Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Redwyrm]

I mean, it's definitely not, but it's the only tentpole that 'fiscal conservativism" has as an ideology. What to cut is not motivated by "fiscal conservative" points of view.



"Spend less" on what is the question you should be asking. Funny how no "fiscal conservatives" in the USA will suggest knocking down the military budget, for example.

Or explain how they intend to pay for tax cuts.

[Edge-]

Or explain how they intend to pay for tax cuts.

What do you mean? They pay for themselves. You cut taxes and that automatically and magically creates economic growth to offset the reduced tax revenue! Happens every time, right?!

[Redwyrm]

What do you mean? They pay for themselves. You cut taxes and that automatically and magically creates economic growth to offset the reduced tax revenue! Happens every time, right?!

Maybe if the tax cuts were given to the middle and lower class. And none to the super wealthy. Trickle down has never worked. Trickle up has never been tried.

[Gorsameth]

Maybe if the tax cuts were given to the middle and lower class. And none to the super wealthy. Trickle down has never worked. Trickle up has never been tried.

We have a word for Trickle up, its "the economy".

[Redwyrm]

Have to amend my previous statement. We have done stimulus checks. And those did work.

[Ivanstone]

I mean, it's definitely not, but it's the only tentpole that 'fiscal conservativism" has as an ideology. What to cut is not motivated by "fiscal conservative" points of view.



"Spend less" on what is the question you should be asking. Funny how no "fiscal conservatives" in the USA will suggest knocking down the military budget, for example.

Fiscal conservatisms primary tent poll is less government spending meaning lower taxes. Saying your against waste sometimes goes with that. Usually to make the former more palatable to someone less conservative.

Some do though. The push for more isolationism amongst some American conservatives ties in with reduced military spending. Ron Paul is probably the best example of this but he’s not the only one. When they say spend less, they sometimes mean absolutely everything.

[Breccia]

So we all know there are no cameras in the Carroll lawsuit courtroom. As some of you have suggested, this is to deny Trump having any platform, although it seems to be failing -- Trump takes two steps outside and can say whatever he wants off the stand to fifty cameras.

But, as I quoted without citing earlier, Trump left the courtroom in what feels like an intentional disruption move while Carroll's lawyers were closing. There's more.

Trump's lawyer in the second E. Jean Carroll defamation case, Alina Habba, was reportedly scolded by U.S. District Court Judge Lewis Kaplan on Friday.

Reporters in the courtroom on Friday said that Kaplan told Habba: "You are on the verge of spending some time in the lockup. Now, sit down." The term "lockup" in the context purportedly refers to her being sent to jail.

[EDITOR: "Defense counsel must remain seated and that includes you, Mr. Epshteyn" is also being reported.]

Politico's Erica Orden wrote on X (formerly Twitter) that Kaplan's warning followed an attempt by Habba and Michael Madaio, another Trump attorney, to include a slide showing X posts that they hadn't already entered as evidence.

The judge also reportedly scolded Trump and Habba for arriving late to court for closing arguments.

Remember, apparently, for some reason I can't fathom, closing arguments aren't under oath. Now, I would say "that means you can't introduce evidence" but since people saying things is evidence, it's called testimony, and apparently that's okay, I don't know what exactly the issue is here. If Trump can speak during closing and lie, with no consequences, why you can't introduce slides is beyond me, you can either introduce evidence or you can't.

But it doesn't matter if I understand or not. I'm not a lawyer in this case. Habba should have known what she was doing wasn't going to work.

Trump also apparently left during the part of the closing where Carroll's lawyer, from what I've read, stuck the landing perfectly. Specifically, he was telling the jury that Trump didn't respect the last jury at all, hence his defamation in under 24 hours, and that this jury had a right to award damages to keep Trump from doing it again. Trump leaving while that happened could not have gone better for Carroll -- it's almost as if he turned his back on the jury in disrespect just as they were told Trump didn't respect them.

Man, I wonder what the award will be.

(hits refresh)

Eighty three million dollars.

A Manhattan jury on Friday ordered former President Donald J. Trump to pay $83.3 million to the writer E. Jean Carroll for defaming her in social media posts, news conferences and even on the campaign trail ever since she first accused him in 2019 of raping her in a department store dressing room decades earlier.

The award included $65 million in punitive damages, which the nine-member jury assessed after finding Mr. Trump, 77, had acted maliciously after Ms. Carroll’s lawyers pointed to Mr. Trump’s persisting attacks on her, both from the White House and after leaving office.

Wow. Yes, that happened in a few hours. All of this in one day.

At this point, it feels like Team Trump is being disruptional as an intentional tactic, and it's failing.

[Edge-]

So what does that bring the total to? $88M dollars?

[Breccia]

So what does that bring the total to? $88M dollars?

That looks right, the first award was $5 million.

Wow, if you ever wanted to see how bad Trump was as a businessman, this is it. Lose $5 million? Go on a tantrum spree, make bad decisions on purpose in public, lose $83 more million because of this.

[Paranoid Android]

That looks right, the first award was $5 million.

Wow, if you ever wanted to see how bad Trump was as a businessman, this is it. Lose $5 million? Go on a tantrum spree, make bad decisions on purpose in public, lose $83 more million because of this.

I just mentioned you but deleted.

We talked awhile ago how as usual this guy is able to break laws in using political donations to cover for legal fees. Pure bs that Trump was able to slide. So I can't see Trump paying one red cent from his own money. So he is either going to A) steal from political donations to pay for it. More likely launder it through his business. B) This will be delayed and if he is President this will never be paid.

[Edge-]

That looks right, the first award was $5 million.

Wow, if you ever wanted to see how bad Trump was as a businessman, this is it. Lose $5 million? Go on a tantrum spree, make bad decisions on purpose in public, lose $83 more million because of this.

How do those numbers compare to Elon killing 70% of the value in the company he paid $44B for in around a year?

I'm beginning to think that conservatives may not actually be good at the business.

[Breccia]

I just mentioned you but deleted.

But I am fast, like teh cow ninja, moo.

1) I am hesitant to say "you can't use PAC funds to pay your lawyers while running for office, ever" even as I find it abhorrent in this case. Yes, Trump should not have been allowed, he tried "absolute immunity" it failed, therefore, this was personal not political. It is a tragedy that he can use donation funds. But I'm not yet ready to say "nobody can in any case" just because this happened. Some kind of SEC or FEC or something should step in and challenge this, just to tie Trump up further.

2) I don't know that Trump can afford to take the $83 million from political donations. I don't think he has that much political money to spare. In the end, he'll have to spend money one way or the other, and there won't be enough donations to clear the board. So, realistically, the smart move is to take it on the chin and pay it out of pocket.

...then up the prices at all his hotels and host all his conventions there, like last time.

- - - Updated - - -

How do those numbers compare to Elon killing 70% of the value in the company he paid $44B for in around a year?

To be fair, Elon -- in terms of pure dollar value -- was much, much dumber. He lost more money than Trump had on Trump's best day.

The difference is he could afford to do so. Trump, I believe, may be looking at lawsuits piling up that will take too much of his free income. If the NY case goes against him as it looks like it will, he could end up losing more cash than he has, and might have to sell buildings. Granted he'll appeal, but at least he'll slouch through the election season a proven public loser.

And rapist.

[Paranoid Android]

But I am fast, like teh cow ninja, moo.

1) I am hesitant to say "you can't use PAC funds to pay your lawyers while running for office, ever" even as I find it abhorrent in this case. Yes, Trump should not have been allowed, he tried "absolute immunity" it failed, therefore, this was personal not political. It is a tragedy that he can use donation funds. But I'm not yet ready to say "nobody can in any case" just because this happened. Some kind of SEC or FEC or something should step in and challenge this, just to tie Trump up further.

2) I don't know that Trump can afford to take the $83 million from political donations. I don't think he has that much political money to spare. In the end, he'll have to spend money one way or the other, and there won't be enough donations to clear the board. So, realistically, the smart move is to take it on the chin and pay it out of pocket.

...then up the prices at all his hotels and host all his conventions there, like last time.

This and potentially a $370 million fine should be a nice party gift from the state of NY. Hope you get your money and Carroll gets hers

[Breccia]

Posted without further comment -- I'm still laughing too hard to say anything.

Donald Trump Jury 'Going to Destroy Him'—Attorney
-- Jan 26, 2024 at 12:20 PM EST

Tristan Snell said on January 25 that Trump denying rape allegations in court meant he was setting himself up for punishment from Judge Lewis Kaplan.

"Donald Trump and Alina Habba did the seemingly impossible today — they made Trump's position in the E. Jean Carroll case EVEN WORSE," Snell said on X. "For Trump to continue denying the rape, when the judge told him he couldn't, shows he TOTALLY lacks contrition... The jury is going to DESTROY him."

Former federal prosecutor Harry Litman said on X that "Trump wanted to avoid the bloodbath of a cross-examination but wanted to say something." Litman added this is "what worked out" but also that it was "hardly helpful."

Trump critic and former U.S. attorney Joyce Vance said the Trump testimony went "better than expected."

"Trump seemed determined to testify," Vance wrote on her Civil Discourse Substack page. "From his lawyers' point of view, it probably went better than expected. Trump did not rant, rave, or explode on the witness stand."

- - - Updated - - -

Just read from Medias Touch, that Habba appeared in almost tears. Take it for what its worth. Good luck Alina in getting paid also.

Obviously, I have negative sympathy and negative empathy here. She knew who she was fighting to represent and did all those actions we saw on purpose, with the possible exception of the checkbox for a jury trial which could have been incompetence I admit.

So what's in her future? Trump can't possibly be looking at his legal prospects and saying "well I can replace her easily". Swapping lawyers between appeals doesn't seem like a great move, other than he could use it as an excuse to stall I suppose. And we know what client Trump is like -- demanding the impossible and the ridiculous. That's why three lawyers left last week.

That's why she's overworked.

Trump hired Habba in 2021 and she's since represented him in the E. Jean Carroll defamation cases, the New York attorney general's fraud trial, and a lawsuit that Trump filed against The New York Times and his niece, Mary, over his leaked taxes.

From In any other case, Trump lawyer Alina Habba's antics would be grounds for malpractice, Business Insider, 2 days ago

"The two consequences of Habba's ignorance of courtroom evidence rules are, first, personal humiliation and embarrassment, and second, the risk that evidence that would have been admissible and helpful to Trump will not get admitted," Stephen Gillers, a legal ethics professor at the NYU School of Law, told Business Insider.

"In theory, that could in turn expose her to malpractice liability, assuming there is such evidence, and assuming it could be proved that it would have made a difference," Gillers said.

But Trump is unlikely to sue Habba for malpractice, he said.

First, to establish malpractice, Trump would have to prove two things: that favorable evidence was not admitted because of his lawyer's ignorance of the rules of evidence, and that if the evidence had been admitted, it could have changed the jury's verdict.

"Even if Trump could prove the first part of this, I doubt he could prove the second part," Gillers said.

"Trump wants a lawyer who will fight in the court of public opinion as much as the courtroom," Neama Rahmani, the president of West Coast Trial Lawyers, told Business Insider.

Trump has a long history of choosing his defense lawyers based on how well he thinks they'll perform on TV and in the public eye.

Experts said it's clear Habba's main credential, in Trump's eyes, is her willingness to parrot his attacks on his perceived foes, not her legal prowess.

So, she can cry all she wants. Trump isn't firing her. What choice does he have?

Oh, as for being paid? Again, neither sympathy nor respect. She knew ahead of time her client was guilty and wouldn't pay her. I suspect, based only on a negative view of her character, she thought she would get other clients out of this. I...don't think she will.

Get ready for more tears, but sorry Habba...fuck your feelings.

[Paranoid Android]

@Breccia

If Habba doesn't get paid she is so effed. She showed how horrible a lawyer she is. Hey are there worst attorneys in the world. Sure, but they are never on tv this much or possibly in a high profile case.

If she don't ride Trump or Fox News gig; no way will she make money as an attorney.

[Gorsameth]

So how many minutes/hours do we think it will be before Caroll can sue Trump AGAIN because he once against commits defamation in whining about the penalty for this defamation?

[Breccia]

Giuliani files this legal document, opening the door to the possibility of suing Trump for back pay.

But it also lists a source of income from a defamation suit he's filing against Biden. Both values are listed as "Undetermined" and you can find them on Page Seven.

And when line-by-line listing his assets wrote, I am not making this up, when he checked the box saying his assets including Clothing, when asked to describe, said "Wearing apparel and personal effects". You can find it on Page Four.

Then listed that he owned 100% of 3 companies whose value was unknown.

Then in Schedule C, Page 9+ is basically name everything he owns and says it's exempt from bankruptcy. Which, um, I don't think you're allowed to do that. "I owe more than I have, but you're not allowed to take anything of value, I just don't want to owe anymore."

And on Page Eleven, he claims his net income is zero.

In any event, the fact that he said under oath that he might sue is going to go over really well, I'm sure.

- - - Updated - - -

If Habba doesn't get paid she is so effed.

...you can't possibly expect me to contradict this.

- - - Updated - - -

So how many minutes/hours do we think it will be before Caroll can sue Trump AGAIN because he once against commits defamation in whining about the penalty for this defamation?

This question is as loaded as these french fries.

Based on my assumptions of what's happened so far, Carroll will take this result and not get greedy. Yes, Trump multiple times in the second defamation trial left himself open for a third. She won't, this is a strong-enough message.

Unless.

I'm guessing this is what you were implying -- Trump marching onto the street, after the verdict is read, and then doing it some more. The person who can get Trump sued again, is Trump.

So how long before he specifically and directly invites a third lawsuit? Last time, it wasn't even 24 hours. Left to his own devices, he probably would have done so by now.

(checks headlines)

He hasn't. Yes, maybe he will in his famous 2AM twitter tantrum from the toilet. But if his lawyers have any...uh...I don't know why I even started typing that, not even I acknowledge that as a realistic option. But, if anyone in Team Trump has any self-preservation instincts, like even insect level, they will have made it clear to Trump that this is something only he can prevent a third time. They should be saying "you brought it on yourself" but more likely they'll say "it's all rigged, just use it on the campaign trail and you'll be made king, all you have to do is be smart and brave and bigly and yuge enough to leave this unfair victimization on you, the best at everything, as a badge of honor".

We'll pick it up in the morning.

[Corvus]

Well, he lasted all of 20 minutes before going on trooth and whining about the verdict, calling it a witch hunt, etc.

I love this part though;

The BBC's US partner CBS News reports that the judge had a question for the foreperson of the jury after he received the verdict sheet.

"Does the 'M' on this form mean millions?" Judge Lewis Kaplan asked.

The jury foreperson confirmed it did, leaving Donald Trump's legal team looking dejected before Judge Kaplan even read out the damages bill.

[Breccia]

Well, he lasted all of 20 minutes before--

Thrall tap-dancing Go'el @Gorsameth you have to see this shit.

[Edge-]

Well, he lasted all of 20 minutes before going on trooth and whining about the verdict, calling it a witch hunt, etc.

I love this part though;

"Biden Directed Witch Hunt"? This is civil court, I think grandpa might be sundowning again.

Also, that exchange with the judge and foreperson is just :chefskiss: