be happening is that Jack Smith has formally recommended to the Court (Trump cultist Judge Cannon) that the Court (meaning again, Judge Cannon) ought to have a private sit-down we De Oliveira and explain to him that his lawyers are working for Trump, not for him (that's the Garcia Hearing), and that there's a good case to be made that they're willing to shove him under the bus in order to protect their owner, and he might want to think about getting his own lawyer, even if they're a public defender.

The biggest impetus for this is the Justice Dept's claim that Woodward (one of De Oliveira and Nauta's Trump-paid lawyers) pushed one of his other former clients to commit perjury to protect Trump, and they can prove it.

On the one hand, this is a side-show for Cannon that lets her work with her fellow cultists in Team Trump to delay the trial even more as all three groups go around in circles on this. On the other hand, if Cannon just ignores the very real case for a Garcia hearing for Nauta and De Oliveira, she's just begging for the 11th Circuit to remove her from the case for incompetence. On the gripping hand, that may be what she wants, as it would allow her to argue (behind closed doors, of course) that she'd done everything possible legally, and the evul librul 11th Judges (appointed by Bush and Trump[1]) took the case away from her anyway. And on the final tentacle, she may be hoping she can skate past this conflict of interest by ignoring it, and then months down the road claim it as a basis for her to dismiss the whole thing.



1. There's a huge shift in "Trump judges" over the course of his term. In the beginning, he was completely out of his depth, and was appointing and promoting judges based on Federalist Society recommendations and the like. Those judges are quite conservative (in the late-20th century sense of the word) but they're mostly not cultists (although they can watch too much Fox News like anyone else). Towards the end of his term, when judges like Cannon, and cultist handmaid Amy Berman Jackson were being appointed, he was going with people he was convinced were in his cult and personally loyal to him.

- - - Updated - - -

This TheHill analysis of Meadows' case by multiple experts goes into more details than I'd seen before.

I'll summarize, but it's a good read.

1) Meadows has basically no legal case. If this was decided purely on the merits, he'd be fucked. The issue is optics, and the judge in question is effectively ruling on the Trump case, not the Meadows case.

2) The judge has already suggested that, if one of Meadows' charges can be moved to federal court, the rest should go with it. Imagine a state charging a murderer, not with murder, but with murder and a parking ticket. Then saying "you can't move this case to federal court because there's no such thing as a federal parking ticket". It's not that Georgia is doing that, but we are talking about a blanket statement and blanket interpretation, not a specific one.

3) Meadows needs three things:



Nobody disputes Meadows was a Trump employee. Meadows lawyers have insisted that everything he did was "under color" and ignored the third part entirely, mostly because the third part doesn't help him at all. Meanwhile, Georgia has taken pains to point out the "under color of such office" does not, in fact, apply here, in addition to that the third part (the Supremacy Clause) sides with Georgia. Interfering with elections is not part of the Chief of Staff's job, as it's not part of anyone else's job, either. That's why it's illegal. But even the WH Chief of Staff's job somehow magically included election oversight of a campaign, which it doesn't, in fact the Hatch Act proves that, then there's still no law that says he can commit a felony while doing so.

In the end, Meadows might win this one, but it's an uphill struggle and not related to the facts of the case. The judge in question could end up being far too cautious for America's own good, and purely by moving the case to federal court, allow Team Trump to be pardoned and therefore engage in seditious traitorous acts and get away with it.

IANAL, but it seems like there might be a potential downside for Trump in this. The 14th Amendment's disqualification for office language is pretty vague, but every time a federal judge rules "this thing Donald Trump did, did in fact happen" even if there's not a guilty verdict, seem like it puts a little more weight on the "Donald Trump is disqualified under the 14th" side of the scale.

[Breccia]

To the best of my knowledge, De Oliveria has not fired either of his Trump-owned lawyers.

The Twitter author suggested, not confirmed, this happened, as there have been multiple sealed filings since. It's possible (even likely) I jumped the gun a bit, but if De Oliveria wants to use any defense other than "okay, you caught me, I acted alone" he's going to need to fire his Trump lawyers.

The thread is transcribed here and won't be blocked.

[ringpriest]

The Twitter author suggested, not confirmed, this happened, as there have been multiple sealed filings since. It's possible (even likely) I jumped the gun a bit, but if De Oliveria wants to use any defense other than "okay, you caught me, I acted alone" he's going to need to fire his Trump lawyers.

The thread is transcribed here and won't be blocked.

Thank you for the link - your post makes more sense now. Hopefully both Trump's fellow defendants in FL will come to their senses and leave him hanging out to twist in the wind.