Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Endus]

Because of the basic legal principle of being allowed to know what you’re accused of so you can mount a legal defense? Come on you want to nail this guy to the wall don’t you? Not have him bounce out of a kangaroo court right with legitimate argument for appeal? It’s not ALL feels no real for you right? Right?

You don't need to know the content of a document to demonstrate that you never had possession of that document. If you stole a cooler you thought had a human heart inside, it doesn't matter what the cooler actually contained. What matters is your intent and action.

What Trump's accused of is clear; the possession of classified documents he had no authority to own, and the willful refusal to return them properly when ordered to. Just knowing that the document exists and was classified at a certain level is all that's relevant to the case, not the specific contents of those files. That would only need to be introduced if it could be demonstrated that Trump too specific unlawful action based on those contents, but that isn't part of the accusations as far as I'm aware.

Court cases don't give cause to violate classified document restrictions the way you're trying to claim. Otherwise, any spy could sue whatever agency over whatever bullshit manufactured nontroversy they invented and demand whatever classified intel their home countries wanted as discovery. It doesn't work that way for stupidly obvious reasons. Come the fuck on, man, you're being cartoonishly silly.

[Edge-]

Because of the basic legal principle of being allowed to know what you’re accused of so you can mount a legal defense?

It's not as if a few extremely classified documents are going to make or break their defense, I imagine.

Generally I agree, yes: The defense should have all the same evidence the prosecution does to provide their client with the best possible legal representation. However surely you can acknowledge that a case like this, dealing with such highly sensitive documents, presets a fringe case where exceptions are possible, no?

That they can mount a defense on all the less seriously classified information as their foundation, because if they can't defend that material then surely they'd have no chance in hell of defending Donald's taking of even more classified materials.

They have access to the overwhelming majority of the evidence: There are just a handful of ludicrously secret docs that Donald took that he shouldn't have taken.

Come on you want to nail this guy to the wall don’t you?

I want justice. If that means, "nailing him to the wall" so be it, but "nailing him to the wall" is not the goal here.

Not have him bounce out of a kangaroo court right with legitimate argument for appeal? It’s not ALL feels no real for you right? Right?

Again, "Your honor, out of the hundreds of classified and top secret documents our client improperly took and then refused to hand back we were unable to review a small handful of them due to their extremely classified nature. Yes, we reviewed and used the overwhelming majority of the classified materials, but these few were really going to be the lynchpin of our defense!" doesn't sound to me to be a very credible argument.

I think while everyone has their day in court and all, we can pretty confidently and safely say that yes, Donald did take upwards of hundreds of classified documents. Yes, Donald intentionally withheld those document despite the Archives and FBI repeatedly asking for it back. It sure does appear that the documents were intentionally moved, secretly, during this time in an attempt to hide them. And given all this, it sure seems like these documents were intentionally taken.

I'd think we can start with some baseline information we can all agree on. Unless Donald us the victim of a "DEEP STATE(TM)" plot against him and the "DEEP STATE(TM)" planted those docs and is lying about this whole thing and it's a coverup that makes the widespread government complicity in Watergate look like childs play! Or something, I dunno.

[Endus]

It's not as if a few extremely classified documents are going to make or break their defense, I imagine.

Generally I agree, yes: The defense should have all the same evidence the prosecution does to provide their client with the best possible legal representation. However surely you can acknowledge that a case like this, dealing with such highly sensitive documents, presets a fringe case where exceptions are possible, no?

That they can mount a defense on all the less seriously classified information as their foundation, because if they can't defend that material then surely they'd have no chance in hell of defending Donald's taking of even more classified materials.

They have access to the overwhelming majority of the evidence: There are just a handful of ludicrously secret docs that Donald took that he shouldn't have taken.

All the defense needs in terms of information is that, to make up an example, the prosecution is entering "Document A3-6158943-1, classifed Top Secret" into evidence, without its contents being revealed. The argument is that Trump shouldn't have had that document, due to that classification level. He has no need-to-know or clearance, so the contents really don't matter to the case, just the possession of the document. You've got the ID code or whatever, you can reference which specific document it is without knowing the contents. It's not much different than putting someone on the witness list who knows classified intelligence but is going to rightly refuse to answer questions regarding it on the stand if the court doesn't have clearance and the specifics aren't relevant to the case.

[Breccia]

So big surprise, MMO-C's second-favorite lawyer had a lot to say about Giuliani, one of MMO-C's most ridiculed lawyers.



A point that stood out to me:
1) There are various laws that limit the amount of damages a (defamation) lawsuit can inflict, based on the defendant's net worth.
2) But Giuliani never disclosed his net worth. He was "declared guilty" because he refused to comply with discovery.
3) Therefore the damages of $75 million, well over his net worth by any reasonable accounting, will stand.

"Didn't he say in his bankruptcy filing he was worth $10 million?"

Well, yes, but that's too little, too late. Maybe next time (there will be a next time) he'll actually follow the law. Until then, the rulings by the judge in the case did include that Giulian's noncompliance with mandatory laws meant that evidence could be withheld from the jury as punishment. Therefore, even if he gets an appeal, that jury might never learn about his net worth, either.

Also, y'all saw me post, that $10 million claim is far lower than anyone else's assessment. Giuliani is likely lying.

The video's worth watching. There's other good bits in there -- including a bit about a "bond for appeal" that's hilarious.

[Dontrike]

Because the burden of proof is on the prosecution?

Neat, the judge can see that evidence, but Trump and his lawyers should most definitely not as his lawyers do not have that clearance and neither should Trump.

Where did I say they’re making anything up? They still have to disclose their proof to the defense. That’s how our legal system is supposed to work.

When you said "just trust us."

[Gorsameth]

Neat, the judge can see that evidence, but Trump and his lawyers should most definitely not as his lawyers do not have that clearance and neither should Trump.



When you said "just trust us."

I'm pretty damn certain the judge isn't going to see the contents of the top secret documents Trump stole either. Because he is not cleared to (seems basically no one is) and because the exact contents isn't relevant.

[Shadowferal]

If push comes to shove a FISA court can make determination of eligibility of documentation. That said, I don't see it as necessary. Top secret means just that.

[Edge-]

https://themessenger.com/politics/ro...rump-karl-rove

GOP strategist Karl Rove signaled that Republican National Committee Chair Ronna McDaniel could be "in trouble" after the release of a phone call recording in which she and Donald Trump attempted to convince two members of Detroit county board of canvassers to rescind their certification of 2020 votes for President Joe Biden in.

McDaniel can be heard in the Nov. 2020 phone call saying: "Do not sign it," referring to the certification. "We will get you attorneys," she added.

"I think the [chair] is in trouble here, because she’s saying to them, ‘If you agree to change your decision on certification in Wayne County, we’ll get you lawyers to stand by you,'" Rove said on Fox News Friday. "I think that was highly inappropriate."

"She should not have been doing this," added Rove, who was deputy chief of staff for former President George W. Bush.

He also noted potential trouble for Trump "I think the former president's got a problem with this," he said. "I think this is what we would call election interference ... the former president should not have been doing this."

The Trump crime family and the Republican crime organization really are up to a lot!

[gondrin]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opini...10f65551&ei=55

Trump: ‘I Was Doing my Duty as President' by Claiming the Election Was Rigged

Donald Trump claimed that he was merely doing his "duty" as president by alleging that the 2020 election was "rigged" and "stolen," therefore believes he deserves "immunity" from prosecution.

"I wasn't campaigning, the Election was over. I was doing my duty as President to expose and further investigate a Rigged and Stolen Election. It was my obligation to do so, and the proof found is voluminous and irrefutable," the former president wrote in a Truth Social post Sunday morning. "Therefore, among other reasons, of course I am entitled to IMMUNITY. ADDITIONALLY, I DID NOTHING WRONG. Stop the Witch Hunt NOW!"

Trump's comments echo assertions his lawyers made in a late-night filing on Saturday when asking a federal appeals court to toss out the indictment accusing him of trying to overturn the election. Trump's attorneys' argument essentially boils down to one Richard Nixon made to David Frost: If the president does it, it isn't illegal.
"President Trump has absolute immunity from prosecution for his official acts as President," the lawyers wrote. "The indictment alleges only official acts, so it must be dismissed."

Trump has been indicted for his actions following the 2020 election, which his own officials at the time claimed was the most secure in U.S. history. Trump pressured local election officials to overturn results in their states, urged Vice President Mike Pence to stop the certification of electoral votes, and publicly pushed false claims of tampered votes, culminating in the attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6.

In a late-night filing Saturday to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, Trump's lawyers asked the judges to overturn a lower-court's ruling that Trump can be prosecuted for the actions he took while in office. Being president, District Judge Tanya Chutkan wrote in the ruling earlier this month, "does not confer a lifelong ‘get-out-of-jail-free' pass."

Trump's lawyers claim that his actions "all reflect President Trump's efforts and duties, squarely as Chief Executive of the United States, to advocate for and defend the integrity of the federal election, in accord with his view that it was tainted by fraud and irregularity."

Last week, special prosecutor Jack Smith asked the Supreme Court to make an expedited ruling before the D.C. Circuit could chime in, but the court denied his request on Friday. Smith has argued that it would be in the public interest to complete the case ahead of the 2024 election.

The D.C. Circuit Court of three judges - one George H.W. Bush appointee and two Biden appointees - is scheduled to hear oral arguments in the case on Jan. 9.

By insisting on appeals, Trump accomplishes two goals: He defends his own actions while also slow-walking the legal process, potentially pushing back his upcoming March 4 trial date.

[Breccia]

"I wasn't campaigning, the Election was over. I was doing my duty as President to expose and further investigate a Rigged and Stolen Election. It was my obligation to do so, and the proof found is voluminous and irrefutable,"

Trump did attempt to start an investigation, Barr refused. Thing is, that's not what he's in trouble for. He called other states and asked them to make dramatic changes based on nothing.

And as for the "voluminuous" and "irrefutable" evidence, I haven't seen any.

So, I spent the last 23 minutes reading the 2020 Election Thread looking for people who
a) are Trump supporters
b) posted within two weeks of the election, either direction
c) have posted in the last two weeks

I found zero. I could have missed one, but that's just how rare they are.

So instead I'm going to @ @Doctor Amadeus and @TheramoreIsTheBomb who were both very involved around the election, have posted recently, and both appear to be rational, genuine posters.

Have either of you seen this "voluminuous" and "irrefutable" evidence? Because I have not, but I admit I am biased. Perhaps one/both of you have? Based on the number of posts in previous political threads, this does seem like a topic you'd want to weigh in on in this fast-moving thread, and very likely, in a direction that's honest. This is a serious issue raised by the leading candidate of the Republican Party, and both of you had a lot to say in the 2020 election, so I believe you'll take this seriously.

[gondrin]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...ad/ar-AA1lYHwJ

Donald Trump's Reported Smell Becomes Target of Attack Ad

The Lincoln Project has dropped a new ad mocking Donald Trump over his alleged bad smell.

The political advocacy group composed of Republicans who oppose Trump has become known for its slickly produced ads attacking the former president.

On Saturday, it dropped a new ad on X, formerly Twitter, after claims about the former president's odor went viral on the platform, sparking a wave of jokes from users.

"Is that you Donald? #TrumpSmells," The Lincoln Project wrote in a post alongside the ad.

https://twitter.com/ProjectLincoln/s...ack-ad-1855258

The ad opens with a series of images of things that smell bad—a landfill, manure, trash bags—before showing a shot of Trump Tower.

People can be heard sniffing and coughing, as actor Kathy Griffin is heard explaining how Trump has "a distinct smell" that she described as "like body odor with kind of like a scented makeup product."

The sound of buzzing flies is also heard throughout the ad, which ends with a woman asking: "Donald, is that you?"

The "#TrumpStinks" hashtag became the top trending topic on X on Friday after former congressman and CNN commentator Adam Kinzinger posted about Trump's odor.

"I'm genuinely surprised how people close to Trump haven't talked about the odor. It's truly something to behold. Wear a mask if you can."

Griffin responded to Kinzinger's post, writing: "Yep. Can confirm."

Trump campaign spokesman Steven Cheung rubbished Kinzinger's post.

Kinzinger "farted on live TV and is an unemployed fraud," Cheung told Newsweek. "He has disgraced his country and disrespects everyone around him[...]he is a sad individual who is mad about how his miserable life has turned out."

Cheung has been contacted for comment about the Lincoln Project's ad via email.

Kinzinger became a leading GOP critic of Trump and his Republican colleagues after the violent riot at the U.S. Capitol by Trump's supporters on January 6, 2021.

He was one of 10 House Republicans who voted to impeach Trump on a charge of inciting the insurrection at the Capitol and was later one of two Republicans who joined the House committee to investigate the January 6 attack. He announced in the fall of 2021 that he would not seek reelection.

Griffin, another outspoken critic of Trump, said on social media earlier this year that Trump "smelled really bad" when she appeared on The Celebrity Apprentice more than a decade ago.

"I did participate in two challenges," Griffin wrote in a post on X that was seen by Newsweek at the time. "One I did because of my dear departed, beloved Joan Rivers. The other one I did because Trump paid me a bunch of money to spend the day with Liza Minnelli and host a challenge. Liza and I tried to ignore him, but he does smell really bad."

[s_bushido]

I'm all for bullying disgusting fascist assholes, but this seems a little too petty and meaningless. /shrug

[Odinfrost]

I'm all for bullying disgusting fascist assholes, but this seems a little too petty and meaningless. /shrug

Normally I would agree, but against someone as petty and vain as trump, I allow an exception.

[gondrin]

I'm all for bullying disgusting fascist assholes, but this seems a little too petty and meaningless. /shrug

Normally, I would agree but when it comes to Trump, the best way to deal with him is to attack his vanity. He literally cannot handle it.

[Dontrike]

I'm all for bullying disgusting fascist assholes, but this seems a little too petty and meaningless. /shrug

There's no such thing as petty when it comes to that man, when towards him. He thinks he is a perfect being, which is why he tells his doctor to lie about his height, weight, and health, why he wears lifts in his shoes, the gallon of tan spray on him, and his need to not look bald with that insane comb over of his.

Perhaps that's why he stands on "toe pads," that or some odd health issue. No matter what he's a vain asshole and making fun of that, or his worth, hurts him immensely, it's why the moment he heard of this he "truthed" about how it's "not true" (but in Trump speech) which sort of always confirms anything wrong/off about him.

[Breccia]

I'm all for bullying disgusting fascist assholes, but this seems a little too petty and meaningless.

Trump's body odor, the resut of filtering the worst fast food in America through several hundred pounds of fat, has zero effect on his ability to govern.

His response to being told "you smell" is. If he responds to a childish playground taunt by acting like a child, he's proving he's not fit to govern.

I agree, normally it's not a tactic anyone would try, because it would be a guaranteed failure. It's being used here because it isn't.

[Twdft]

Perhaps that's why he stands on "toe pads,"

Surely a billionaire has enough money to get new shoes with lower heels?

[gondrin]

Surely a billionaire has enough money to get new shoes with lower heels?

Much like the smell thing, it plays into the extreme vanity Trump has. He has to be the tallest in the room. That is why he wears lifts and heels. However, because of this, he also has to use toe pads because, among other things, it is causing him to lean forward.

[Twdft]

He should start paying his bills and get a shoemaker crafting him some nice plateauboots.

[Skjaldborg]

For some extra context, it may not be totally petty. The toe pads are likely to counter his forward lean. That lean and his odor may be symptoms of frontotemporal dementia - the odor is from deteriorating personal hygiene.

It develops slowly but he was showing signs in 2016. Focusing on these details both pokes at his vanity and also reminds us that the man may be legitimately unwell - both physically and mentally.

Now, if only the cultists would shepard their idol off to a retirement home.