Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[The Stormbringer]

No one else has been prosecuted for this because no one else was insane enough to keep them after having been made aware they had them.

But that's discriminatory against Trump and his desire to have blackmail material, trophies, and juicy info he can sell to other countries! Stopping him from doing that sort of thing is like, un-American or something!

/s

[Breccia]

Trump lost the ability to claim he did it by accident or forgot when he constantly and repeatedly lied about it, still lies about it to this day and actively tried to undermine the investigation, up to and including destroying evidence.

Nothing short of an actual insanity plea would work.

Maybe. Most of the times he said something, he was just yelling at random strangers or television sets. What matters is what he said under oath -- including sworn statements and depositions. And I think you're right, I haven't looked recently but I think he submitted official paperwork saying "that's it, I promise" He might have had his lawyers swear that for him, which could be a loophole if he wants to change his mind. But, yes, it would be a big turnaround in public -- his cult would approve, of course, they slap their flippers together like barking sea lions if he so much as farts. But the classic conservative/Haley side of the Republican Civil War might take issue with the leader of their party suddenly admitting oh wait, I had those the whole time, and suddenly after two years just now realized it was my fault and I'm sorry, isn't really a selling point.

It's going to be an interesting case, that's for sure. There are many statements by Trump, at least public ones and maybe some under oath too, which say "I didn't take anything illegally" and yet boxes and boxes of them were yoinked by the FBI from his house. This is likely why he's testing every loophole he can find -- "I didn't do it" is objectively gone, and like you said, "I didn't do it on purpose" is likely gone as well.

[Poopymonster]

But that's discriminatory against Trump and his desire to have blackmail material, trophies, and juicy info he can sell to other countries! Stopping him from doing that sort of thing is like, un-American or something!

/s

You gotta admit, doing whatever you want so you can make more money regardless of who gets hurt because "Fuck you that's why" is almost as American as apple pie or shooting the school next door.

[Breccia]

Trump filed an official motion in court under oath as to why he shouldn't have to put up bond in the Carroll lawsuit.

"It's because he'll win on appeal."

No. Well, that too. But his argument was, that he was too rich to have to pay.

No, really.

In their recent motion, Trump's legal team requested an unsecured stay—during which the former president would not have to pay any money—while saying Carroll "effectively conceded that she is adequately secured" after suggesting to the jury during the civil trial that Trump's personal wealth "greatly exceeds the amount of the judgment."

"Having argued to the jury that President Trump has great financial resources, Plaintiff is in no position to contradict herself now and contend that she requires the protection of a bond during the brief period while post-trial motions are pending," the motion states.

"This fact nullifies risk to the judgment creditor and weighs heavily in favor of an unsecured stay," the motion continues.

Yes, Trump was asking for special privilege, in court, because he was rich.

"If he's so rich, why doesn't he just put up the bond as required by law?"

Good question. It deserves an answer. Of course, my answer is "he's not rich" seasoned with "and he doesn't have the money for the Trump Org fraud damages either". If Trump wants to contradict that, the courtroom is right over there.

By the way, this was part of a motion already denied. The "I'm too rich" part just slipped past me the first time.

[Edge-]

https://newrepublic.com/post/179339/...illis-crumbles

Trump’s lawyers have argued the romantic relationship provides a legal basis to disqualify Willis and throw out her case against Trump entirely. On Tuesday, lawyers Ashleigh Merchant and Steve Sadow questioned Terrence Bradley to try to establish a timeline of the couple’s relationship. Bradley is Wade’s former law partner and divorce attorney, and was meant to be a key witness in the case against Willis.

IIRC Bradley is the witness who forgot he had a doctors appointment last Friday and had to bail on his testimony, let's see how he does!

Merchant had multiple text messages from Bradley stating that the couple began dating in 2019. But when she began questioning him, suddenly, Bradley didn’t know a thing—including when they actually began dating, how the relationship began, and the trips they took together.

When asked why he initially said Willis and Wade began dating in 2019, Bradley said he was just “speculating.” He said he’d actually only had one conversation with Wade about the relationship, and Bradley couldn’t remember when that discussion had taken place. He repeated that he was only speculating so many times that many people on social media began to point out that Bradley seemed more like an office gossip than a credible witness.

Bradley also continually said he couldn’t remember telling Merchant certain details. Merchant kept asking him to confirm things he had previously told her, but Bradley only answered, “I don’t recall.” It got to the point that presiding Judge Scott McAfee told Merchant to move on, because the line of questioning was going nowhere.

Boy, what's up with Republicans and their witnesses and memory? Because, "I can't recall" at this point seems to be the modern Republican party slogan.

Reminder: This was apparently their "star witness". Much like Alexander Smirnov was the "star witness" for James Comer's impeachment inquiry until it came out that he very likely lied about everything - and the Republicans knew those were likely lies - but they charged forth anyways until now when they're pretending they've never even heard of the guy (please don't pay attention to them editing documents and filings to remove all mentions of Smirnov).

[Santti]

Trump filed an official motion in court under oath as to why he shouldn't have to put up bond in the Carroll lawsuit.

"It's because he'll win on appeal."

No. Well, that too. But his argument was, that he was too rich to have to pay.

No, really.

Okay, let's see how rich he is, exactly - and then proclaim that he isn't rich enough. That's be a funny move to make.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

So, Trump has been screaming BIGLY YUGE HOAX WITCH HUNT into every camera he's seen for the last year and change now, and that includes the upcoming Jack Smith criminal trial. Specifically, how nobody else was ever arrested for the crime he committed despite committing the same crime.

But he can't say that now, as Jack Smith officially filed under oath. Because Biden was investigated for the same crime.

a) Investigated is not arrested
b) Trump will say it anyway. And his enablers will repeat it. And his followers wil believe it.

[Edge-]

Okay, let's see how rich he is, exactly - and then proclaim that he isn't rich enough. That's be a funny move to make.

It's like pennies to him! Would you pay in pennies?! I don't even have pennies! How am I, a rich person with dollars and access to financial institutions expected to get PENNIES to pay people? That's so burdensome!

(I have a large coin jar IRL so I have plenty of pennies)

[Breccia]

Donald Trump Tried to Corrupt Attorney in Classified Docs Case

Donald Trump tried to corrupt his own attorney into hiding classified documents, prosecutors alleged.

When the attorney refused, Trump got two of his own assistants to hide the documents from the attorney and cover up the CCTV video evidence, according to the latest filing in Trump's classified documents case in Florida.

The document was filed on Monday on behalf of Special Counsel Jack Smith by David V. Harbach II, assistant special counsel, and Jay I. Bratt, counselor to the special counsel. It was in response to a motion filed to Judge Aileen Cannon by Trump's lawyers, who claim the case is based on "vindictive prosecution" by President Joe Biden and the Democratic party.

If the prosecution has no evidence, you don't need to lie to your lawyers or ask them to hide evidence. That's what you do when you know there is evidence of your guilt.

The latest filing goes into details of Trump's alleged hiding of classified documents to show that the case is not vindictive or based on political bias. It states that Trump only pretended to cooperate with a National Archive demand that he return classified documents that he stored in his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida after leaving the White House in 2021.

"When presented with a grand jury subpoena demanding the return of the remaining documents bearing classification markings, Trump attempted to enlist his own attorney in the corrupt endeavor, suggesting that he falsely tell the FBI and grand jury that Trump did not have any documents, and suggesting that his attorney hide or destroy documents rather than produce them to the government," the document states.

After the attorney refused to cooperate, Trump then tried to deceive him, the prosecutors added.

"Failing in his effort to corrupt the attorney, Trump enlisted his trusted body man, codefendant Waltine Nauta, in a scheme to deceive the attorney by moving boxes to conceal his [Trump's] continued possession of classified documents. As a result, Trump, through his attorney, again returned only a portion of the classified documents in his possession while falsely claiming that his production was complete," the document states.

Trump, Nauta and De Oliveira then allegedly tried to destroy the CCTV footage that proved they hid the boxes.

"The obstructive conduct even persisted from there. In June 2022, knowing that he had arranged for Nauta to move boxes to conceal them from Trump's attorney, and knowing that the government had subpoenaed the security video footage that would reveal that surreptitious box movement, Trump, now joined by not only Nauta but also codefendant Carlos De Oliveira, attempted to have the information-technology manager at Mar-a- Lago delete the video footage that would show the movement of boxes," the filing added.

Now, I thought the lawyer was Bobb, except for one term.

"He".

Bobb has already testified that she was given a letter she did not write but was forced to sign. That's already sworn in as evidence. She says Corcoran wrote the letter, and she forced a disclaimer to be added shielding her, basically saying "the person handing this letter to the FBI is not responsible for it" which...kind of defeats the purpose of giving a letter to the FBI, but also, kind of defeats the purpose of giving someone else a letter to turn in.

But Bobb is a woman. Either Smith used "he" as a gender neutral pronoun, or...it's Corcoran?

No matter who it is, Smith presenting this strongly suggests he has solid testimony. I don't think he would lie in a court filing, nor do I think he would promise the court evidence he didn't have. When he says "Your Honor, Trump tried to get one of his lawyers to lie to us on his behalf" I don't think he's making shit up. I think he's got it locked down.

Trump should be very worried. But, hey, maybe he should have gotten better lawyers. Or, you know, paid them.

[DarkTZeratul]

Donald Trump Tried to Corrupt Attorney in Classified Docs Case



If the prosecution has no evidence, you don't need to lie to your lawyers or ask them to hide evidence. That's what you do when you know there is evidence of your guilt.



Now, I thought the lawyer was Bobb, except for one term.

"He".

Bobb has already testified that she was given a letter she did not write but was forced to sign. That's already sworn in as evidence. She says Corcoran wrote the letter, and she forced a disclaimer to be added shielding her, basically saying "the person handing this letter to the FBI is not responsible for it" which...kind of defeats the purpose of giving a letter to the FBI, but also, kind of defeats the purpose of giving someone else a letter to turn in.

But Bobb is a woman. Either Smith used "he" as a gender neutral pronoun, or...it's Corcoran?

This is an old story. The lawyer Trump tried to corrupt was indeed Corcoran.

[Breccia]

This is an old story. The lawyer Trump tried to corrupt was indeed Corcoran.

Huh...well, the filing was Monday, that's new at least.

- - - Updated - - -

Tucker Carlson Claims Lawyers Warned Biden Administration Would Arrest Him If He Gave Putin Softball Interview

“My lawyers before I left, and these are people who work for a big law firm, this is not Bob’s Law Firm, this is one of the biggest law firms in the world, said you’re going to get arrested if you do this, by the U.S. government on sanctions violations,” Carlson told Fridman.

The former Fox News host, who recently launched his own media company, noted that these lawyers cost “thousands of dollars” to get various experts and researchers to weigh in with conclusions.

“Their sincere conclusion was do not do this,” Carlson said about the advice he received in a memo.

He also claimed one lawyer told him that if the interview was too “softball,” he could somehow wind up behind bars.

“He said, ‘look, a lot will depend on the questions that you ask Putin. If you’re seen as too nice to him, you could get arrested when you come back,'” he said.

Carlson declared he was more than ready for such a battle.

“I said, well I don’t recognize the legitimacy of that actually because I’m American and I’ve here my whole life and that’s so outrageous that I’m happy to face that risk because I so reject the premise,” he said.

How brave is Carlson to confront the evil and corrupt Biden, to risk this imaginary problem he just made up.

[Dontrike]

Tucker Carlson Claims Lawyers Warned Biden Administration Would Arrest Him If He Gave Putin Softball Interview



How brave is Carlson to confront the evil and corrupt Biden, to risk this imaginary problem he just made up.

Someone didn't quite get the PR bump he thought he'd get by "braving" Russia to talk to his employer- I mean Putin and had to come up with "Biden evul" to get a few more clicks.

[Flarelaine]

Haley is the last competitor left before the RNC becomes the Party of Trump, officially. Perhaps this is a tactic to bring on independent voters, perhaps this is just frustration, but either way, she's toast. At this point, why not be spiteful and take as many voters with her as she can?

I don't like Haley much but I'm beginning to grudgingly respect her. At least she does not go gently into the good night.

[Breccia]

I don't like Haley much but I'm beginning to grudgingly respect her. At least she does not go gently into the good night.

Sometimes I wonder...where was that courage and conviction when she intentionally and willingly worked for Trump? One of the many, many things the Trump cult has ignored, because they're insane, is that Trump's harshest critics are the people he hired to work with him on purpose, who worked with him on purpose, and saw what kind of person he was and what he wanted to do.

People who know Trump, think he's a danger to the country. Haley is running for President purely to stop Trump at this point. That should tell them something.

Should.

[Shadowferal]

I'll give Haley her due only if she continues after losing the primary. Her "base" is significant and Trump would be smart to win her over. That he's refused to connect her to potential VP material is...typical Trump stupidity. But...if he does, and she refuses...

[Breccia]

Her "base" is significant and Trump would be smart to win her over.

I don't know what it would take. They seem to legitimately hate each other. Trump has not just disavowed Haley -- yes, the woman he hired on purpose -- but her donors as well. He is fat fucking chaos personified and could change his mind on a whim -- this is not a selling point for a political candidate by the way -- but right now, Haley is persona non gratin.

[Kaleredar]

I'll give Haley her due only if she continues after losing the primary. Her "base" is significant and Trump would be smart to win her over. That he's refused to connect her to potential VP material is...typical Trump stupidity. But...if he does, and she refuses...

Remember though, that Haley’s supporters are still republicans. Meaning that I imagine the majority of them will hold their nose and vote for Trump if/when he’s the nominee, regardless of any “distaste” they showed for him during the primaries.

[Breccia]

Governor of Georgia lays out the Republican strategy of dismissing cases against Trump, because they feel like it.

I gotta be careful about what I say here, because I was subpoenaed by Fani, with Willis in the special grand jury. But it’s hard to believe that a process that I think many people — including myself — believe is very political, regardless of the merits behind the case, has gotten even more political now because of her actions and those of Mr. Wade and others.

He believes it's political. He feels that it's political. It's feelings, you guys!

Key aspect: "regardless of the merits behind the case"

Let that sink in.

This is the first step taken towards throwing the case out/pardoning Trump, just because he feels like it. Even if convicted with facts and evidence.

Calling it now.

[Edge-]

Governor of Georgia lays out the Republican strategy of dismissing cases against Trump, because they feel like it.



He believes it's political. He feels that it's political. It's feelings, you guys!

Key aspect: "regardless of the merits behind the case"

Let that sink in.

This is the first step taken towards throwing the case out/pardoning Trump, just because he feels like it. Even if convicted with facts and evidence.

Calling it now.

Republicans sure can't stop talking about their feelings. That's some sissy liberal arts studies shit, I heard.

[Zaydin]

Trump is apparently asking NY courts to put up a 100 million dollar bond instead of the full amount he is supposed to put up in order to appeal the fraud ruling in NY.

Saw someone comment elsewhere that he also wants only put up 5 million as a bond to appeal the latest E Jean Carrol ruling.