Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Breccia]

Do you really think they’d slow walk this knowing that if presidential immunity stands there would literally be no point in their function as a check/balance?

Good question. SCOTUS is likely to slow-walk anything because Trump, being objectively guilty, is helped by stalling.

In this very specific case, however, I keep seeing article after article after expert after expert saying "the appeals court ruling has covered 100% of everything, there is no way out for Trump". Considering both what you said about Biden ordering SCOTUS lined up and shot, plus this isn't a ruling on the case only whether the case can go forwards, this and only this might actually be done in a timely fashion.

All other cases will take months.

[Edge-]

Donald has a Valentines Day message -

Dear Melania, I LOVE YOU. Even after every single INDICTMENT, ARREST, and WITCH HUNT, you never left my side...

Yep, it's still ultimately all about him. Everything is about him.

Readers were then directed to a website where they could leave their own Valentine’s Day message or donate to his reelection campaign.

Why miss an opportunity to fundraise? Even off your third wife, who hates you and doesn't want to be seen with you anymore.

[DarkTZeratul]

Donald has a Valentines Day message -

Holy shit, he actually acknowledged his wife. When was the last time he did that?

[Breccia]

Holy shit, he actually acknowledged his wife. When was the last time he did that?

It's not about when, it's about percentages. He basically never does this, and as @Edge- quoted, he even more rarely does it well.

By the way, I'll give both of you and everyone else a guess: for how many total court appearances of Trump, since Jan 6 2021 at least, has Melania also appeared?

[Kathandira]

Holy shit, he actually acknowledged his wife. When was the last time he did that?

I'm just surprised he didn't write that to Ivanka.

[Breccia]

Even off your third wife, who hates you and doesn't want to be seen with you anymore.

She made an appearance a few days ago, which of course, made Team Trump shrill "See? See? One appearance after months of vanishing means she's just as involved as ever!"

How low must the bar be, when you can't even pay your own trophy wife for more than one appearance every few months. What's that bedroom like? Oh, right, filled with stolen government secrets.

[Edge-]

She made an appearance a few days ago, which of course, made Team Trump shrill "See? See? One appearance after months of vanishing means she's just as involved as ever!"

How low must the bar be, when you can't even pay your own trophy wife for more than one appearance every few months. What's that bedroom like? Oh, right, filled with stolen government secrets.

Months? Hasn't Donald been campaigning for years? I thought she's been MIA pretty much this whole time.

[Benggaul]

Holy shit, he actually acknowledged his wife. When was the last time he did that?

When he buried her on his golf course?

[Poopymonster]

This aged remarkably well.



"Doesn't Trump host political meetings at his own hotels and raise the rates?"

Yes.

"How many elections are taking place in 2024, again?"

At the very minimum, 435.

"So, the Trump family are openly saying they would not donate to any campaign which isn't just Trump."

Yes.

"How much did the RNC spend in 2022, an election without Trump?"

About nine hundred million dollars.

"And all of that would be...gone."

Yes.

We all though it. I just said it first.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm just surprised he didn't write that to Ivanka.

Or Melanie.
I'm waiting for him to refer to her as Melanoma.

[Edge-]

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/0...bills-00141540

Several senior Republican officials are concerned that Donald Trump’s expected takeover of the RNC will ultimately pave the way for the committee to once again cover his legal bills.

Those fears come in the aftermath of Trump endorsing a trio of officials, including his daughter-in-law, to take on top roles at the RNC. While those endorsements have been well-received by many committee members — who note that it is customary for a presidential candidate to put his imprint on the party’s main campaign apparatus — others fear a potential misallocation of party resources.

Henry Barbour, a Mississippi committeeman, said he believed “most RNC members will go along” with Trump’s vision for the committee, “unless there is a play to use RNC funds for President Trump’s legal bills.”

Oscar Brock, another committee member who has been critical of Trump, said the budget that the RNC passed two weeks ago during a meeting in Las Vegas did not allocate any money to cover Trump’s legal fees. But he acknowledged the possibility of the committee eventually amending its financial plan to do so, were Trump to ask — a measure Brock, the Tennessee committeeman and a member of the RNC budget committee, said he would not support.

“I don’t think it’s appropriate for the committee to pay the legal bills for things done outside the work of the committee,” Brock said.

Chris LaCivita, a senior adviser to Trump’s campaign, called fears about the RNC paying Trump’s legal bills “manufactured.” Rather than the committee covering the cost of Trump’s attorney fees, the money would be drawn from other sources, including Trump’s leadership PAC Save America and the former president himself, who has been paying some legal bills out of pocket, according to senior advisers to the campaign.

The RNC spent nearly $2 million on two legal firms working on Trump cases in 2021 and 2022 before stopping once Trump jumped into the presidential campaign. The committee will continue to have a legal fund to pay for recount efforts, lawsuits and typical party legal business.

Trump has large visions for reshaping the RNC.

Chief among them is that the RNC will bolster its efforts on “election integrity.” That had become a point of contention between the RNC and the former president, who believed that not enough resources were being put into efforts to prevent fraud, although the committee created a “Election Integrity Department.” So far in the 2024 election cycle, the RNC has filed 78 election integrity lawsuits in 23 states, according to a committee spokesperson.

So apparently some Republican leadership are...stop me if you've heard this before, very concerned that Donald's bid to take over the leadership structure of the RNC is actually just a ploy to have the RNC pay his legal bills again since he has racked up a lot of them.

I'm sure they're very concerned, and will continue to be very concerned as they acquiesce to Donald's wishes and watch the RNC coffers get drained, leaving candidates to campaign on their own fundraising efforts and PACS and maybe the NRSC if they don't donate everything to Donald's legal defense too.

It's funny because we know what's going to happen already. It's happened before and it will keep happening.

[bladeXcrasher]

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/0...bills-00141540



So apparently some Republican leadership are...stop me if you've heard this before, very concerned that Donald's bid to take over the leadership structure of the RNC is actually just a ploy to have the RNC pay his legal bills again since he has racked up a lot of them.

I'm sure they're very concerned, and will continue to be very concerned as they acquiesce to Donald's wishes and watch the RNC coffers get drained, leaving candidates to campaign on their own fundraising efforts and PACS and maybe the NRSC if they don't donate everything to Donald's legal defense too.

It's funny because we know what's going to happen already. It's happened before and it will keep happening.

Good, I hope he drains them dry.

[Benggaul]

Good, I hope he drains them dry.

Phrasing.

Yuck.

[Breccia]

So apparently some Republican leadership are...stop me if you've heard this before, very concerned that Donald's bid to take over the leadership structure of the RNC is actually just a ploy to have the RNC pay his legal bills again since he has racked up a lot of them.

Well, if they're very concerned, all they have to do is not do that. I'm sure the Republicans who still believe in the benefits of small government and personal responsibility still outnumber those who think Trump is literally sent by God. All they have to do is not do whatever Trump tells them and try to have 470+ funded campaigns instead of zero, hold onto their leadership, and vote the conscience.

By the way,

Chris LaCivita, a senior adviser to Trump’s campaign, called fears about the RNC paying Trump’s legal bills “manufactured.”

They are. Trump manufactured them. It's like saying Ford manufactures cars.

[Poopymonster]

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/0...bills-00141540



So apparently some Republican leadership are...stop me if you've heard this before, very concerned that Donald's bid to take over the leadership structure of the RNC is actually just a ploy to have the RNC pay his legal bills again since he has racked up a lot of them.

I'm sure they're very concerned, and will continue to be very concerned as they acquiesce to Donald's wishes and watch the RNC coffers get drained, leaving candidates to campaign on their own fundraising efforts and PACS and maybe the NRSC if they don't donate everything to Donald's legal defense too.

It's funny because we know what's going to happen already. It's happened before and it will keep happening.

To quote Rafael Cruz "Say that about my wife again and I'll lick your other ball."

[Breccia]

Remember that "2000 Mules" movie that felon Dinesh did? The one where they promised that all kinds of proof of the massive voter fraud would be revealed?

And then True the Vote, the group supposed to reveal it, ended up not revealing anything at all?

Well True the Vote apparently filed all kinds of complaints with the Secretary of State in Georgia claiming that they'd received detailed accounts of this fraud there and 2000 Mules proved it or something.

And guess what?

Texas-based True the Vote filed complaints with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger in 2021, including one in which it said it had obtained “a detailed account of coordinated efforts to collect and deposit ballots in drop boxes across metro Atlanta” during the November 2020 election and a January 2021 runoff.

A Fulton County Superior Court judge in Atlanta signed an order last year requiring True the Vote to provide evidence it had collected, including the names of people who were sources of information, to state elections officials who were frustrated by the group’s refusal to share evidence with investigators.

In their written response, attorneys for True the Vote said the group had no names or other documentary evidence to share.

“Once again, True the Vote has proven itself untrustworthy and unable to provide a shred of evidence for a single one of their fairy-tale allegations,” Raffensperger spokesman Mike Hassinger said Wednesday. “Like all the lies about Georgia’s 2020 election, their fabricated claims of ballot harvesting have been repeatedly debunked.”

True the Vote’s assertions were relied upon heavily for “2000 Mules,” a widely debunked film by conservative pundit and filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza. A State Election Board investigation found that surveillance camera footage that the film claimed showed ballot stuffing actually showed people submitting ballots for themselves and family members who lived with them, which is allowed under Georgia law.

The election board subpoenaed True the Vote to provide evidence that would assist it in investigating the group’s ballot trafficking allegations.

True the Vote’s complaint said its investigators “spoke with several individuals regarding personal knowledge, methods, and organizations involved in ballot trafficking in Georgia.” It said one person, referred to in the complaint only as John Doe, “admitted to personally participating and provided specific information about the ballot trafficking process.”

Frustrated by the group’s refusal to share evidence, Georgia officials took it to court last year. A judge ordered True the Vote to turn over names and contact information for anyone who had provided information, as well as any recordings, transcripts, witness statements or other documents supporting its allegations.

The group came up empty-handed despite having “made every additional reasonable effort to locate responsive items,” its attorneys David Oles and Michael Wynne wrote in a Dec. 11 legal filing first reported Wednesday by The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

True the Vote’s founder and president, Catherine Engelbrecht, didn’t immediately respond to an Associated Press email seeking comment Wednesday. She and another member of the group were briefly jailed in 2022 for contempt for not complying with a court order to provide information in a defamation lawsuit. The suit accused True the Vote of falsely claiming that an election software provider stored the personal information of U.S. election workers on an unsecured server in China.

Yes, "every reasonable effort" which in this case was "Oh shit, we need evidence to file an official report? Well, fuck!"

There was no large-scale election fraud. Even people who said so are now recanting under oath and crying like bitches on national TV.

So naturally I went back through our forums looking for the people citing or defending this shit.

Nobody.

Not even the Trump supporters we had a few years ago bought into this. I hope the law says "you can't report stuff that's blatantly fake motherfuckers" and puts someone in jail for this. I'd say "lawsuit" but apparently that's already ongoing.

[Edge-]

Breccia, be honest with me now.

Do ya think they made it all up?

[Breccia]

Breccia, be honest with me now.

Do ya think they made it all up?

So, here's the thing...I don't know.

"Yes, they lied" is an obvious answer that fits all the facts.

But so is "they were lied to and so willing to believe it they accepted a claim made contrary to all available evidence at face value without hesistation".

Simply put, we have years and years of Trump raising a cult because people want to believe what he says. They want to believe America is violently racist. They want to believe the economy is worse now than under Trump. They want to believe Biden is a lizard man who's both cripplingly senile and also organizing Jack Smith and Taylor Swift in a tag-team assault on perfectly innocent of everything Trump. And, most relevantly in this case, they want to believe Black Democrat Gay Lives Matter not only stuffed ballot boxes with millions of illegal Mexican rapist dead people votes, and somehow got caught so blatantly that everyone knows there was fraud yet somehow there was no evidence to submit to courts because it was rigged.

I have no idea if they created the lie on their own, and filed it as a court motion, or if someone lied to them, they accepted it immediately at face value, and filed it as a court motion without even getting the names of the people who lied to them.

Simply put, all Trump supporters are inherently dishonest. The either lie to other people, or they lie to themselves. There are no exceptions.

As far as criminal charges should matter, this is an opinion not actual cited law by the way, it should not matter if you filed a court motion without evidence that you made up, or a court motion without evidence because someone asked you to and you did it without asking for their name and contact info. Or, and this is a third option, they have the name and contact info but refused to turn it over because it would make things worse.

"How could it possibly be worse? They're being shamed in public, sued, and possibly criminal charges."

It's possible, unlikely I feel but possible, that this was done in direct contact with Team Trump and part of the Georgia conspiracy charges. That's honestly the only reason I can think of for this group to know who told them to file a false court motion, and they would refuse to turn on them. Add RICO and everyone loses, including them losing worse.

I don't think that's it. I think this is just too simple: they lied and got caught, or they were lied to and in their hearts knew it but went with it anyhow.

So I don't know which of the other two options it is. With defamation it doesn't matter -- you can get sued for lying, or saying something a reasonable person would have known was a lie, same thing.

If I had no choice but to pick a side, I would re-read that article I linked, and in the end, probably assume they were lied to and did, in fact, accept the word of Some Guy On Twitter whose name they never bothered asking and whose contact info they never got. I think they're going to get sued into the ground for their shitty behavior and blatant falsehoods, but I'm not yet ready to say they have the brainpower amongst them to have made up even a lie as obvious as "Biden committed fraud but we can't prove it". I think the tiebreaker is, anyone that admittedly incompetent is probably just that stupid.

But I would not be surprised either way.

- - - Updated - - -

As expected: Trump files for emergency SCOTUS preferential treatment at the figurative last minute.

UPDATE: SCOTUS gave Agent Smith a week to respond, in the first of many gifts to Trump.

Unfortunately, Agent Smith is remarkably competent. This 40-page response was filed within 24 hours, and it's fucking brutal.

The Special Counsel, on behalf of the United States, respect- fully submits this opposition to the application for a stay of the mandate of the court of appeals pending the filing and disposition of applicant’s forthcoming petition for a writ of certiorari.1 The stay should be denied because of applicant’s failure to meet this Court’s settled standards. The application stems from an indict- ment returned by a grand jury against applicant, a former President of the United States, charging him with federal crimes committed in an alleged effort to perpetuate himself in power and prevent the lawful winner of the 2020 Presidential election from taking office. The charged crimes strike at the heart of our democracy. A President’s alleged criminal scheme to overturn an election and thwart the peaceful transfer of power to his successor should be the last place to recognize a novel form of absolute immunity from federal criminal law. Applicant seeks a stay to prevent proceed- ings in the district court from moving towards trial, which the district court had scheduled to begin on March 4, 2024, before applicant’s interlocutory appeal necessitated postponement of that date. Applicant cannot show, as he must to merit a stay, a fair prospect of success in this Court.

That's just paragraph one. No really, that's his opening. It gets worse from there.

This might be my favorite part:

Applicant’s position is that he is absolutely immune from federal criminal prosecution based on any conduct that falls within the outer perimeter of his official duties as President, unless Congress has previously impeached and convicted him for the same conduct. That position finds no support in constitutional text, separation-of-powers principles, history, or logic. And position finds no support in constitutional text, separation-of-powers principles, history, or logic. And if that radical claim were accepted, it would upend understandings about Presidential accountability that have prevailed throughout history while undermining democracy and the rule of law -- particularly where, as here, a former President is alleged to have committed crimes to remain in office despite losing an election, thereby seeking to subvert constitutional procedures for transferring power and to disenfranchise millions of voters.

But this is a close second:

Likewise, applicant’s claim that history supports his position because no former President was previously prosecuted disregards the “unprecedented” scale, nature, and seriousness of his alleged crimes -- a fraudulent effort to stay in office in defiance of the will of the electorate.

Yep, Smith bitchslaps Trump's claim of "no President has been charged" with "no President has deserved it".

Smith also cites Nixon. Like, over and over. Nixon went to court a lot and apparently did not fare well.

It's just pages and pages of precedent, court records, and just common sense arguments that a WH resident with absolute immunity would just crown themselves king forever and be immune to Congress and the courts. Smith correctly points out that Trump cannot cite a single case that agrees with him, and cannot explain a single phrase in the Constitution which backs his play.

And to top it off, Smith also requests SCOTUS rule quickly, since not only are a bunch of cases waiting on this, and not only has Trump already fucked around long enough and should be finding out, but because this case is so blatantly obvious.

I suspect that Smith is competent enough to come up with forty pages of "seriously nothing Trump said is even close to correct" in 24 hours, but I think it's more realistic he knew what stupid, baseless arguments Trump would make months ago, and had this ready to go at a moment's notice.

In addition to Agent Smith and the appeals court, a group of Constitutional scholars has also sounded off on the topic. As expected, their official filing is just "Trump is wrong" over and over.

“Trump’s argument that former presidents are forever immune from criminal prosecution for actions taken while in office finds no support in the Constitution’s text and history,” the brief reads. “[T]he Constitution does not explicitly provide immunity to sitting or former presidents.”

The scholars say the framers of the Constitution sought, instead, to distinguish an American president from the British king by making sure the national executive “may be indicted and punished” after “commit[ting] crimes against the state,” according to the brief.

To bolster their argument, the law professors note that some state constitutions that existed “at the time of the Framing” provided “express criminal immunities” to sitting governors — while the Constitution itself lacks any such language about criminal immunity.

“In other words,” the brief argues, the men who penned the Constitution “certainly knew how to draft immunity language,” and if they intended to create criminal immunity or some other such privilege for the presidency, “they could have done so” but “did not.”

Trump's claims of absolute immunity are baseless and wrong. I still say SCOTUS will rule as such, then strike down every other action against Trump that comes their way, basically saying "we won't make the office immune to everything, just make Trump immune from the criminal acts he did".

[DarkTZeratul]

I have no idea if they created the lie on their own, and filed it as a court motion, or if someone lied to them, they accepted it immediately at face value, and filed it as a court motion without even getting the names of the people who lied to them.

Or a third possibility: the person who told it to them wasn't lying, per se, they just heard something they didn't understand and, as they already believed that there was mass fraud going on, interpreted it as evidence of said fraud despite it being no such thing (see that defamation case that was recently settled in which an election worker heard his boss talking about something innocuous, thought she was admitting to stuffing ballot boxes, and told that to the media). As you said, they want to believe it, and so anything that vaguely looks like proof if you so much as glance at it sideways out of context becomes a smoking gun that must be revealed to the world.

[postman1782]

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wire...rgia-107241018

Didn't know where to put this, thought it would be ok here since it is basically about Trump.

True The Vote, the group Dinesh D'Souza used for 2000 Mules, admitted in court today that they had no evidence to ballot stuffing in Georgia.

True the Vote’s assertions were relied upon heavily for “2000 Mules,” a widely debunked film by conservative pundit and filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza. A State Election Board investigation found that surveillance camera footage that the film claimed showed ballot stuffing actually showed people submitting ballots for themselves and family members who lived with them, which is allowed under Georgia law.

The election board subpoenaed True the Vote to provide evidence that would assist it in investigating the group's ballot trafficking allegations.

True the Vote's complaint said its investigators "spoke with several individuals regarding personal knowledge, methods, and organizations involved in ballot trafficking in Georgia.” It said one person, referred to in the complaint only as John Doe, “admitted to personally participating and provided specific information about the ballot trafficking process.”

Frustrated by the group's refusal to share evidence, Georgia officials took it to court last year. A judge ordered True the Vote to turn over names and contact information for anyone who had provided information, as well as any recordings, transcripts, witness statements or other documents supporting its allegations.

[Endus]

Or a third possibility: the person who told it to them wasn't lying, per se, they just heard something they didn't understand and, as they already believed that there was mass fraud going on, interpreted it as evidence of said fraud despite it being no such thing (see that defamation case that was recently settled in which an election worker heard his boss talking about something innocuous, thought she was admitting to stuffing ballot boxes, and told that to the media). As you said, they want to believe it, and so anything that vaguely looks like proof if you so much as glance at it sideways out of context becomes a smoking gun that must be revealed to the world.

I don't accept the "they just believe things to be true and act this way accordingly". Those beliefs are not rational nor reasonable. They're just motives for malicious if not outright unlawful or criminal conduct. Motive does not provide a justification.

These people are lying to others deliberately, lying to themselves, or blindly believing someone else's lie, and none of those justify their malice. And it is malice. They are bad people, intentionally and deliberately doing and saying bad things. If this were the Reich, they'd be gleefully reporting their Jewish neighbours to the SS and listening to Hitler's speeches with joy in their hearts. They are bad people, and all of this is just discussing the exact pathology of why they choose to be bad people.