Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Spectral]

I'm not falling all over her but Ramaswamy and DeSantis folded after a single primary.

Ramaswamy and Haley emphatically did not have the same goal in this electoral cycle.

DeSantis obviously did just fail though.

[The Stormbringer]

If he refuses to put the money aside and refuses to pay, then yes, NYState can come for his assets, I don't know which ones they'd be allowed to take. There are likely rules about that sort of thing, and I have no idea where to even look.

Just kidding, I am Chef Fucking Breccia Son I know where to look. NYState has already filed they're going after the money from selling the DC hotel, and from selling his NYState golf course. They're taking his liquid assets, either way. NYState can also put liens against his properties and garnish any loans Trump gave to other people -- including fake-ass loans like "hey son here's $5 million in poker chips".

Carroll tho, I mean it this time, not sure how that'll work. But she specifically and directly said she was looking at Trump Tower. Forbes lists it at $156 million and $100 million in debt, this is a realistic goal.

Please, if there is any good in this universe, let this happen. Take all his fucking shit. Show his base how much of a sad, pathetic loser he is. I already have hope for the rest of the year because of this, and we're just getting started! And to think, it may have been two civil cases that absolutely tanked this villainous cretin.

[Edge-]

https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/28/polit...ork/index.html

Former President Donald Trump must come up with the full bond amount to cover the $454 million verdict in the civil fraud trial, an appeals court judge ruled Wednesday.

Associate Justice Anil Singh, however, lifted a ban on Trump’s ability to obtain loans from a New York bank, which could allow him to access the equity in his assets to back the full bond amount.

Singh denied Trump’s request to delay his obligation to post $454 million until a full appellate panel hears his motion to stay enforcement of that judgment until his appeals of the civil fraud ruling are over.

Interesting that he can seek loans from a NY based bank now. I wonder if any of them consider him worth the risk?

- - - Updated - - -

https://archive.is/jGNIK

More bad legal news, archive link for WashPo -

The federal judge overseeing Trump’s criminal trial for allegedly mishandling classified documents ruled Wednesday against his lawyers’ bid to see more of the classified filings prosecutors have submitted — concluding that the access Trump’s team sought was not typically granted in such cases, and that withholding the information would not hamper his ability to defend himself.

U.S. District Court Judge Aileen M. Cannon issued a nine-page order rejecting Trump’s arguments for his lawyers to see prosecutors’ filings under Section 4 of the Classified Information Procedures Act, a law designed to shield national security secrets at issue in criminal trials.

In her ruling, Cannon noted the unusual facts of this particular case, and suggested the special counsel, Jack Smith, may be overstating the law when he argued the prosecutors’ filings cannot be shared with the defense.

"The Court cannot speak with such confidence in this first-ever criminal prosecution of a former United States President—once the country’s chief classification authority over many of the documents the Special Counsel now seeks to withhold from him (and his cleared counsel)—in a case without charges of transmission or delivery of national defense information,” Cannon wrote. She said she read the law differently, to mean that judges have discretion to make that decision themselves.

Nevertheless, Cannon said, after reviewing case precedents, sealed hearings, and the filings in question, she concluded Trump’s lawyers do not need to review those government filings to defend their client.

“As best the Court can discern following its rigorous analysis, Defendants’ rights will not be impaired by today’s ruling,” she said.

Is anyone keeping track of how many motions and cases Donald and his legal teams have lost? I know it's a lot but...I'm curious.

[Poopymonster]

Let's not blow too much smoke up her ass.

Remember when it was Ted Cruz in Haley's shoes?

Yeah, I remember what happened later in the campaign too.

[Nymrohd]

https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/28/polit...ork/index.html



Interesting that he can seek loans from a NY based bank now. I wonder if any of them consider him worth the risk?

He likely still has some collateral that are even in a worse case scenario worth enough to make up for that bond.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Yeah, I remember what happened later in the campaign too.

Exactamundo.

[Edge-]

So about that whole Fani Willis shit that the Donald crew is pushing - https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/28/polit...lis/index.html

A key witness in the push to disqualify District Attorney Fani Willis from the Georgia election case against Donald Trump had a much deeper involvement in the effort than was previously known, according to hundreds of text messages obtained by CNN.

The 413 texts between Terrence Bradley and Ashleigh Merchant, an attorney for one of Trump’s co-defendants, reveal months of communications between the two, shedding new light on the extent to which Bradley assisted Merchant’s pursuit of evidence to back up claims Willis and her top prosecutor, Nathan Wade, engaged in an improper romantic relationship.

On Tuesday, Bradley reluctantly testified for more than two hours about the romantic relationship between Willis and Wade, Bradley’s former law partner and one-time client.

Reminder: His testimony largely could be summed up with, "I heard some office gossip but have no actual evidence and can't even support my prior claims now that I'm under oath."

Another nothingberder.

[Breccia]

Another nothingberder.

Just a reminder: Team Trump is going with "you can't prosecute me, because I heard those two slept together" because he can't go with "I am innocent of these crimes". He's going with an ad hominem.

- - - Updated - - -

In the ongoing effort to help Trump as much as possible, SCOTUS agrees to hear "absolute immunity" case.

Smith had asked them to stay out of it entirely and let Trump's many trials move forward. His second choice was "at least get it over with quickly" and they didn't do that either, putting arguments April 22. The hope, then, is that Trump's many trials continue to move forward, as Trump isn't immune yet.

Again, it is my belief that SCOTUS will rule against "absolute immunity" if, for no other reason, so Biden doesn't drag five of them behind the White House and put a double barrel against their skulls. After all, if Trump is allowed to conspire with non-WH members to overthrow the country and crown himself dictator, Biden is allowed to murder Justices and replace them with, for all he cares, German Shepherds.

[Gorsameth]

Just a reminder: Team Trump is going with "you can't prosecute me, because I heard those two slept together" because he can't go with "I am innocent of these crimes". He's going with an ad hominem.

- - - Updated - - -

In the ongoing effort to help Trump as much as possible, SCOTUS agrees to hear "absolute immunity" case.

Smith had asked them to stay out of it entirely and let Trump's many trials move forward. His second choice was "at least get it over with quickly" and they didn't do that either, putting arguments April 22. The hope, then, is that Trump's many trials continue to move forward, as Trump isn't immune yet.

Again, it is my belief that SCOTUS will rule against "absolute immunity" if, for no other reason, so Biden doesn't drag five of them behind the White House and put a double barrel against their skulls. After all, if Trump is allowed to conspire with non-WH members to overthrow the country and crown himself dictator, Biden is allowed to murder Justices and replace them with, for all he cares, German Shepherds.

dragging it out another 3+ months so Trump can call for his cases to be halted until the SCOTUS resolves it. I would take the best that they indeed will force such a stay while they 'deliberate' because its all the can do to help Trump. They can't rule in his favor so instead they do what they can do drag all this beyond the election.

[Breccia]

Tucker Carlson: Jon Stewart ‘a tool of the regime in a sinister way’

"This is the same Tucker Carlson that interviewed Putin?"

Yes.

I just want to be able to walk to the grocery store without being murdered

"Has Tucker Carlson even once been to a grocery store?"

I doubt it.

"Does Tucker Carlson know people were hiding from Putin's forces so they wouldn't be drafted and sent to Ukraine, causing them to die?"

Yes. He's lying. He is pro-Putin.

[Edge-]

"Has Tucker Carlson even once been to a grocery store?"

I doubt it.

He has never, it's simply not masculine and he has more manly things to do like tan his testicles. He sends his wife to go shopping for crudité when they're entertaining guests.

[Breccia]

He sends his wife to go shopping for crudité when--

You watch your language! This is a family-friendly forum!

[gondrin]

Let's not blow too much smoke up her ass.

Remember when it was Ted Cruz in Haley's shoes?

Ok, Cruz is probably the worst example to use here. The last time Cruz got upset, he became Trump Phone Bitch #1.

[Paranoid Android]

Ooph! I'm a cynic at heart and SCOTUS now taking up the immunity case has me worried.

First they delayed hearing the case about 2 weeks ago. Now they decide and people say April with trial maybe in May. Trump's delay tactics work.

Now if SCOTUS rules in Trump's favor in immunity; Holy bleep. If this is the case then Biden better, well...

Edit: Just watched lawyer say that 90 days is period from SCOTUS ruling til trial. So August?

Oh yeah. The delay by SCOTUS seems obvious. A 3 month hearing when SCOTUS could honestly hear this next week. Lawyers don't need time for this argument.

[Breccia]

Now if SCOTUS rules in Trump's favor in immunity; Holy bleep.

Based on the nature of this case, SCOTUS could rule that Trump was immune for his role in leading the Jan 6th insurrection, but not "absolute immunity" from everything. In other words, "it's okay when Trump does it". That would pretty much undo the 14th as well, since he could not be found guilty of the insurrection he intentionally engaged in.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Ok, Cruz is probably the worst example to use here. The last time Cruz got upset, he became Trump Phone Bitch #1.

The reason he's the example is because he was all...

“I am not in the habit of supporting people who attack my wife and attack my father,” Cruz said, answering questions at a Texas delegation breakfast at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland and facing backlash for not yet endorsing Trump.

Referring to his pledge to support his party’s nominee, Cruz said that statement “was not a blanket commitment that if you slander and attack Heidi I’m going to nonetheless go like a servile puppy dog” and support him.

...before becoming Trump's servile puppy dog.

[Corvus]

Illinois judge joins in banning Trump from the primary ballot, though it is on hold pending appeal.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68432465

[Edge-]

You watch your language! This is a family-friendly forum!

Real-talk: The first time I heard that term spoken was by Mehmet Oz when he was complaining about how expensive it was to purchase the ingredients at his local store, which he was apparently visiting for the first time, to make it for guests. Well his wife would be the one shopping and making it for the guests.

Ah, what a weird time that was. And to think he got Donald's endorsement!

[Surfd]

Real-talk: The first time I heard that term spoken was by Mehmet Oz when he was complaining about how expensive it was to purchase the ingredients at his local store, which he was apparently visiting for the first time, to make it for guests. Well his wife would be the one shopping and making it for the guests.

Ah, what a weird time that was. And to think he got Donald's endorsement!

Was that the store who's name he got wrong in his social media posts, despite posting a picture of himself, in the store, with the store name in like 3 foot high letters on the wall behind him? Yeah, that was comedy gold.

[Breccia]

So as we all know by now, Trump spent the entire Trump Org fraud trial yelling "I am worth waaaaaaay more than that!" into any passing man, woman, TV, camera, or person...followed immediately by saying, under oath, he couldn't put up the amount legally required for an appeal. Yes, Trump said under oath he had $400 million, and when he was found liable for $400 million, suddenly realized he didn't have $400 million.

The irony was lost on no-one.

James is asking a state appeals court to deny Trump's request to not post a full bond following the judge's decision in the case.

Trump's legal team previously told the court it would need to "raise capital" to satisfy the judgment. James said allowing Trump to not post a full bond or deposit would leave her office with "substantial shortfalls" if the judgment is affirmed by the appeals court.

"A prevailing plaintiff is entitled to have her reward secured, and defendants have never demonstrated that Mr. Trump's liquid assets could satisfy the full amount of the judgement," James wrote in a letter to the Supreme Court's appellate division.

James urged the court to reject a stay on Engoron's judgment in full. But she said it would be "especially inappropriate" for the court to enforce a stay on the disgorgement awards in the case, the enforcement of continued supervision of the Trump Organization by an independent monitor, and having Trump and the Trump Organization barred from applying for loans from certain New York financial institutions for three years.

She didn't get that last one.

In her letter on Wednesday, James said that the appellate court should "expedite briefing on and the resolution of the underlying stay motion."

She said that she is prepared to further address the issues presented in her filing at oral arguments on Trump's application for the stay.

James also told the court it should "set an appropriate briefing schedule" for the issue.

"What does that bolded mean?"

I think it means "I want to point out how bullshit this is quickly, so that Trump has no excuses and the deadline isn't moved".

But yes, the NY AG is saying "Trump has admitted he can't pay" and cited, as evidence, Trump saying he couldn't pay.

You know who else doesn't think Trump can pay? Team Trump.

Jonathan Turley, an attorney and a professor at George Washington University Law School, defended Trump's request to delay the payment of his fine. He told Fox News' Bill Hemmer last week

*ding*

that Engoron's "decision is the decision of a single jurist and this party wants to have a review, but in order to do that, he was to pony up what is about a half a billion dollars."

Reacting to Engoron's decision to reject a stay last week, Turley said, "That has a gross unfairness to it when you combine the use of the law and the size of his judgment and then this requirement for a deposit. But he just simply brushed those aside and his tone almost bordered on the mocking."

"Did Turley say why this was due to a single jurist?"

No, but it was because Trump willfully forfeit the right to a jury. You can't decline a jury, then complain that you didn't get a jury. Oh, wait, he did. Well, you can, but it makes you a whiny little bitch and it doesn't change that this is your fault.

"Did Turley explain that this 'deposit' was the judgement, which Trump was found liable for? That he lost the case and, barring a change in ruling later, would have to forfeit that money?"

No. Turley did not explain that the reason the price was so high, was because Trump's crimes were so large as to demand such a consequence.

"Did Turley explain that the requirement for a 'deposit' was NY law that applies to everyone?"

No.

"Turley seemed to take issue with the judge's tone. Did Turley even a single time take issue with Trump attacking him on social media, or yelling into cameras on the courthouse steps?"

Not once.

"Man, Judge Engoron is in a tough situation!"

No, he's in a very easy one. Apply the law as written. Trump has not yet proven he's due an exception. He willfully broke the law to take advantage of New York and its residents and did so to profit from it. The damages are exceptional, because the crime is exceptional. Let the written law of New York State take it from here. Trump complaining that it's unfair is immaterial.