Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[MrLachyG]

The Iowa rally should be proof Trump is not fit to serve office. I've quoted it a few times already. He also said illegal immigrants could vote which is, of course, still illegal.

what I find funny is that Trump calls Biden too old, too senile etc to be President. But then the way he acts, he too is too old, too senile to be President.

As an Australian I truly find that ridiculous. If I remember my history right, our oldest PM ever was 71, then 68 and the most recent oldest 67 (who got voted out in 2007). Biden wins, he will be President until he is 86, Trump will be 82 if he wins. Like, can't you lot find someone younger?

[zorkuus]

what I find funny is that Trump calls Biden too old, too senile etc to be President. But then the way he acts, he too is too old, too senile to be President.

I firmly believe that a lot (not all) of the stupid things he says is not because he's dumb or senile. He says this shit because he knows his gullible base will believe anything.

[Malkiah]

Like, can't you lot find someone younger?

yes but that's not how US presidential selection works.
you have to keep in mind, someone winds up becoming the candidate for president in one of two ways:

1. they are a surprise newcomer who for whatever reason captures the current zeitgeist and gets an insane amount of popular support so overwhelming that it can't be denied or ignored.
2. they've been in their party for long enough and want to be president, so it's their turn to get to run for president.

that's it, those are the only two ways you become a presidential candidate in the US. and in either case, your age is completely irrelevant to the equation because there is no objective standards being applied to the process.
so yeah, we could find someone younger... but, it's biden's turn you see.

[Flarelaine]

I'm still astounded some conservative billionaire somewhere keeps forgetting they set up an endowment for TGP or something. That group has never put out a single credible piece of media that I can recall in their entire history.

Working as intended.

[Poopymonster]

yes but that's not how US presidential selection works.
you have to keep in mind, someone winds up becoming the candidate for president in one of two ways:

1. they are a surprise newcomer who for whatever reason captures the current zeitgeist and gets an insane amount of popular support so overwhelming that it can't be denied or ignored.
2. they've been in their party for long enough and want to be president, so it's their turn to get to run for president.

that's it, those are the only two ways you become a presidential candidate in the US. and in either case, your age is completely irrelevant to the equation because there is no objective standards being applied to the process.
so yeah, we could find someone younger... but, it's biden's turn you see.

Do you recall what happened the last time a "younger" guy got elected in the US and the backlash it created?
First it put a black man in the white house, then it put an orange man in the white house.

[zorkuus]

Do you recall what happened the last time a "younger" guy got elected in the US and the backlash it created?
First it put a black man in the white house, then it put an orange man in the white house.

tRump wasn't a "younger guy" in 2016. He was 70, or almost 70 still.

[Gorsameth]

The US election is about money.

when you see that it can easily take a billion dollars to run for President you realise that only those with deep connections to the big donors and superpacs where that money comes can successfully run for candidate and those connections take time to build.

Trumps success in securing the Republican candidacy is an anomaly in that and the more or less hostile takeover of the GOP that he managed to orchestrate is probably the only way someone 'young' could actually manage to get in. (and aided by Jeb Bush, the preferred political candidate being just so utterly uncharismatic)

[Flarelaine]

tRump wasn't a "younger guy" in 2016. He was 70, or almost 70 still.

That was the backlash.

[Breccia]

Several experts in several articles had me running to the source itself:

Article I

Section 3 Senate

Clause 7 Impeachment Judgments

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

-- the US Constitution

Team Trump has been using this to say "see, you have to impeach first". Most experts who aren't in Team Trump have instead said this clause is worded this way to say "Impeachment is not a trial, therefore, double jeopardy does not apply".

There is not a single sentence in the Constitution that says impeachment is required first. If that was the case, this would mean Congress would be taking the role of the judicial branch, despite not having like any of its abilities.

Honestly, the most relevant argument -- to me -- I've seen is: why was Nixon pardoned?

Team Trump is claiming they should be immune to any form of legal consequences because Congress did not impeach him. Well, Nixon resigned before he was impeached, and Ford immediately pardoned him. Okay, fine. Why? If Nixon was immune because he was never impeached, why pardon him?

[Myradin]

Didn't congress impeach trump twice?

[Drutt]

Didn't congress impeach trump twice?

No conviction though, which is where Trump's legal team is (arbitrarily) drawing the line.

[Odinfrost]

Didn't congress impeach trump twice?

See, what tRump's lawyers are trying to say is that he needs to be removed from office.
But they're tRump lawyers, so they will never realise that error and continue to argue in the prosecution's favor

[Edge-]

https://apnews.com/article/trump-fra...ce8a0945f0c348

Donald Trump won’t make his own closing argument in his New York civil business fraud trial after his lawyers objected to the judge’s insistence that the former president would stick to “relevant” matters.

Judge Arthur Engoron rescinded permission on Wednesday, a day ahead of closing arguments in the trial.

Donald will not be making his closing arguments because he is physically incapable of staying on topic and following rules.

It’s extremely unusual for people who have lawyers to give their own closing arguments. In an email exchange that happened over recent days and was filed in court Wednesday, Engoron initially approved the unusual request, saying he was “including to let everyone have his or her say.”

But he said Trump would have to limit his remarks to the boundaries that cover attorneys’ closing arguments: “commentary on the relevant, material facts that are in evidence, and application of the relevant law to those facts.”

He would not be allowed to introduce new evidence, “comment on irrelevant matters” or “deliver a campaign speech” — or impugn the judge, his staff, the attorney general, her lawyers or the court system, the judge wrote.

Again, we have an incredibly accommodating judge here! Happy to give Donald his soapbox if he wants - just provided he remembers he's in a court and why he's in court.

Trump attorney Christopher Kise responded that those limitations were unfair and said Trump could not agree to them.

Narrator: They were extremely fair, lawyers are usually required to stay on topic and not go on wild, unrelated tangents during court proceedings.

[The Stormbringer]

I wonder which part Kise thinks is unfair...?

Not introducing new evidence? Entirely understandable, because it's far too late in this case to introduce something new. It should've been done ages ago if there was more evidence.

Not commenting on irrelevant matters? Why would that be unfair? This is a courtroom, and sticking to relevant matters is very important.

Not delivering a campaign speech? This is a courtroom, not one of his rallies, so it's entirely fair.

Not impugning the judge, his staff, the attorney general, her lawyers, or the court system? That's just professional etiquette, you don't go around using your closing statement to insult people.

So which part are they saying is unfair?

[zorkuus]

So which part are they saying is unfair?

All of the above.

And little coward donnie was never going to make closing arguments. That was just empty bravado to his negative IQ base.

[Breccia]

Donald Trump won’t make his own closing argument in his New York civil business fraud trial after his lawyers objected to the judge’s insistence that the former president would stick to “relevant” matters.

Fuck. That would have been earth-shatteringly funny.

See, what tRump's lawyers are trying to say is that he needs to be removed from office.

Which is funny, because he was. He fairly and legally lost the election.

[zorkuus]

Fuck. That would have been earth-shatteringly funny.

Funny, and terrifying if he was given a pulpit to spew his nonsense in a courtroom like one Adolf Hitler.

[Kaleredar]

Funny, and terrifying if he was given a pulpit to spew his nonsense in a courtroom like one Adolf Hitler.

If I were to assign any level of tact to Trump I would almost say this was intentional. So he can complain about being “silenced by the courts” and “denied his free speech.”

Remember, this is a civil trial, not criminal. If it doesn’t outright stop him from running for office, he’ll simply try and spin it as a pro for his reelection.

[Breccia]

Funny, and terrifying if he was given a pulpit to spew his nonsense in a courtroom like one Adolf Hitler.

I don't think it would have been that. This was the fraud trial, and the judge seemed pretty good about keeping things on track. I think he would have hit the figurative guard rails and flipped.

Oh well.

- - - Updated - - -

So...for some reason, this article was published an hour ago. I thought the matter was settled.

Donald Trump cannot personally deliver a closing argument in his civil fraud trial, a New York judge said Wednesday after Trump's attorneys did not agree to conditions that would prevent him from delivering a “campaign speech.”

Wow, I was really close.

Justice Arthur Engoron agreed to let Trump speak but only if he adhered to standard rules that bar attorneys from discussing irrelevant matters during arguments, according to an email chain filed on the court's docket.

“He may not deliver a campaign speech, and he may not impugn myself, my staff, plaintiff, plaintiff’s staff, or the New York State Court System, none of which is relevant to this case,” Engoron said.

"But First Amendment! But Freeze Peach!"

Engoron said Trump doesn't have an absolute right under New York law to speak during closing arguments, because his lawyers can speak for him.

The parties began discussing possible closing arguments by Trump on Jan. 4, the emails showed. Trump's lawyers did not agree to Engoron's terms within his deadline, which he extended three times.

Oh look, Team Trump missed a deadline. Must be a day than ends in fat orange failure.

Trump, of course, took the loss he handed himself with dignity.

“Is anyone surprised anymore?” Trump's lawyer Alina Habba said in a statement responding to Engoron's order.

Er, the usual amount of dignity, I should have said.

So, yes, he was told to obey the "gag order" and told to stay on topic. He was told so many times, he needed an extra week to digest it. And he chickened out. Because he's a coward.

- - - Updated - - -

So...remember how Trump said he could fund his own campaign? He may have to. He is running out of options.

The RNC figures, recently disclosed to the Federal Election Committee (FEC), showed the body had just $9.96 million in its war chest as of November 30, lower than at the same point in any year since 2016 and dramatically below the $63.23 million it had in November 2019.

And bear in mind, Trump has not been the RNC's darling of late. Yes, they will back him. No, they don't seem enthusiastic about it -- and some of those funds might go to House and Senate options. More so, if they assume Trump will lose (see also: handcuffs)

In a further blow to his 2024 campaign finances FEC filings from Trump's Save America PAC, analyzed by the Associated Press in October, found it had paid just under $37 million to law firms and attorneys since January 2022, accounting for more than half its total expenditure over the period.

Trump is bleeding money. Yes, he's using campaign donations to fund his criminal and civil trials, no question. But his survival depends on his re-election. If he can't pardon himself, or otherwise hide from the consequences of his actions, he dies poor in prison. He knows this, he led an insurrection on the topic.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Which is funny, because he was. He fairly and legally lost the election.

He wasn't "removed" from office. He lost an election. He was not convicted on the impeachment charges...which they say he would have to be in order to be charged with any crimes he may have committed while President.

The funny thing is that, during his second impeachment, Mitch McConnell made the exact opposite argument.

“We have a criminal justice system in this country. We have civil litigation. And former Presidents are not immune from being held accountable by either one,” he said.