Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Edge-]

https://coloradosun.com/2023/09/08/m...osition-video/

Lindell is getting sued again.

MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell, one of the nation’s most outspoken election conspiracy theorists, has been “vulgar, threatening, loud (and) disrespectful” during three depositions in a federal defamation lawsuit brought by Eric Coomer, a Coloradan and former executive at Denver-based Dominion Voting Systems.

That’s according to a motion filed Thursday by Coomer’s attorneys seeking compensation for the depositions and an order requiring Lindell to appear in federal court in Denver to complete the sworn testimony.

Coomer is suing Lindell in his personal capacity, as well as in his capacity as the CEO of both MyPillow and FrankSpeech, a conservative website founded by Lindell.

Here's a sample of the deposition where Lindell launches into a minute long tirade over a hypothetical (?) question over a lumpy pillow.

[Breccia]

I do seem to remember Loeffler getting the fuck out of dodge on Jan 6. She wanted no part of objecting to the results in Congress.

Loeffler jumped ship on Jan 6, and even before that she was just an automaton that ran off a punch card inserted in the back of her neck.

I'll trust your memory over mine.

[Lenonis]

If anyone is wondering if the charges are politically motivated, the answer is "no". The GA DA could go after three at-the-time US Senators and chose not to do so.

I would actually argue the opposite. It's quite likely the only reason they WEREN'T indicted is because they were senators. Thus is it politically motivated - just not in the way the right wants to claim.

Hard to be a victim when you are getting off scot free when you shouldn't be.

[Odinfrost]

I feel those 3 getting off scott free will be seen by the right/trumpers as "deep state corrupt tactic to pretend it's not political"
Because they're always the victims

[Breccia]

This just in: Meadows' attempt to move his trial is denied.

Okay so this thing is 49 pages, I grabbed what looks like a good collection from the middle parts. Obviously there's a lot I didn't mention, I imagine actual experts will get to it soon enough.

Having considered the arguments put
forth by the Parties, the evidence submitted at the evidentiary hearing, and the
briefing on this matter, the Court now enters this Order concluding that the Court
lacks federal jurisdiction over Meadows’s criminal prosecution.

To determine whether Meadows is able to remove based on federal officer
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1), the Court must answer the
following questions: (1) whether Meadows was a federal officer during the time
of the allegations in the Indictment, (2) whether the charged conduct in the
criminal prosecution were undertaken for or related to Meadows color of office,
and (3) whether Meadows has put forth a colorable federal defense for the
criminal prosecution.

To establish a RICO conspiracy the State only need prove that any
co-conspirator committed one overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy, whether
the overt act was specifically charged in the Indictment or not. In other words,
the State can prove its RICO charge against Meadows by showing any one of his
co-Defendants committed any overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy—
whether that overt act is in the Indictment or not.

While the Indictment’s named overt acts are not elements of the RICO
conspiracy charged, the Court still finds that they are relevant evidence of
whether Meadows’s association with the enterprise related to his role as White
House Chief of Staff.

The Court acknowledges that, even though it was not required, the State
chose to include these overt acts in the Indictment. Unsurprisingly, Meadows
structured his evidentiary presentation to the Court and his briefing around the
eight overt acts in which he is mentioned. Following the hearing, the Court itself
ordered supplemental briefing on the issue of whether a finding that some, but
not all overt act(s) involving Meadows acting under color of federal office was
enough to trigger the removal statute. And to be sure, defining
Meadows’s “act” as associating with the alleged RICO conspiracy does not
preclude assessing the overt acts alleged. Accordingly, the
Court’s subsequent discussion of the “relating to” requirement for federal officer
removal includes an analysis of the overt acts in order to determine whether
Meadows’s association with the alleged conspiracy (the conduct for which he
was charged) related to the scope of his federal duties.

Because the inquiry hinges on whether Meadows’s association with the
conspiracy related to the color of his office, however, jurisdiction is not conferred
simply because a single overt act relates to Meadows’s federal office. After all,
the Indictment alleges a series of associative acts spanning over a year, and the
overt acts attributed to Meadows span three months.

And, from another bit later:

The Court finds that the color of the Office of the White House Chief of
Staff did not include working with or working for the Trump campaign

We all knew that. The judge knows it, too. The judge even points out that Meadows is not charged with violating the Hatch Act -- which, to be fair, I don't think Georgia has any right to do, but they still didn't. But that Meadows still broke it.

The types of behaviors that Meadows is
alleged to be involved in included post-election activities and election outcomes
in various States pertaining to a particular candidate for office. If these potentially
political activities indeed come against the Hatch Act, its regulations limit such
efforts. These prohibitions on executive branch employees (including the White
House Chief of Staff) reinforce the Court’s conclusion that Meadows has not
shown how his actions relate to the scope of his federal executive branch office.
Federal officer removal is thereby inapposite.

The judge then points out that Meadows, on the famous phone call, now known as "Overt Act 96" which just sounds dirty, said that there would be no federal funds to help Georgia "find" the "missing" votes. This is a stupid, stupid, stupid fucking thing to say if you're claiming you're working as a federal official, because you're pointing out that, no, you're not.

Meadows failed to provide sufficient evidence that these actions related to
any legitimate purpose of the executive branch. The Court determines as a matter
of fact, making a request to the Georgia Secretary of State’s Office regarding a
possibility that the Trump campaign could provide financial resources to fund
the recount effort, even if not directly on behalf of the campaign, is still campaign
related political activity. Thus, Meadows has not met his burden in establishing
that Overt Act 96 related to the scope of his official duties.

In other words, RICO. There was a long and involved conspiracy, and Meadows is trying to weasel out of it because he thinks he has a defense for his acts, by virtue of being a federal official. Even if he's right, which he isn't, the fact that he was working with other people who were not is enough to throw his case back to Georgia where it belongs.

Get rekt, Meadows. You had the best shot at this and you failed. See you in Georgia, bitch.

[cubby]

Does killing democracy to save democracy end any better? Because removing someone from the ballot, or invalidating their win, because you think they shouldn't win is effectively killing democracy. No matter how valid you feel it is.

So long as Trump hasn't been convicted of Insurrection by jan 2025 that would be what you would be doing.

If Democracy dies naturally (i.e. by handing itself over to an insane dictator-wannabe) then that's how it dies. But it cannot ignore it's own rules and kill itself. Both outcomes are horrible/awful/tragic and could spell a great many disasters, only one of the two should happen.

[Breccia]

More on the new developments of the unsealed Georgia grand jury.

One, indicting Trump was not unanimous, but it was 19 out of 20. While those aren't great odds when looking at a conviction necessarily, it does not look good for Trump's re-election chances either, when only 5% of Americans think the evidence doesn't matter.

Two, there were other laws the grand jury said Trump broke, GA election laws, that Trump hasn't been charged with. Yet.

Three, there were 16 fake Georgia electors. Three of them were not even named.

- - - Updated - - -

Dershowitz publishes OP ED claiming the trial against Trump is an affront to justice worldwide.

No, really.

The four criminal trials currently scheduled for former President Donald Trump are amongst the most significant and controversial trials in American history. It is imperative that they also be among the fairest trials in our history. Regardless of the results—acquittal, conviction, hung jury—the trials must be perceived as having been fair. The defendant must receive the benefit of all of his constitutional and statutory rights. Not only is Donald Trump on trial in these cases, but the American system of justice is on trial, not only in America but around the world.

Most of the rest is garbage we've heard before.

The defendant is not only a former president; he is also the leading candidate to run against the incumbent president. Never before in our history has a leading presidential candidate been indicted, especially in the run-up to the election. If the trials themselves are unfair or even reasonably perceived to be unfair, our nation will be further divided and our standing in the world of democracies will be further damaged.

Justice is still not a popularity contest. Also, his claims of "reasonably perceived to be unfair" mean nothing when Trump's rabid fanbase believe everything he says.

And then there's some stuff about how the locations of the trials are unfair, but hey, if you don't want to stand trial in NY, DC, or GA, don't commit crimes there. There's a reason I don't speed with out-of-state plates. And the timing too, but again, Trump's the one who declared he was running instantly. All four indictments were before the first debates. Which he skipped.

Simply put, Team Trump has no defense except "it's unfair because people hate Trump for all those crimes he committed, we shouldn't prosecute him because he polls well".

[Edge-]

Oh I didn't think we'd already get the, "I'm not on trial, the system is on trial!" speech already. Does Dershowitz think this is GDQ or something?

[Sunseeker]

Oh I didn't think we'd already get the, "I'm not on trial, the system is on trial!" speech already. Does Dershowitz think this is GDQ or something?

I don't think he's wrong in the first part, the system is on trial. Can we hold a fair trial for someone who is wealthy, powerful, and an ex-president to boot? The way the trial takes place, the way Trump is treated (and I get the article is suggesting he be treated softly) will all have massive implications for the future of our justice system, how it is perceived both internally and externally, and the future of our democracy in general.

The second part is of course the problematic part, because it handwaives away the criminality and focuses on Trump's positions(past, present and future). It's not that we haven't tried rich and powerful people before, and those trials were just as important to the continued freedom and fairness of the country, but we we didn't talk about how Al Capone was such a successful businessman and a "leading future businessman" when he went to trial for all his crimes.

[Bluespiderman57]

Giuliani asks judge to rescind charges in Georgia election case citing ‘deficiencies’

Rudy Giuliani, a longtime ally and former attorney for former President Trump, asked a Georgia judge on Friday to rescind the charges levied against him in the Fulton County election interference case, citing several “deficiencies” in the indictment.

The former New York City mayor was indicted alongside the former president and 17 others by a Fulton County grand jury last month over their alleged efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election in Georgia.

However, Giuliani’s lawyers argued in Friday’s filing that the 41-count indictment fell short on several fronts and that the charges against their client should be dismissed.

“Defendant moves this Court to quash the indictment against him, as it is not perfect in form and substance, fails to provide sufficient notice as to what he must defend against at trial, and the pleadings in said indictment are insufficient to protect him from double jeopardy in a separate prosecution,” they wrote in a new filing.

His attorneys alleged that the indictment fails to separate criminal acts from legal acts, describing the 98-page document as a “conspiratorial bouillabaisse consisting of purported criminal acts, daily activities, and constitutionally protected speech.”

They also argued that the indictment does not clearly lay out the “essential facts” that constitute the charges against Giuliani and suggested that it places him at risk of “double jeopardy.”

Giuliani, along with the other 18 defendants, pleaded not guilty earlier this month and waived his right to an in-person arraignment.

The Georgia indictment comes on top of several other legal battles facing Giuliani, including three defamation suits from two voting machine companies and a pair of election workers he accused of manipulating ballots in the 2020 election.

So, my question is, after about 3 weeks? They are just now coming back saying they even know what all this is about? Is that really how Giuliani wants to try and play this? I mean, I know he is getting pretty desperate, but why would he even try this?

I don't know. This just feels like something that should have been done at least a week ago. Though he has been having issues getting a lawyer, so that may explain some of it.

[Breccia]

So, my question is, after about 3 weeks?

I don't know. This just feels like something that should have been done at least a week ago.

Are you suggesting you're a better lawyer than Giuliani? Because I'd back that.

Team Trump is doing what exactly what we expected, because they keep doing it. They make shit up and pass ALL CAPS off as evidence. For example you, I mean you Bluespiderman57 the one I'm quoting, what does Giuliani mean by "double jeopardy"?

No really, take your best shot at it. Because I'm guessing you and I will come up with the same answer.

[Bluespiderman57]

Are you suggesting you're a better lawyer than Giuliani? Because I'd back that.

Team Trump is doing what exactly what we expected, because they keep doing it. They make shit up and pass ALL CAPS off as evidence. For example you, I mean you Bluespiderman57 the one I'm quoting, what does Giuliani mean by "double jeopardy"?

No really, take your best shot at it. Because I'm guessing you and I will come up with the same answer.

I mean, the case in DC. And I guess I can see the scheme now. I pay attention to this stuff more than a lot of people, and I still get overwhelmed sometimes with just how much shit Trump and his minions have stirred up. So why wouldn't they keep doing what they've been doing?

[Breccia]

I mean, the case in DC.

Well, that's actually a better answer than mine.

Agent Smith hasn't indicted Giuliani yet. The claims of double jeopardy, if you are right, suggest Giuliani knows he's going to be. Now, I have 100% faith that both Smith and Willis have been communicating and, no, there's no real risk, but Giuliani saying there is risk is very telling. He was named in the indictment, and he's leaning on that.

The thing is, saying "I could be at risk of double jeopardy if someone else arrests me" is just fucking irrelevant. I mean, I could say the same thing. "Your Honor, I know I ran over those 57 elementary school children and several nuns, but you can't convict me because someone else might want to arrest me for that horrible crime I did on purpose, and you have to give this hypothetical second person arresting me first dibs".

Giuliani saw his co-conspirators try to move their case to federal court and he wants in on that. The approach he's taking, claiming Georgia can't prosecute because the feds might, is...novel, but highly likely to fail. Because it's fucking bullshit.

The rest of his claim seems less "fucking bullshit" and more "standard bullshit". Including the "everything he did was legal, you can't charge him, what he did was not a crime" in the analogy I keep using "I was just saying, while the bank teller was close enough to hear me, how very lethal the gun I was holding was and how I'd love to have all the money. I didn't rob her, I was expressing an opinion. It's not a crime that she handed over the money voluntarily." They're going to keep using First Amendment in public because they know it will fail in court.

And yes, they will keep doing it until it costs them. What I'd like to see happen, is one of them use some kind of affirmative defense that requires they admit guilt by accident. Because the sheer volume of random-ass garbage they're trying, I think that's more likely to happen than a not guilty finding.

[Gorsameth]

yeah it seems like bullshit that will not fly in front of any judge to claim double jeopardy in your first case.
If such a risk were to exist the time where you to get to claim it is when your in front of the second case's judge. Then you can say "I was already charged with this in case X".

I doesn't make sense to my laymen brain to pre-emptively claim double jeopardy as an argument to get the first case thrown out.

[Jastall]

yeah it seems like bullshit that will not fly in front of any judge to claim double jeopardy in your first case.
If such a risk were to exist the time where you to get to claim it is when your in front of the second case's judge. Then you can say "I was already charged with this in case X".

I doesn't make sense to my laymen brain to pre-emptively claim double jeopardy as an argument to get the first case thrown out.

Throwing shit at the wall and seeing what sticks has been the MO of those people for a long time. They don't care if it makes sense or not, much like Trump the key is to drown the discourse in bullshit so that it's hard to find the truth.

It's less likely to work in a court setting than on Twitter or Newsmax of course, but those are also the people who lost almost 50 cases in courts across the nation when it came to Trump winning the election. They're nothing is not persistent in their nonsense.

[Breccia]

It's less likely to work in a court setting than on Twitter or Newsmax of course.

Indeed. Which is why they're doing it. They know they have no legal defense, and have no choice but to somehow make it an election issue. Yes, the irony is lost on them.

- - - Updated - - -

So Trump apparently forgot he hates football yesterday and went to an Iowa v Iowa game, with the sole intent of sucking up to Iowa voters. Nothing new or special there.

Until the plane flying the "WHERE'S MELANIA?" banner went overhead.

Hah hah hah, funny trolling, they got him...actually, has anyone seen Melania? Nobody seems to know where she is. I can't find any stories about Melania, except the banner above, in the last week. I found this People article from last month about how a source told People Melania's take was "wow, that fourth indictment sounds bad, good luck with that". For the record, the NYPost agrees with this assessment.

I also found the New Yorker's article Melania Concerned That Trump Will Be Unavailable to Attend Divorce Proceedings, but of course, that's satire.

And I can find a variety of conspiracy theories, such as "she's filed for divorce but it's sealed until Trump loses or is convicted, and she's paid more the longer that is". I, of course, do not believe that -- you could not keep "Melania files for divorce" secret no matter what you tried. I mean, remember the last time Trump tried to keep a secret? The FBI kicked down the door and took it back. But the fact that such baseless, false conspiracy theories exist is a symptom of Melania not making any appearances in public.

We already know "the Party of Family Values" is a lie, but leaving out the generics, what do the specifics of "Trump's own wife can't stand him" tell you, Trump supporters?

[Trifle]

The thing is, saying "I could be at risk of double jeopardy if someone else arrests me" is just fucking irrelevant. I mean, I could say the same thing. "Your Honor, I know I ran over those 57 elementary school children and several nuns, but you can't convict me because someone else might want to arrest me for that horrible crime I did on purpose, and you have to give this hypothetical second person arresting me first dibs".

Double jeopardy doesn't even apply to state vs federal charges in the US. Apparently double jeopardy only prevents you being charged for the same crime twice by the same sovereign. And state vs federal are considered different sovereign entities, so if whatever crime you did breaks both state and federal laws, you can be tried and convicted by both.

[Gabriel]

I would ask a different 'fun' question. Should a democracy knowingly and willingly hand over power to a fascist if they win the election? How do you deal with that beyond just praying it works out and there will still be a democracy in 4 years?

You people keep forgetting the real reason you have the Second Amendment.

[Breccia]

Double jeopardy doesn't even apply to state vs federal charges in the US. Apparently double jeopardy only prevents you being charged for the same crime twice by the same sovereign. And state vs federal are considered different sovereign entities, so if whatever crime you did breaks both state and federal laws, you can be tried and convicted by both.

This is also a very good point.

Incidentally, I suggested @Bluespiderman57 had a better guess than myself, which is why I never went there in the first place: I thought, I legit thought, Giuliani was talking about his disbarrment. Which not only isn't state vs. federal, but not even a criminal charge.

"Not even Giuliani could be that inept."

Citation needed.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, let's see how Trump, famously on site for 9/11, is honoring this somber day in our nation's history.

In a phony and probably rigged Wall Street Journal poll--

Yep.

I suppose it's possible Trump will attend some memorial service or the like later, but Harris is at one right now.

Just pointing it out since FOX News made a big deal *ding* about Biden not being at any of the sites, but instead on his way to G20. Well, Trump had no such excuse, and he's not at any of them either, and not a peep out of them. Oh, also Biden's dedicating a new memorial, which he can do because he's President.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, it has not been a good day for Team Trump.

1) FOX News host Peter Doocey *ding* doing live commentary on Biden's G20 trip accidentally

He has been basically working all through the night, the equivalent of an all-nighter Eastern time. So he’s probably pretty tired, pretty jet-lagged, but...

"But what?"

But he changed topics, when he realized he was admitting Biden was a hard-working President. Video in the link.

2) Mike Lindell took a mid-deposition break to go on Steve Bannon's show and sell MyPillow.

During the final deposition, on August 23, Lindell left the room in the middle of questioning to call into Steve Bannon's "War Room" podcast, where he hawked his company's pillows, sandals, and dog blankets.

"Well, Steve, I'm in the middle of a deposition for a big attack on MyPillow right now, and it's disgusting," Lindell told Bannon during the episode, before telling listeners they could get a discount on pillows with the promo code "WARROOM" for the company's 20th-anniversary sale.

"We have the MyPillow beds — the best beds in history," Lindell continued. "You haven't even heard about 'em yet."

"Mike Lindell, you're a patriot and a hero," Bannon responded. "Go back into your deposition and give them hell. Give them hell from the War Room."

When Lindell returned to the deposition, he insisted on keeping his cellphone with him, according to a filing from Coomer's legal team. When he stood up to take a call in the middle of questioning, Coomer's lawyers called it a day.

"Shouldn't he be taking this more seriously? Isn't he broke?"

Yes, and yes.

3) Mark Meadows, glutton for punishment, files emergency motion to have his Georgia case paused.

"On what grounds?"

That he doesn't want to go to jail.

"No, really."

Um...

Meadows’ filing argued that without a stay of Jones’ order, the former White House chief could be “irreparably injured” as his prosecution charges forward in state court.

“Absent a stay, the State will continue seeking to try Meadows 42 days from now,” his attorneys wrote. “If the State gets its way, Meadows could be forced to go to trial — and could be convicted and incarcerated — before the standard timeline for a federal appeal would play out.”

"Wait, did he just admit he's going to almost immediately be found guilty?"

Yes.

"And...he thinks that's a selling point?"

More realistically, I think he's trying to judge-hop. Anything is better than an assured conviction for all those crimes he committed.

4) And, of course, Trump.

So by now, everyone knows about Trump ranting and raving seemingly at random about the WSJ poll. There's more to the story.

In a phony and probably rigged Wall Street Journal poll, coming out of nowhere to soften the mental incompetence blow that is so obvious with Crooked Joe Biden, they ask about my age and mentality. Where did that come from? A few years ago I was the only one to agree to a mental acuity test, & ACED IT. Now that the Globalists at Fox & the WSJ have failed to push their 3rd tier candidate to success, they do this. Well, I hereby challenge Rupert Murdoch & Sons, Biden, WSJ heads, to acuity tests!

"Wasn't he basically ordered to take the test to see if he was impared? In what world was 'I was the only one' appropriate?"

Trump's world. This is revisionist history with a splash of crazy, followed by several more gallons of crazy.

"That's just stupid!"

Oh, just you wait.

I will name the place and the test, and it will be a tough one. Nobody will come even close to me! We can also throw some physical activity into it. I just won the Senior Club Championship at a big golf club, with many very good players. To do so you need strength, accuracy, touch and, above all, mental toughness. Ask Bret Baier (Fox), a very good golfer. The Wall Street Journal & Fox are damaged goods after their failed DeSanctimonious push & stupid $780,000,000 "settlement." MORONS!!!

"Wait, so he names the time and place and the test? That sure sounds rigged to me."

I think the idea is, he invents some bullshit, they don't show up, he paints it as a win.

"Didn't he skip the debates?"

No, he's only skipped one so far. He hasn't missed debates, plural, yet. But he has no moral authority to challenge random-ass people, that's for sure.

"Is he genuine losing it? Not 'har har Trump has grandpa moment' does he actually have Alzheimers?"

Well neither of us are medical doctors, nor do we know him personally enough to judge. But I know someone who does.

According to his niece Mary Trump's book, "Too Much and Never Enough: How My Family Created the World's Most Dangerous Man," Trump derided his father when he was ill with Alzheimer's — and took full advantage of it by coercing him into changing the will in Donald's favor. Mary Trump has taped interviews with Trump's sister who said, "Dad was in dementia...I show it to [husband]John, and he says, 'Holy s—t.' It was basically taking the whole estate and giving it to Donald." She also said that Trump "has no principles" and "you can't trust him," which is stating the obvious.

There were lawsuits over Fred Trump's will and the Washington Post reported that Donald testified in a deposition that he didn't know his father had dementia and that he believed he was "very, very sharp." That is certainly a lie. He'd been in cognitive decline for years by that point.

It's quite obvious that Trump is clinging to that test as a way to reassure himself that he's not impaired. But, of course, he is, and on some level he knows it. He may not have dementia but he's got so many other psychological defects that it hardly matters. After all, the man has bought himself two felony indictments for the simple reason that he couldn't admit he lost.

As his niece Mary Trump said, "his talking about the dementia test the way he's talking about it is failing the dementia test." And he fails it again every time he talks about it. He just can't seem to stop himself.

And, just to add more evidence:

Trump attacks unemployment rate as ‘phony,’ ‘fake,’ and ‘crooked’

"Why are you linking something from 2016?"

I'm not. That article was posted today.

At a campaign event in South Dakota on Friday night, for example, Trump told attendees, in reference to economic data on employment:

“Now you’re given phony numbers — because far fewer people are looking for jobs. ... They throw around 3.5%, 3.6%, 3.7%, but it’s a different group of people. ... So it’s a fake number.”

He went on to describe the unemployment rate as “crooked,” before declaring, “During Biden’s first 30 months in office, just 2.1 million new jobs have been created.” As part of the harangue, Trump concluded, “The fact is, we’re probably heading into a Great Depression.”

"Did the US govt change how the unemployment rate is calculated in the last...ever?"

Trump tried to change it to claim 42% unemployment. But nothing official, no.

"Only 2.1 million new jobs?"

No. It's 13.5 million. Trump is lying.

The facts remain that Trump is a lying criminal loser surrounded by lying criminal loser. We already knew he's scared of losing the race, because then he'll go to jail for all those crimes he committed. But he seems scared of losing his mind, too, so much that he challenged a dozen random-ass people to a test he couldn't remember the name or purpose of -- or he does know, and he's lying, just as bad. And thinks he can take Murdoch's sons in arm-wrestling, apparently.

Trump is disintegrating, before our eyes, into dry orange powder.

[Gelannerai]

It’s so cartoonishly evil that most people would just dismiss it offhand if the accusations were leveled at anyone normal. It’s like watching a less-capable version of Boris and Natas-

Waitaminute, what kind of accent did Melan-I mean Natasha have again?