Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[DarkTZeratul]

This is false...see Bush and Cheney. It's wording from the old system when first place was President and second place was VP.

Unless it's been overwritten by a different Amendment, per the 12th Amendment that changed that system, an elector cannot vote for a president and vice president that both reside in the elector's state.

[bladeXcrasher]

Unless it's been overwritten by a different Amendment, per the 12th Amendment that changed that system, an elector cannot vote for a president and vice president that both reside in the elector's state.

Again, Bush /Cheney, both Texas residents at the time. It's old language from the old system.

[DarkTZeratul]

Again, Bush /Cheney, both Texas residents at the time. It's old language from the old system.

Again, that's not "old system" language. That's language from the revised system, which as far as I know hasn't been re-revised.

[cubby]

Again, Bush /Cheney, both Texas residents at the time. It's old language from the old system.

You would be incorrect. It's not "old language", that's not even a thing. The language is either in force or it's been amended/overwritten/changed.

"A few months before the election Cheney put his home in Dallas up for sale and changed his drivers' license and voter registration back to Wyoming. This change was necessary to allow Texas' presidential electors to vote for both Bush and Cheney without contravening the Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which forbids electors from voting for "an inhabitant of the same state with themselves"[82] for both president and vice president."

- - - Updated - - -

Again, that's not "old system" language. That's language from the revised system, which as far as I know hasn't been re-revised.

You are correct. It has neither been revised, revisited, or rescinded.

[Endus]

Unless it's been overwritten by a different Amendment, per the 12th Amendment that changed that system, an elector cannot vote for a president and vice president that both reside in the elector's state.

That only speaks to individual electors. It does not mean the President and VP can't both be from the same state, just that the electoral votes from that one State will either be split between the two or go to one or the other. The other 49 States can and easily do outbalance this. The most any one State has is 10% of the electoral vote, and that's California.

[Flarelaine]

Again, Bush /Cheney, both Texas residents at the time. It's old language from the old system.

Cheney moved back to Wyoming before the election.

- - - Updated - - -

That only speaks to individual electors. It does not mean the President and VP can't both be from the same state, just that the electoral votes from that one State will either be split between the two or go to one or the other. The other 49 States can and easily do outbalance this. The most any one State has is 10% of the electoral vote, and that's California.

You still wouldn't want to waste votes in an election.

[Endus]

You still wouldn't want to waste votes in an election.

Yeah, I can get that, I'm just arguing against the claim that it's "functionally impossible". It's totally possible. Trivial, even. It may not be optimal, but that's not the same thing.

If It's a Trump/DeSantis ticket, they lose roughly 5% of potential electoral votes for one of them. That's it. 30 electoral votes.

Looking at Presidental votes, the most recent that was decided by less than 30 electoral college votes was G.W. Bush in 2000, against Gore. Before that, it's Woodrow Wilson in 1916. I'm not seeing an easy list of VP votes anywhere but I imagine they're similar. The EC is usually a lot more split than a mere 30 votes.

[D Luniz]

He's working on having his personal knob polishers in places of importance in the RNC, which potentially has a very very large checkbook.

That might be his "best" bet, in a "pick up the turd by the clean end" scenario.

gonna be hilarious if the RNC is disolved due to Trump pulled a "vulture capitallism" on it

[cubby]

Yeah, I can get that, I'm just arguing against the claim that it's "functionally impossible". It's totally possible. Trivial, even. It may not be optimal, but that's not the same thing.

If It's a Trump/DeSantis ticket, they lose roughly 5% of potential electoral votes for one of them. That's it. 30 electoral votes.

Looking at Presidental votes, the most recent that was decided by less than 30 electoral college votes was G.W. Bush in 2000, against Gore. Before that, it's Woodrow Wilson in 1916. I'm not seeing an easy list of VP votes anywhere but I imagine they're similar. The EC is usually a lot more split than a mere 30 votes.

When you say 30 electoral votes, and it being trivial - are you accounting for them effectively counting as double? Because it's not just one side losing them, the other side gets them - typically at least. So when you look at past Presidential elections, if the FL electorals didn't go for one candidate, they would go the another, making it an effective 60 vote swing.

Not sure how it would play out in this scenario. From what Bush/Cheney did in 2000 it seems that the "ticket" would not get the votes, but I'm still looking into how that would actually work.

[Endus]

When you say 30 electoral votes, and it being trivial - are you accounting for them effectively counting as double? Because it's not just one side losing them, the other side gets them - typically at least. So when you look at past Presidential elections, if the FL electorals didn't go for one candidate, they would go the another, making it an effective 60 vote swing.

Not sure how it would play out in this scenario. From what Bush/Cheney did in 2000 it seems that the "ticket" would not get the votes, but I'm still looking into how that would actually work.

I don't think that's particularly fair, for one clear reason; if you've got a red State that's wanting to vote all Trump/DeSantis, and the 12th interferes because it's Florida, then the 30 electors who vote Trump and can't vote DeSantis aren't gonna vote for the Democrat. They'll abstain or vote for a spoiler candidate.

[cubby]

I don't think that's particularly fair, for one clear reason; if you've got a red State that's wanting to vote all Trump/DeSantis, and the 12th interferes because it's Florida, then the 30 electors who vote Trump and can't vote DeSantis aren't gonna vote for the Democrat. They'll abstain or vote for a spoiler candidate.

I agree they probably would do that.


Interestingly, this is how it would basically play out. Assuming Trump/DeSantis ticket (both from Florida). The Electoral reps each vote for the President and Vice President, and the candidates must receive a majority of Electoral College votes. The EC reps from FL, could not vote for both Trump and DeSantis, so we'll assume the EC reps would vote for Trump, leaving DeSantis high and dry.

In that scenario, if the election was close enough DeSantis didn't receive the 270+ votes required to win, Trump would win the Presidential race but the Vice Presidential race would go to the...Senate. The Senate would be required to choose between the candidates with the two highest numbers of electoral votes.

That shit would be awesome. Could you imagine Trump and Vice President Harris? She would be the most ineffective Vice President in U.S. history until being elevated to the top role when Trump stroked out after discovering he couldn't fire her.

[DarkTZeratul]

She would be the most ineffective Vice President in U.S. history...

Not counting every Vice President before the mid-20th century, at least. John Adams famously said, "My country has in its wisdom contrived for me the most insignificant office that ever the invention of man... or his imagination contrived or his imagination conceived; and as I can do neither good nor evil, I must be borne away by others and met the common fate."

[Breccia]

That shit would be awesome.

Yet another Trump failure would be spectacular...but let's call that the backup plan for now

- - - Updated - - -

The Mar-a-Lago case is more or less back on track. Cannon gave both teams 48 hours to file any pre-trial motions. Trump is expected to plead "absolute immunity" of course, as well as "you can't appoint Smith to investigate my crimes" and "you weren't allowed to raid Mar-a-Lago when I refused to give everything back".

Meanwhile, this MSNBC breakdown of the GA "issue" basically says no reasonable judge would eject Willis.

It’s worth repeating that the law in Georgia requires that an actual conflict of interest exist for disqualification of a prosecuting attorney. The conflict cannot be theoretical or speculative. Appellate courts in Georgia recognize specific reasons to disqualify a prosecutor, none of which is applicable to Willis.

Willis swore, under penalties of perjury, that she and Wade did not begin dating until after he had been appointed to his role as special prosecutor and that she has not realized a personal financial benefit from their relationship, which has been over since June 2023.

If you believe the defense’s theory, then Willis pulled off some Keyser Söze-level plan. (Remember, the character from the movie, “The Usual Suspects,” who manages to get arrested, secure immunity from prosecution, purportedly assist the police in their investigation by redirecting their focus onto other suspects, get released from custody and miraculously cure his cerebral palsy to walk away, without any limp, from the police station in the closing credits of the film.) Following this theory, before Wade was appointed, she would have to have intentionally approached former Georgia Gov. Roy Barnes to offer him what basically ended up being Wade’s role as special prosecutor, knowing the entire time that Barnes would turn her down; she intentionally got two other special prosecutors to agree to the same low hourly rate as Wade’s; she intentionally got the CFO of Fulton County to conspire with her to approve Wade’s invoices each month; she convinced a special purpose grand jury to recommend multiple charges against multiple individuals; and then she convinced a grand jury to return an indictment against 19 co-defendants — all to ensure that her then-boyfriend, Wade, would be able to make $250 an hour so she could travel with him on a cruise with his mother and spend personal time in some cities.

Meanwhile, apparently having seen the news, DeSantis is telling everyone he should be VP now.

“Now we have a diverse Republican Party. I want everybody in the fold, don’t get me wrong. But I don’t want people representing 10, 15% of the party being in the driver’s seat,” DeSantis said on a call with supporters, including those who had committed to serving as delegates for him at this year’s Republican National Convention, according to audio obtained by NBC News.

“So I would want somebody that, if something happened, the people that voted us in would have been pleased to know that they’re going to continue the mission,” DeSantis added. “I’m not sure that those are going to necessarily be the criteria that Donald Trump uses. … I have heard that they’re looking more in identity politics. I think that’s a mistake. I think you should just focus on who the best person for the job would be, and then do that accordingly.”

Or...more?

“The timing of this ostensibly thank you call to influential state-level Republicans the DeSantis campaign recruited to be delegates to the 2024 convention is odd,” said the Republican, who requested anonymity to share thoughts on a private call. “A month ago, sure, but now? It really seems like the governor is trying to keep the door open in the event something happens between now and Milwaukee that creates an opportunity for him to have his name put into nomination from the floor.”

"Something happens" also known as "Trump is convicted".

- - - Updated - - -

Team Trump stumbles in court. Again.

1) Lindell will have to pay $5 million to the man who proved him wrong about voter fraud after all.

Based on the foregoing, and all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award [Docket No. 22] is GRANTED.
2. Defendant’s Motion to Vacate Arbitration Award [Docket No. 35] is DENIED.
3. Plaintiff is awarded $5 million plus post-judgment interest beginning April 19,
2023, to be paid within 30 days of issuance of this Order, per the Arbitration
Award.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERRED ACCORDINGLY.

2) Trump asks for a "counter judgement" of the Trump Org fraud trial.

"Wait, he thinks this is a negotiation?"

I mean, he and NYState could technically settle out of court, but this is something else.

Defendants therefore request
that the Court set a return date for the Proposed Judgment that affords Defendants sufficient time
to submit a proposed counter-judgment. To deprive Defendants of the opportunity to submit a
proposed counter-judgment would be contrary to fundamental fairness and due process.

"Is that a thing?"

I don't think so. I think the process is called "appeal". Which we've all discussed ad cultium at this point. Perhaps Trump is just trying to lower the payout because he can't afford an appeal? Wouldn't that be great?

Hey @cubby what's a counter-judgement, and is it common practice?

3) Lara Trump says she thinks GOP voters would like to see RNC pay Donald Trump's legal fees

"On what basis does she say that?"

On the basis of Trump being demented, old, sick, and barely clinging to life, and she wants an inheritance before it's taken by the courts.

4) Trump's PACs are spending money on legal bills almost as fast as they can raise it. Trump is raising money slower than Haley, the DNC, and Biden.

Campaign finance reports released this week flashed bright warning lights, showing two key committees in his political operation raised an anemic $13.8 million in January while collectively spending more than they took in. A major driver of those costs was millions of dollars in legal fees from Trump’s myriad of court cases.

Legal fees dominated Trump's January expenditures, amounting to $3.7 million of the roughly $15 million spent by the two committees. One of the committees, Save America, held nearly $2 million in unpaid legal debts, the records show.

When asked to comment, Trump's campaign said "Crooked Joe Biden" fifty times, then hung up. Click the link -- I'm not exaggerating by much.

[Edge-]

1) Lindell will have to pay $5 million to the man who proved him wrong about voter fraud after all.

Holy shit still? I thought the last time this was ruled on it was a, "You ned to pay the money, fucko." deal. Has he finally run out of appeals yet? Is there ever an end? Do these people ever pay?

"Is that a thing?"

That very much does not sound like a thing. Surely I would have seen it in an episode of Law & Order by now if it was a thing.

3) Lara Trump says she thinks GOP voters would like to see RNC pay Donald Trump's legal fees

Part of me is almost mad enough to want this to happen and watch the Trump campaign drain the national GOP coffers funding his legal battles. Because the downballot damage would likely be fairly considerable if that happened.

When asked to comment, Trump's campaign said "Crooked Joe Biden" fifty times, then hung up. Click the link -- I'm not exaggerating by much.

The spokesperson, if nothing else, would be extremely on-message for the campaign and full-throatedly (is that a word? I feel like it should be) embracing one of Donald's preferred branding tactics (repetition).

Though part of me wonders...how are they racking up so many legal fees? Are they actually...paying some of them? Because if so, then I imagine others like Habba and Giuliani who basically did this for IOU's are getting absolutely boned. Figuratively of course.

[Shadowferal]

Hmf...something about NY civil procedures I think...bah! Trump team still likely in the wrong anyway.

[Breccia]

Though part of me wonders...how are they racking up so many legal fees? Are they actually...paying some of them?

We joke, because Trump is a fat fucking racist joke, but yes he is paying his lawyers, I mean really it would be insane not to.

Speaking of insane, I am not done citing the Trump safe space *ding*

Among Trump's other claims, he said President Joe Biden had been ruled "incompetent to go to court" and couldn't "represent himself" at trial.

"Whoa! When did that happen?"

...it didn't. Duh.

Trump appears to be referring to Special Counsel Robert Hur's recent report into Biden's handling of classified documents.

Hur's report did not say that Biden was "incompetent to go to court." A similar claim, made by Georgia Republican Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, was recently debunked by Newsweek.

Hur's assessment included judgments about Biden's ability to recall events in his life, where he stored classified documents, and whom he shared sensitive information with.

Hur said any trial would take years to bring to court and, in that situation, Biden "would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory."

He added: "It would be difficult to convince a jury they should convict him—by then a former president who will be at least well into his eighties—of a serious felony that requires a mental state of willfulness."

Also, the report does not state that Biden was "incompetent to go to court" as Trump claims.

Hur argued that if, hypothetically, Biden were to stand trial over his handling of confidential documents, it would require a "mental state of willfulness", a challenge that would be more demanding by Biden's age at that point.

While Hur stated Biden was an "elderly man with a poor memory", this is distinct from mental competency to stand trial, which is assessed by psychiatric evaluation.

Trump is just flat-out lying.

Or, perhaps I'm reading this wrong. Maybe we need a neutral, both sides, fair and balanced poster?

Both parties just looking to protect their own senile candidates.

Ah, you seem up-to-date on the topic. This seems like a topic you'd regard positively in this fast-moving thread, based on your earlier comments. Could you point to the part where Biden was deemed incompetent to stand trial? Or did Trump lie?

[Surfd]

Team Trump stumbles in court. Again.

1) Lindell will have to pay $5 million to the man who proved him wrong about voter fraud after all.

Lindell has 30 days to come up with 5 million dollars plus almost 10 months intrest. Lol. Get fucked pillow pusher.

[Breccia]

Lindell has 30 days to come up with 5 million dollars plus almost 10 months intrest.

It looks like that payment got...fluffed up.

Where will he find the money? Man, I feel like there's a bed-related joke about a place to hide money but nothing springs to mind.

- - - Updated - - -

Within 24 hours of Team Trump bragging about how much cash he had, Trump files for 30-day extension for Trump Org appeal.

Trump's attorneys requested a 30-day extension Wednesday on the time frame to pay a $355 million business fraud verdict levied against him last week.

The attorneys argued that New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) is in an “unseemly rush” to enforce the verdict, “particularly given the magnitude of Judgment.”

Trump would have one month to come up with the funds to pay the verdict after it is enforced. The request Wednesday would delay the enforcement of the verdict itself by 30 days.

"Wait, so, the 30-day appeal deadline is nonstandard?"

It is very standard, as you can see in this dot-gov site. James is not in any special hurry -- the 30 days has nothing to do with any request from NYState. Trump is lying.

"Why would Trump ask for this?"

Well, stalling is a good default guess for "why does Trump do XXX in court?"

In this case, however, I think despite all his posturing and bragging, Trump can't pay on time. As a reminder he has three options that I could think of:

1) Paying in cash
2) Getting a bond (this is what Habba said he would do in public)
3) Putting up collateral with the court.

Look, all jokes aside, if Trump needs to pay $400 million and has $400 million, I can understand if it takes a hot minute to get it into one wallet. It is a liquid asset, it does flow, but I assume Trump put $400 million on his official asset disclosures because he knew where it all was. I suppose he could have been lying on official forms...again...

Habba said Trump could easily get a bond. Begging for another 30 days directly contradicts that. Habba must be tired of being wrong, especially retroactively, by now. But let's be honest, it was never going to be as simple as she claimed, for Trump to get a loan, after losing a lawsuit saying he lied to loaners.

And I still don't think the courts will take collateral from the person convicted of lying about how much his collateral is worth.

I think Trump asked for 30 more days because he can't pay. I think he hasn't moved a dime yet, and was hoping someone would fly to his rescue, and that didn't happen. I don't know if it will in 30, 60, or 365 days to be honest, he's a bad risk who killed every business he ran.

I've seen plenty of articles suggesting he'll have to sell something. If so, he's going to be taken to the cleaners -- everyone knows he's desperate. If he wasn't lying about the cash, he'd mathematically be better off using his cash and then selling something later, to get a better deal. "Better" not "good" nobody trusts Trump at his word, especially when valuing real estate.

It's early yet, but the fact that it's early and yet Trump begged for more time tells us plenty. Someone who has $400 million ready to go wouldn't need 30 more days. Someone who had bond offers lined up wouldn't ask for 30 more days. Not being able to pay $400 million doesn't make you broke, of course, but Team Trump have done nothing but say he has all kinds of money. It was his sole qualification since 2016.

So where's the money?

[Endus]

I've seen plenty of articles suggesting he'll have to sell something. If so, he's going to be taken to the cleaners -- everyone knows he's desperate. If he wasn't lying about the cash, he'd mathematically be better off using his cash and then selling something later, to get a better deal. "Better" not "good" nobody trusts Trump at his word, especially when valuing real estate.

Let's also recognize everyone knows Trump will have to sell stuff to pay this. And so, when he tries to sell stuff, all buyers are gonna be offering bargain-basement flash-sale prices. They won't accept Trump's inflated self-valuation. Trump thinks Trump Tower is worth $550m. The offers he'd get, in this situation, I'd be shocked if they top $200m. Which is well below what independent assessors think it's actually worth. No one wants to buy that eyesore for market value, let alone Trump's inflated value. And he HAS to sell. On a tight deadline. "You want $500m? I'll give you $150m cash right now" suddenly becomes an offer you have to consider.

[Breccia]

Trump thinks Trump Tower is worth $550m. The offers he'd get, in this situation, I'd be shocked if they top $200m.

This is a fine detail, but, the most recent valuation by Forbes puts it at $371 million, which includes the $100 million in debt Trump already has on it.

He could sell it for fair market value, and it still wouldn't be enough.