Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Elegiac]

Unfortunately I foresee them ruling in Trump’s favor, basically saying “he wasn’t convicted of anything, therefore he can’t be removed from the ballot.”

The complicating factor in this is that the case itself is based on a determination by Colorado's judiciary that Trump qualifies for the exclusion (i.e. they affirmed he did in fact engage in insurrection, rebellion, giving aid and comfort to the enemies of the US) and them saying he wasn't convicted when the exclusion is not based on conviction (the word used is "engaged") would be tantamount to them stating an opinion about January 6th.

This is one of those areas where the Constitution is pretty clear as to who determines ballot eligibility. They have to take up the case, but there's not going to be an easy answer short of just blatantly seizing a huge amount of power - and again, doing that in an election year is a surefire way of getting people upset enough to go to the polls en masse.

[Kaleredar]

The complicating factor in this is that the case itself is based on a determination by Colorado's judiciary that Trump qualifies for the exclusion (i.e. they affirmed he did in fact engage in insurrection, rebellion, giving aid and comfort to the enemies of the US) and them saying he wasn't convicted when the exclusion is not based on conviction (the word used is "engaged") would be tantamount to them stating an opinion about January 6th.

To which I think they’re going to pretty obliquely railroad over that and say “he wasn’t convicted of this federal crime, Colorado as a state has no legal bearing to determine that on their own, therefore their own exclusion can’t apply.”

This is one of those areas where the Constitution is pretty clear as to who determines ballot eligibility. They have to take up the case, but there's not going to be an easy answer short of just blatantly seizing a huge amount of power - and again, doing that in an election year is a surefire way of getting people upset enough to go to the polls en masse.

I believe that the SCOTUS has the wherewithal to bend to conservative interests, but I don’t believe they have the wherewithal to them anticipate democrat backlash and adjust their opinion in any way because of that.

[Breccia]

Unfortunately I foresee them ruling in Trump’s favor, basically saying “he wasn’t convicted of anything, therefore he can’t be removed from the ballot.”

While this would make @Endus cry, as it does not actually address the overall issue just the case in which it's brought up, this is what I'm also expecting, and also, I don't have a real problem with it. Yes, Trump is a terrorist and a traitor. Yes, he should lose, yes he should be off the ballot, but we have due process in this country. This isn't about being Cancel Cultured, after all.

[Redwyrm]

Here the other side of that coin: If they say states can make that determination on their own, that means that they're basically saying that there's no federal recourse (short of legislation, lol) if say...Texas and Florida decide that all Democrats are insurrectionists under their state standards and choose to keep them off the ballot. For an extremely stupid example of how easily this kinda shit can be weaponized in bad faith by dishonest actors.

Already in the works
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/202...lot-rcna132600

[Edge-]

Already in the works
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/202...lot-rcna132600

Oh I know, that's the idiot that hasn't read his own states Constitution (despite being the fucking state attorney general rofl) and went on TV to cry about how different states have different Constitutions and consequently some powers are held or limited by different branches.

But I don't believe any have seriously moved on this yet, right now it's (thankfully) just rhetoric.

[postman1782]

Unfortunately I foresee them ruling in Trump’s favor, basically saying “he wasn’t convicted of anything, therefore he can’t be removed from the ballot.”

The disqualification of Trump would have been a nice way of defeating his bloated orange ass, but sadly it was always a long shot, especially without him having been formally convicted (at least yet, one hopes.)

And that shouldn't even be an argument. Because that isn't even on the 14th Amendment.

[Kaleredar]

And that shouldn't even be an argument. Because that isn't even on the 14th Amendment.

And like I said, I fully expect them to hem and haw their way through "well you can suspect that he committed treason/insurrection but it hasn't been proven yet and Colorado can't make that decision on a federal crime that happened in another part of the country yadda yadda yadda Trump gets to run."

As such, I don't think people should be getting their hopes up that Trump gets DQed from any of the ballots for November, pending him actually being convicted of something.

[Flarelaine]

My take is, the state isn't disqualifying anyone, the Constitution is. The state is just the one pointing it out. If I see someone stabbing a Chuck-E-Cheese janitor to death, and I call the police, I'm not deciding what murder is.

Yeah, what Breccia said. Colorado is using the 14th Amendment, the Constitution, to remove people from the State ballot. Colorado is abiding by Federal, Constitutional law. It's a condemnation that most other States aren't.

This isn't State law. It's a State ruling on federal law application within their State. SCOTUS has to do one of three things to invalidate it; declare that Trump didn't engage in insurrection (this would be a difficult case, and not one SCOTUS likely wants to weigh in on, I imagine), declare the President is not an "officer" of the USA (I consider this vanishingly unlikely as there's clear notes from when the 14th was drafted that state the President was considered an officer, and the originalists aren't likely to overlook that), or that States don't get to make their own rules about their own elections (which would violate Constitutional law. Least likely outcome.)

Well, correct. I really just wanted to point out how no single state can keep anyone from the presidency if they are otherwise popular (their argument seemed to be digging at this). Beyond that, yes, this is just another flavour of "applying the rules to me is unfair".

[Draco-Onis]

And like I said, I fully expect them to hem and haw their way through "well you can suspect that he committed treason/insurrection but it hasn't been proven yet and Colorado can't make that decision on a federal crime that happened in another part of the country yadda yadda yadda Trump gets to run."

As such, I don't think people should be getting their hopes up that Trump gets DQed from any of the ballots for November, pending him actually being convicted of something.

I don't think anyone should count on Trump being held accountable for anything criminal, he is the kryptonite of the judicial system. The system is designed to hold poor sobs like us accountable not the rich and powerful.

[The Stormbringer]

I don't think anyone should count on Trump being held accountable for anything criminal, he is the kryptonite of the judicial system. The system is designed to hold poor sobs like us accountable not the rich and powerful.

He is steadily getting fucked in the courts, at least in the civil ones, it's just taking way more time and effort than it should, and they are absolutely bending over backwards for him in just about every way possible. We'll see if any of that carries over in the criminal courts soon. Right now there's a solid chance that, due to bribing Allen Weisselberg to lie for him in court, Trump very well could be looking at more criminal charges after the New York fraud case finishes up.

[Draco-Onis]

He is steadily getting fucked in the courts, at least in the civil ones, it's just taking way more time and effort than it should, and they are absolutely bending over backwards for him in just about every way possible. We'll see if any of that carries over in the criminal courts soon. Right now there's a solid chance that, due to bribing Allen Weisselberg to lie for him in court, Trump very well could be looking at more criminal charges after the New York fraud case finishes up.

Here's the thing he can stall for time almost indefinitely plus the highest court in the land is stacked with his people. He is the nominee he has an unlimited source of funding from the suckers who donate and buy his junk. Even if he were to lose the presidency (which isn't guaranteed) he will most likely be given a sweet heart deal in the name of "keeping the peace".

[Breccia]

Even if he were to lose the presidency (which isn't guaranteed) he will most likely be given a sweet heart deal in the name of "keeping the peace".

Which would mean, the United States would be negotiating with terrorists.

Not saying you're wrong. Just pointing out the consequences. Letting Trump escape justice because his cult might get violent, again, would literally be negotiating with terrorists.

[Draco-Onis]

Which would mean, the United States would be negotiating with terrorists.

Not saying you're wrong. Just pointing out the consequences. Letting Trump escape justice because his cult might get violent, again, would literally be negotiating with terrorists.

It's not the first time and certainly won't be the last, we set that precedence after the civil war. That's how you end up with statues of traitors all over the country and places named after them, those who fail to learn from history and all that.

[Dontrike]

Trump tries to make that special investigation into a plea to Jack Smith to leave him alone.

Donald Trump on Thursday begged Special Counsel Jack Smith to drop "all litigation" against him in order to allow the nation to "heal."

The former president has been charged by Smith in connection with the ex-president's alleged election subversion efforts, as well as for purportedly holding onto classified documents despite a subpoena from the government to return them.

"If Special Counsel Jack Smith wants to do good for our Country, and help to unify it, he should drop all Litigation against Joe Biden’s Political Opponent, ME, and let our Country HEAL," Trump posted on his own social media site, Truth Social.

The former president then added:

"This would be a far bigger and better achievement than anything he has ever done, and will be easy for the Great Patriots of our Country to understand in light of Special Counsel Robert Hur’s Document Report on Joe Biden, where the evidence is overwhelming that he 'willfully retained' important documents!"

The Hur report has been criticized for calling into question Biden's memory.

It's always "letting us heal" when the abuser doesn't want consequences, and coming from the same man that couldn't remember who his own wife was when shown a picture of the person he raped.

[Breccia]

"where the evidence is overwhelming that he 'willfully retained' important documents!"

And, of course, leaving out the parts where he took far more of them, fought like hell to keep them, lied about having them, and stonewalled returning them until the FBI had to break down his door. Also Biden didn't lead an insurrection.

There is no valid, reasonable comparison. Trump might as well be equating self-defense with an assassination.

And yes, "let us heal" when he's the one that caused the damage. The only people that are mad are the people he told to be mad. If he wants the country to heal, he can do that on his own.

- - - Updated - - -

"Oh, no! The consequences of my actions! They've arrived!"

Alina Habba May Be in Unusual 'No-Win' Scenario

Taking issue with that, Newsweek. It's not that unusual in context. That's the point of the article.

Trump attorney Alina Habba may--

Oh but thanks for not putting all your headlines in all-caps. That bugged me.

--be in an unusual "no-win" scenario due to her involvement in two of Trump's New York cases, former federal prosecutor and elected state attorney Michael McAuliffe told Newsweek.

"Given the professional ethical obligations that apply to Habba, her multiple roles may box her into an unusual no-win scenario," McAuliffe said on Friday. "Habba's role as counsel to multiple individuals in Trump's orbit shows how the Trump-related matters all seem to collide eventually. For a lawyer, it's akin to a professional death wish."

The possibility that Habba is posing a threat to her own legal career has been floated in the wake of the letter that she sent to New York State Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron, who's presiding over the fraud trial, on Wednesday.

The possibility that Habba is posing a threat to her own legal career has been floated in the wake of the letter that she sent to New York State Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron, who's presiding over the fraud trial, on Wednesday.

Engoron had asked both sides

There are many fine lawyers HARDEE HAR HAR no there clearly aren't.

on Tuesday to respond to the recent reports about a potential plea deal that Weisselberg is reportedly negotiating with the Manhattan District Attorney's Office. The agreement is believed to involve the former Trump executive's admission that he perjured himself by lying on the stand in the civil fraud trial brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James' office.

While prosecutors for James' office said it would be "hardly surprising" if Weisselberg did perjure himself, and Clifford Robert, attorney for the Trump family, called Engoron's request "unprecedented, inappropriate and troubling," Habba offered a more restrained response to the court.

"In an abundance of caution, I have conferred with my ethics counsel and have been advised that I am constrained by my professional ethical obligations from providing any further detail. No adverse inference should be drawn from my inability to respond," Habba said.

Engoron had stressed to Trump's defense team on Thursday that he would have to factor in the Weisselberg matter if the former executive "publicly confesses to having committed perjury about a significant matter in the case before me, or if he pleads guilty to such perjury at any time before I issue my final decision."

The judge had already reminded counsel on Tuesday that attorneys would be in violation of Rule 3.3 if they chose not to take remedial action after becoming aware that their client offered false material evidence, and warned again on Wednesday that, "[I]f someone pleads guilty to committing perjury in a case over which I am presiding, I want to know about it."

So yes, Habba is in a bad situation of her own making. Boo fuckity hoo. The only downside is Trump is basically burning cannon fodder -- she barely had a practice before, she's not losing anything other than a lifetime of humiliation by representing America's fattest lying traitor.

"If [Habba] was or is ethically obligated to disclose to Engoron information about her client's testimony (potentially perjurious by his own admission), it will surely hurt Trump's defense," McAuliffe said. "Until now, she's only alluded to privileged information that she's unwilling to disclose in response to Judge Engoron's inquiries about the issue. She may be exposing herself to contempt proceedings or professional ethics complaints, or both."

Legal analyst Lisa Rubin agreed in a Thursday op-ed that Habba's own words could bring the "greatest harm" to the attorney's legal career.

Rubin said that Habba's "carefully worded refusal to say much of anything" to Engoron's request notably left out any acknowledgement of whether or not she had conferred with Weisselberg about the plea deal. It also did not deny that the former Trump executive lied during his testimony.

"She seems to be telling Engoron that her ethical obligations to her client preclude her from saying more," Rubin wrote. "Or is it more complicated? Could Habba be saying that because Weisselberg's interests now diverge from those of other clients, notably Trump's, she is truly in a pickle?"

As quoted earlier, it's worth noting that the prosecution also said "don't worry about it" but because of the timeline. Trump is already guilty. Well, "guilty" you get the idea.

But Habba is good and fucked, by all reasonable reading of events. Saying "I can't give you an honest answer in this trial because it hurts my client in another one" is a good way of saying "I put myself in a situation that breaks my ethical rules no matter what, and I expect to be disbarred".

[Poopymonster]

And, of course, leaving out the parts where he took far more of them, fought like hell to keep them, lied about having them, and stonewalled returning them until the FBI had to break down his door. Also Biden didn't lead an insurrection.

There is no valid, reasonable comparison. Trump might as well be equating self-defense with an assassination.

And yes, "let us heal" when he's the one that caused the damage. The only people that are mad are the people he told to be mad. If he wants the country to heal, he can do that on his own.

- - - Updated - - -

"Oh, no! The consequences of my actions! They've arrived!"

Alina Habba May Be in Unusual 'No-Win' Scenario

Taking issue with that, Newsweek. It's not that unusual in context. That's the point of the article.



Oh but thanks for not putting all your headlines in all-caps. That bugged me.



There are many fine lawyers HARDEE HAR HAR no there clearly aren't.



So yes, Habba is in a bad situation of her own making. Boo fuckity hoo. The only downside is Trump is basically burning cannon fodder -- she barely had a practice before, she's not losing anything other than a lifetime of humiliation by representing America's fattest lying traitor.



As quoted earlier, it's worth noting that the prosecution also said "don't worry about it" but because of the timeline. Trump is already guilty. Well, "guilty" you get the idea.

But Habba is good and fucked, by all reasonable reading of events. Saying "I can't give you an honest answer in this trial because it hurts my client in another one" is a good way of saying "I put myself in a situation that breaks my ethical rules no matter what, and I expect to be disbarred".

I'm sure has been given full assurances and promises that she will get paid, everything will be fine, and in particular that the leopards will NOT eat her face.

[Endus]

But Habba is good and fucked, by all reasonable reading of events. Saying "I can't give you an honest answer in this trial because it hurts my client in another one" is a good way of saying "I put myself in a situation that breaks my ethical rules no matter what, and I expect to be disbarred".

If you're in a situation where two clients of yours reveal that their defenses constitute a conflict of interest for you, their lawyer, this is the kind of issue that crops of regularly. You go to the judge and state the conflict and that you cannot in good conscience continue to represent both clients. You either end up in a situation where the judge allows you to drop one of the clients, giving that client time to find new representation, or allowing you to create a Chinese wall in your firm between two lawyers so can't talk about the case or their individual clients.

She's only "fucked" by her own choices and refusal to play by the ethical rules.

[Paranoid Android]

BREAKING: Judge Cannon is outing 25+ people who participated in the Mar-a-Lago investigation, forcing the government to hand the names over to Trump's lawyers.

This, after the govt argued that these witnesses are receiving threats online.

11th Circuit must intervene - NOW.

Don't have time to read posts but I'm sure people are discussing this.

Effin WOW!! If Trump somehow gets to court I might consider this a miracle. From Garland fucking around and not starting this until over a year ago, to this judge who clearly is not doing her job. She is clearly covering for one side of this case and on top it's very clear being a Trump appointee and an overall hack.

Judge Alina Habba one day?

[Drutt]

Judge Alina Habba one day?

That would be a confirmation of this being the worst timeline.

[Edge-]

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump...b069b665dfb762

“NATO was busted until I came along,” he began. “I said, ‘Everybody’s going to pay.’ They said, ‘Well, if we don’t pay are you still going to protect us?’ I said, ‘Absolutely not.’ They couldn’t believe the answer.”

He rehashed the story a few moments later.

“One of the presidents of a big country stood up and said, ‘Well sir, if we don’t pay and we’re attacked by Russia, will you protect us?’ I said, ‘You didn’t pay? You’re delinquent?’ He said, ‘Yes, let’s say that happened.’ No, I would not protect you. In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want,” Trump said.

“You gotta pay. You gotta pay your bills,” he added.

As we all know, Donald Trump is an untrustworthy traitor.

And he is currently leading the Republican party, and they follow his every command.