Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[ringpriest]

Rolling trackers say Habba is now demanding a mistrial, because Engoron wouldn't let Trump spew random-ass gibberish on the witness stand. Oh, and for imposing gag orders.

I don't see any realistic reason why, if the judge was biased, they would declare a mistrial based on their own bias. This sounds like something you'd appeal.

- - - Updated - - -

Once again, it's time for Guess the Speaker! And the answer might just surprise you.



That is Trump’s attorney Alina Habba talking about NY AG Letitia James

I did say it would surprise you.

Not really surprising. It's very clear that Habba is being paid serving as an obedient mouthpiece with a law degree, and not really acting as a lawyer.

[Edge-]

Not really surprising. It's very clear that Habba is being paid serving as an obedient mouthpiece with a law degree, and not really acting as a lawyer.

She'd better hope she's not relying on others for advice. Because I believe Jenna Ellis, Esquire, performed a similar role at least outside of court.

And last I saw her she was crying while reading a prepared statement about how sorry she was she did all these obviously fraudulent and unlawful things and it's really not her fault even if she's pleading guilty because she doesn't have a legal defense.

Curious if we'll get some Habba tears, too.

[gondrin]

I'm still waiting for this to happen if and when Trump takes the stand for Jan 6th.

[Breccia]

Not really surprising. It's very clear that Habba is being paid serving as an obedient mouthpiece with a law degree, and not really acting as a lawyer.

Indeed. There is no reasonable portrayal of Habba's case which isn't just a column filled with L's and F's. I know she's trying to spin this like the court of public opinion is what matters here, but she's basically saying she's getting her ass kicked, routed even, by an ignorant idiot. Not the kind of admission most people would make, but then, "my client is innocent" isn't working.

[Endus]

Indeed. There is no reasonable portrayal of Habba's case which isn't just a column filled with L's and F's. I know she's trying to spin this like the court of public opinion is what matters here, but she's basically saying she's getting her ass kicked, routed even, by an ignorant idiot. Not the kind of admission most people would make, but then, "my client is innocent" isn't working.

It's particularly silly because there isn't even a jury. The only person she can be appealing to here is the person she's attacking; the judge. As long as Engoron is clearly on the right side of the law, they won't even be able to push for an appeal or mistrial; they need grounds for either, and "we don't like the result of the last trial" isn't grounds.

[Edge-]

It's particularly silly because there isn't even a jury. The only person she can be appealing to here is the person she's attacking; the judge. As long as Engoron is clearly on the right side of the law, they won't even be able to push for an appeal or mistrial; they need grounds for either, and "we don't like the result of the last trial" isn't grounds.

She'd file it in appeals court/whatever court is above his head.

Though I'm not entirely convinced that's the primary play here, as I'm fairly certain even they realize it's a fairly longshot bid. If they can't fatfuck it away, they're going to fight this where Donald fights every battle - in the court of public opinion. Because remember: He now creates reality around him and his followers believe it. If he spins a tale of a nasty, Trump-hating liberal leftist Biden judge that's part of the (((DEEEP STATE))) out to get him, his base will lap it up and he's banking that he can continue to get elected Republican officials to fight for him in the court of public opinion as well.

Because too many Republicans seem more than happy to tell him that his new clothes are indeed fabulous to his face. We keep being told they also giggle and cringe and lament behind his back and all, but I still don't really buy that secretly, actually, all these Republicans really hate the guy as much as we keep being told by anonymous sources or folks like Romney who's noping the fuck out of his mess of a political party.

[Gorsameth]

Trump is fighting all these cases in the public opinion rather then the law because he can't win on the law and his only chance is stalling and winning the election to then hide behind the office of the President. And yes all this isn't likely to convince anyone but his cultists but those are the only ones he has left and appealing to them is all he knows how to do.

When your out of options you fall back to the one option you know, even if it likely doesn't work.

[arandomuser]

dems out preforming polling in these special elections
hopefully the polls just overcorrected by weighting trumps core demographic higher in polls to thwart accusations of bias
and also theres the possibility that in off year elections more informed voters are more likely to vote vs general election which will be mostly low-information voters

[postman1782]

dems out preforming polling in these special elections
hopefully the polls just overcorrected by weighting trumps core demographic higher in polls to thwart accusations of bias
and also theres the possibility that in off year elections more informed voters are more likely to vote vs general election which will be mostly low-information voters

Most of the polls being done now, are just taking anyone that will answer the phone. And most of the times, it is people with landlines. I haven't answered the phone for anyone that I don't know the number of on my cellphone for years. Unless I feel like a trolling mood that is. I got a call randomly today for some moronic police fundraiser thing, I hung up on them.

That is why there was the one poll that was over 60% Republicans.

[Drutt]

dems out preforming polling in these special elections
hopefully the polls just overcorrected by weighting trumps core demographic higher in polls to thwart accusations of bias
and also theres the possibility that in off year elections more informed voters are more likely to vote vs general election which will be mostly low-information voters

Zoomers are actually showing up and voting, unlike previous younger generations, and they don't show up in the polling because they don't have landlines.

As a result, it's highly likely that Democrat candidates will continue to outperform polling, because the Zoomers heavily skew Democrat.

[Breccia]

So, hot take on the upcoming Ivanka testimony. I'm predicting it will be dull and lifeless.

Ivanka barely put up a fight, and also, is no longer a target. She is no longer an employee, but when she was, she was the employee of Donald J. Trump, misogynist. She never had any real power. Trump does not respect women for their abilities, he respects them for their looks. There's plenty of evidence, not the least of which the ongoing "Carroll was too ugly for me to rape her" defamation lawsuit.

Ivanka has nothing to say. She's not a target because she has nothing to say.

[Shadowferal]

So, hot take on the upcoming Ivanka testimony. I'm predicting it will be dull and lifeless.

Hmm...prosecutor won't likely treat her as hostile. But the defense...?

Pfft...Who am I kidding? If they say anything at all I'd be surprised.

[DarkTZeratul]

Trump is fighting all these cases in the public opinion rather then the law because he can't win on the law and his only chance is stalling and winning the election to then hide behind the office of the President. And yes all this isn't likely to convince anyone but his cultists but those are the only ones he has left and appealing to them is all he knows how to do.

"If the law isn't on your side, pound the facts. If the facts aren't on your side, pound the law. If neither is on your side, pound the table."

[Breccia]

But the defense...?

Trump is the defense. Ivanka will choose her words very carefully, knowing full well Trump will cut her off if she says something true but not flattering. So I agree, they won't have any reason to ask any questions. They might, but it will be along the lines of "was Trump Org the bigliest and most yuge company ever?"

[Templar 331]

I can imagine the defense's questioning going like this.

Defense Attorney: Mrs Ivanka Trump, do you love your daddy?

Ivanka: Yes.

Defense Attorney: Would you ever hurt your daddy?

Ivanka: No.

Trump: Good.

Defense Attorney: No further questions.

[Breccia]

Lunch break, but rolling tracker time.

I was like 80% to 90% correct. Ivanka responded to everything with "I don't remember" and flirting with the jury ex--

"There is no jury."

She's selling "I don't remember" with smiling and giggling. That's coached behavior, she's not sixteen, she's an upper-level business manager, the "dumb blonde" approach is for selling the jury. She's putting on an act, just as phony as "I don't remember all those crimes Trump committed".

Anyhow, there was one exception. Emails between her and Kushner, which she's claiming are privileged. Just those, and nothing else.

"But neither she nor her husband are lawyers."

Correct, which is why this is so important. Yes, husbands and wives get some protection, but not so much when they're covering business affairs. Otherwise, why not always marry your vice president and commit nasty crimes?

I'll let @cubby shame me when I'm wrong, as I always do, but until then, I'll use my go-to source:

Spousal privilege, also known as marital privilege and husband-wife privilege, includes two types of privileges: the spousal communications privilege and the spousal testimonial privilege.

The spousal communications privilege applies in civil and criminal cases. It shields communications made in confidence during a valid marriage. The purpose of the privilege is to provide assurance that all private statements between spouses will be free from public exposure. In order to invoke a spousal communications privilege, the party must establish that (a) at the time of the communication, the spouses were in a valid marriage; (b) the communications were intended to convey information between spouses, and neither spouse has disclosed the communication to a third party; and (c) the communications were intended to be confidential. The spousal communications privilege generally survives the end of a marriage, but communications made after the marriage ends are not protected. This privilege does not apply if the spouses are suing each other in a civil case or one of the spouses initiates a criminal proceeding against the other.

The spousal testimonial privilege precludes one spouse from testifying against the other spouse in criminal or related proceedings. Either spouse can invoke the privilege to prevent the testimony. This privilege does not survive the dissolution of the marital relationship. If the spouses are suing each other in a civil case, or if one of the spouses initiates a criminal proceeding against the other spousal, spousal testimonial privilege does not apply.

"That sounds pretty ironclad, and I don't see any meaningful exceptions in this context."

The issue is, did the details of this conversation extend to anyone else? I believe the answer is "yes". Leaving aside any Reply All or CC issues, Ivanka and Kushner talking on company email is fine, but only in the sense that nothing they talked about went further than that. Meaning, if either one acted on it in a way that required a third person -- Weaselberg or Trump or Cohen for example -- than the privilege fails.

Also, I suspect (but don't know for sure) that the same issues happen here with lawyer-client privilege. If two people are conspiring to commit a crime, hiding it under spousal privilege might not work and in my uninformed opinion shouldn't work. Again, why not always marry the person you're conspiring with? Go to Vegas, marry a hitman, arrange payment, wait for the kill, divorce?

And, because I love the sound of my own voice, there's more.

NYState already has the emails, that's why they were brought up. Ivanka's lawyers, yes she has her own isn't that interesting, are saying they never waived privilege. NYState doesn't care if Kushner is asking what's for dinner or if he thinks Ivanka is a horrible negligent mother. NYState cares if one of them is lying to artificially inflate a Trump Org price and the other one has any reaction at all. They know what the emails say. Ivanka's lawyers just don't want the judge to see it.

I'm not going to tall Ivanka's lawyers incompetent, there hasn't been enough yet for me to judge. But I will say, if they were going to exert privilege, this feels like the wrong time to do so. The time to do so was when the emails were subpoena'd, through the use of a filter team.

Plus, again especially with there being no jury (smiles) (giggles) (flips hair) there's a lot you can learn from this:

Weaselberg: I'm going to illegally inflate some prices. What do you think?
Kushner: Hold on.
(privileged)
(privileged)
(privileged)
Kushner: Sounds good to me!

Yeah, Engoron is several states away from being an idiot.

And, of course, Ivanka's not on trial. This is still Trump Org doing Trump Org things. Even if Ivanka manages to get spousal privilege to stick, that won't change that Trump Org people intentionally inflated prices.

I would like to see how this ends, but it doesn't seem like it'll matter much.

[Edge-]

https://www.salon.com/2023/11/08/ny-...witness-stand/

But, Rubin explained, evidence introduced as Ivanka Trump testified showed that Donald Trump and his daughter met with Deutsche Bank's Rosemary Vrablic in 2011 and struck a deal. The terms required Donald Trump, in exchange for very low interest rates, to sign a personal guarantee that he'd cover all principal, annual and operating income, and attest that he had a minimum net worth of $2.5 billion. That requirement, as Ivanka Trump and a Trump Organization exec acknowledged in an email exchange, posed a problem. "Nonetheless, Donald Trump told Deutsche Bank not only did he have $2.5 billion in his net worth exclusive of his brand, he had over $4 billion," Rubin said. "And so this has been kind of a devastating series of documents for the Trump Organization and the AG's case against them."

Oops, she was party to a bit of the willful fraud, it appears.

It's impressive how strong the evidence is and how brazen the apparent decades of fraud from the Trump Crime Family have been.

[Gorsameth]

The evidence is in fact so strong that whether or not the committed fraud isn't up for trial. The judge already ruled that it 100% happened based on the existing evidence.

[Breccia]

Oops, she was party to a bit of the willful fraud, it appears.

So, don't read this as defending her other than devil's advocate, but, Ivanka knowing Trump didn't have $2.5 billion doesn't make her party to the fraud, only that she knew fraud was about to happen. Unless she signed something later, of course.

That said, I do wonder when Deutsche Bank will just decide that enough is enough and call in an air strike. They own Trump and he hasn't provided. They need to step in and seize his assets while he has any -- and Trump Org is about to be shut down.

[Gorsameth]

So, don't read this as defending her other than devil's advocate, but, Ivanka knowing Trump didn't have $2.5 billion doesn't make her party to the fraud, only that she knew fraud was about to happen. Unless she signed something later, of course.

That said, I do wonder when Deutsche Bank will just decide that enough is enough and call in an air strike. They own Trump and he hasn't provided. They need to step in and seize his assets while he has any -- and Trump Org is about to be shut down.

Could be that the Russians who 'own' Deutsche Bank through all their money laundering won't let them go after Trump. Because Russia still needs Trump to become President.