Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Zaydin]

Another day and Trumps Pecker is causing him more problems. Can't find a better source right now, but day 2 of Peckers testimony includes highlights such as:

Pecker and Michael Cohen worked directly with Trump to create a system to "catch and kill" stories detrimental to Trump. They discussed it in a conversation in a room together; Cohen can provide corroborating testimony.

The National Enquirer had never pursued a "catch and kill" relationship with a potential story subject on behalf of a celebrity before Trump.

Cohen and AMI worked together to benefit Trump and denigrate his opponents even to the extent that Cohen approved and suggested cover text.

Cohen was not acting as Trump's personal lawyer in those capacities; he was a representative of the campaign, speaking on behalf of Trump, Pecker believed.

Pecker used AMI/National Enquirer to cast a net for people potentially with stories that could damage Trump and Trump's campaign. He was an active part of Trump's media efforts–in this case, countering potential negative media under cover of a media outlet.

They caught at least three stories relating to Trump: an affair with Karen McDougal; an encounter with Stormy Daniels; and an unproven claim of a love child made by a former doorman at Trump Tower.

Like Fox, the National Enquirer became an on-demand propaganda outlet for the Trump campaign where the publisher/broadcasters were working directly with the candidate to form the message and reinforce it across channels.

Relatedly, Alina Habba is seemingly throwing in the towel on Trumps chances in New York.

[Breccia]

Relatedly, Alina Habba is seemingly throwing in the towel on Trumps chances in New York.

Alina Habba Shows Up at Trump’s Trial and Suddenly Makes Things Worse

Habba, who is not representing Trump in his hush-money trial, still showed up at the Manhattan courthouse on Monday to offer her opinion. “We’re here because of something that happened when he was in the White House that wasn’t even wrong,” she told reporters.

“You hire lawyers to solve problems, lawyers solve those problems, you pay them. That’s it!” Habba said, in language reminiscent of Trump’s rally speeches.

Habba’s words on Monday are not the first time she has seemingly displayed ignorance of the law, either. She has claimed the New York state law requirement that Trump attend every day of his trial is a violation of “due process,” and she was rebuked in court 12 times in one day in the E. Jean Carroll defamation case. She even had to abandon her attempt to have the Carroll case dismissed.

What brought Habba to this conclusion? She didn't solve shit.

[DarkTZeratul]

That's a good sign - wouldn't take a lot of them flipping or just sitting out the election for Trump to be done.

Especially because Pennsylvania is an extremely swingy purple state. In both of the last elections, the margin was less than 1% (it went for Trump in 2016 and Biden in 2020).

[Mayhem]

Again, I hope it's less "spineless" and more "I don't want any possibility of any mild issue from getting in the way". But the end result is still the same. Trump not only got an extension, not only got a lower bond, but got a blatantly illegal one because nobody valid wants to touch this case.

I am really quite curious what deal KSIC/Trump signed that can no longer be changed is. KSIC has to know that the judgement is far higher than the $175 million they barely have. The amount could be reduced on appeal, and they'd still be out the whole thing.

I have "this will be used by Trump to argue about mistrial" on my bingo card.

[s_bushido]

If the MAGA wing loses yet another general election, I don't think there's much steam left in their ship to keep them going, even if Republicans cinch the 2026 mid terms.

Chances seem just as likely that they'll quadruple-down on the extremism. "Our problem is we weren't batshit enough!!!" Especially if the election is close.

Of course, Trump could win and it would vindicate (in their minds) all the worst conspiracies and delusions they've been fostering for the past 4 years. Either way, I wouldn't write the MAGAts off just yet.

[Shadowferal]

Evangelical Pastor Shames Congregation Over Trump's 'Blasphemous' Bible In Angry Rant

[Breccia]

"It's about time a religious leader stood up and spoke some truth!!!"

See, here's the problem with Trump but the current GOP he's stolen: I don't know if that commenter was talking about the pastor, or Trump. It's clear Trump is viewed as a religious leader, even to the point of being worshipped/prayed to.

[Paranoid Android]

Justice Elena Kagan: If a former president ordered the military to stage a coup, "you're saying that's an official act? That's immune?"

Trump attorney D. John Sauer, in part: "It would depend on the circumstances whether it was an official act."

Since I have no life I listening to the Oral arguments atm about Presidential Immunity. The conservative judges are complete hacks and I guess you give them credit to being contrarian hacks on what a Justice should do. But it's embarrassing, with most of the argument is "if the President farts, then everyone would want to prosecute and President could never do anything".

[Kathranis]

Since I have no life I listening to the Oral arguments atm about Presidential Immunity. The conservative judges are complete hacks and I guess you give them credit to being contrarian hacks on what a Justice should do. But it's embarrassing, with most of the argument is "if the President farts, then everyone would want to prosecute and President could never do anything".

The implications of complete presidential immunity should be obvious enough that the conservative justices recognize it as a threat to their own lives. Sotomayor brought that up specifically, whether the president could assassinate justices in order to replace them with his own appointees during his term.

It's such a blatantly obvious slippery slope. Even with the caveat that the president has complete immunity unless congress votes to impeach him, then he can simply imprison or kill dissenters in congress to prevent that impeachment vote. The threat alone would prevent dissent.

[Edge-]

When asked by Justice Sonya Sotomayor during arguments on Thursday if the president deciding “that his rival is a corrupt person and he orders the military — or he orders someone to assassinate him” would constitute an official act subject to immunity, attorney D. John Sauer said it could.

“It would depend on the hypothetical but we can see that could well be an official act,” Sauer told the court.

Damn, if SCOTUS rules for Donald's team then I hope Biden is ready to make extensive use of special forces to assassinate every political rival and anyone that dares challenge his power as he then goes on to void any and all limits on the powers of the presidency because it is an official act too and you can't stop him!

[Sunseeker]

Damn, if SCOTUS rules for Donald's team then I hope Biden is ready to make extensive use of special forces to assassinate every political rival and anyone that dares challenge his power as he then goes on to void any and all limits on the powers of the presidency because it is an official act too and you can't stop him!

Because of course we all know that if they rule the President as absolute, total immunity, as soon as a Republican is in office they will use the power.

Though to be fair, I think if they do make that ruling, I think we're basically done as a Democracy/Republic/free county.

[Edge-]

https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/25/polit...ict/index.html

A federal judge on Thursday upheld the verdict and award in E. Jean Carroll’s defamation case against former President Donald Trump and denied Trump’s motion for a new trial.

Judge Lewis Kaplan, in a written opinion, said Trump’s legal arguments are without merit. The judge also found that the punitive damages the jury awarded to Carroll “passes constitutional muster.”

Trump is also separately appealing the verdict.

Eventually one should run out of appeals.

[Xyonai]

Chances seem just as likely that they'll quadruple-down on the extremism. "Our problem is we weren't batshit enough!!!" Especially if the election is close.

Of course, Trump could win and it would vindicate (in their minds) all the worst conspiracies and delusions they've been fostering for the past 4 years. Either way, I wouldn't write the MAGAts off just yet.

I guess I more meant;Of course they'll double down on being crazy, and they'll be obnoxious tools so as long as there's someone to hold a microphone to their face, but will that endear them to the people who actually need to vote them into office? I think we might be seeing diminishing returns on the MAGA appeal which will only be more pronounce if they lose another presidential run.

[Kathranis]

Damn, if SCOTUS rules for Donald's team then I hope Biden is ready to make extensive use of special forces to assassinate every political rival and anyone that dares challenge his power as he then goes on to void any and all limits on the powers of the presidency because it is an official act too and you can't stop him!

They spent a while during oral arguments kind of blowing smoke and talking about hypotheticals but in the end it sounds like the SCOTUS basically wants to resolve this by saying "no, of course the president doesn't have complete immunity," and then handle each potential issue on a case-by-case basis as they come before the court, rather than ironing out a comprehensive list of exactly what should or should not be allowed as official presidential acts.

[Breccia]

"if the President farts, then everyone would want to prosecute and President could never do anything".

Both sides of this issue are arguing slippery slope.

Sane People: The President could order summary assassination executions with no way of being stopped. Even a vote to impeach would not help, because he would order everyone trying to impeach him executed.

Cultists: Without immunity, the President could be arrested for every single thing he does that could possibly be considered a crime, whether he were the President or not.

But what it comes down to is this: which of these sides actually has any evidence supporting that point of view? (this is beyond any legal wording in a 300-year-old document)

The answer, of course, is that sane people are right. US Presidents have a long history of never ordering their opponents assassinated. Obviously, some of that comes down to them being good people. But why didn't Nixon? Why didn't Jackson? I think part of the deal, is they knew even the powers of the WH has limits. And that includes "the United States does not tolerate a tyrant".

"Wait, by that logic, Team Trump is correct because no President was ever arrested for anything. Therefore they must have had immunity, or they would have been arrested!"

Interesting theory. For what crime?

"Uh..."

Let's humor Trump's point. Let's assume the reason Biden hasn't been arrested yet is because he has immunity. For what charge? What crime has anyone been able to demonstrate he committed?

Or literally any other President? Because I can think of one.

"You're going to say Nixon, aren't you?"

Nixon indeed. Nixon fled the WH and was immediately pardoned by SNL actor Chevy Chase, strongly suggesting Nixon didn't have immunity.

"So why wasn't any President arrested before, if they don't have immunity?"

They weren't fucking stupid enough to commit crimes in the WH. Or, they weren't horrible people. Mix of both, I'm sure, the Trail of Tears was a fucking war crime and everyone knows it, but Jackson wasn't arrested for any made-up bullshit or minor crime. He walked out of the front door, reeking of cheese -- funny story, look it up -- and lived long enough to condemn the Civil War after his death.

Simply put, there's enough evidence in US history to show that, no, the President does not have absolute immunity. They have effective immunity, since nobody's going to drag FDR out of bed for parking in a handicapped spot. But the...oh, right. Nobody's going to arrest Obama in 2010 for parking in a handicapped spot. They'd arrest him for, say, setting a nun on fire in the Rose Garden.

Trump has already threatened that Biden is in trouble if it's ruled he does not have absolute immunity...and somehow gets into the WH while convicted of multiple felonies. But the obvious response to that is "if you get re-elected and have immunity, why wouldn't you just have him dragged to a dark site?" He wouldn't need to prosecute Biden. He could just order the entire Biden family tree lumberjacked. Meanwhile he hasn't yet named a crime Biden's committed, only vague words like "corruption" which isn't a crime, it's a description. One without basis, I might add.

I stand behind my original prediction. SCOTUS will rule that the President does not have absolute immunity. They will rule, however, that Trump specifically in all of Trump's specific cases is not guilty. They have no reason to give Biden a loaded sniper rifle and their home address, they just want Trump to walk.

- - - Updated - - -

They spent a while during oral arguments kind of blowing smoke and talking about hypotheticals but in the end it sounds like the SCOTUS basically wants to resolve this by saying "no, of course the president doesn't have complete immunity," and then handle each potential issue on a case-by-case basis as they come before the court, rather than ironing out a comprehensive list of exactly what should or should not be allowed as official presidential acts.

Agreed. And this would also take the most time, which is another benefit to Trump.

[Paranoid Android]

Both sides of this issue are arguing slippery slope.

Sane People: The President could order summary assassination executions with no way of being stopped. Even a vote to impeach would not help, because he would order everyone trying to impeach him executed.

Cultists: Without immunity, the President could be arrested for every single thing he does that could possibly be considered a crime, whether he were the President or not.

But what it comes down to is this: which of these sides actually has any evidence supporting that point of view? (this is beyond any legal wording in a 300-year-old document)

The answer, of course, is that sane people are right. US Presidents have a long history of never ordering their opponents assassinated. Obviously, some of that comes down to them being good people. But why didn't Nixon? Why didn't Jackson? I think part of the deal, is they knew even the powers of the WH has limits. And that includes "the United States does not tolerate a tyrant".

Conservative judges and just politicians want to muddy it up now that say if President has to attack a country, bomb some place and goodness forbid something worse; than we just going to prosecute them and thus, the President will never do what is "right".

Once more the distinction is Trump was actually violating the Constitution by You Know, trying an insurrection. Sotomayor sort of made this with assassination, but I think another Justice or lawyer talked about Acts of War, which technically in the Constitution. Once again Conservatives trying to say that even duties mentioned in the Constitution give the President to do what might be seen as crimes.

As from your quote, that Presidents actually decided to follow the law and thus never have had to be prosecuted.

So in the end I believe there is no way they give President immunity, just curious on ruling. Alito's biggest thing was that every President will get thus, so while he dick rides Trump and conservatism, maybe he is frightened of a Dem President. Idk. So would this lead just Thomas to rule total immunity? Thomas sleeping through this and wakening up to rubber stamp will be something if he is the only one.

[Endus]

Conservative judges and just politicians want to muddy it up now that say if President has to attack a country, bomb some place and goodness forbid something worse; than we just going to prosecute them and thus, the President will never do what is "right".

Once more the distinction is Trump was actually violating the Constitution by You Know, trying an insurrection. Sotomayor sort of made this with assassination, but I think another Justice or lawyer talked about Acts of War, which technically in the Constitution. Once again Conservatives trying to say that even duties mentioned in the Constitution give the President to do what might be seen as crimes.

As from your quote, that Presidents actually decided to follow the law and thus never have had to be prosecuted.

So in the end I believe there is no way they give President immunity, just curious on ruling. Alito's biggest thing was that every President will get thus, so while he dick rides Trump and conservatism, maybe he is frightened of a Dem President. Idk. So would this lead just Thomas to rule total immunity? Thomas sleeping through this and wakening up to rubber stamp will be something if he is the only one.

Two things on all this;

1> If any one elected official is this necessary for the basic function of government, your system is fucked up. If Trudeau did a crime, he'd be charged accordingly here in Canada. Parliament could either suspend him or force a leave of absence on him, the Liberal Party would likely select a new PM over the weekend, and things would keep ticking along with barely a hiccup other than the bad optics. The response to noticing this problem should be to tell Congress to pass laws fixing it, not to lay down new protections for the President so the structurally dumbassed system is propped up against its own failings.

2> In domestic terms, it should be trivial to determine that any actions that are criminal cannot be official duties of the President. And in international terms, the US doesn't respect international courts so all that's pretty irrelevant; just don't visit those countries after you're no longer President.

[Edge-]

Donald Trump’s old friend-turned-key-witness in his New York hush money trial blatantly admitted Thursday that he violated campaign finance laws to help the former president’s 2016 campaign.

David Pecker, the former publisher of the National Enquirer and former CEO of its parent company, American Media Inc., told the court in Trump’s hush-money trial that he knew he had to obey campaign finance laws but still failed to report $150,000 to the FEC. That sum came from a payment he issued via Trump’s former fixer Michael Cohen to Playboy model Karen McDougal for the rights to her story regarding her alleged affair with Trump.

“We didn’t want the story to embarrass Mr. Trump, or embarrass or hurt the campaign,” Pecker testified.

Pecker claimed he knew that failing to report the payment would skirt campaign finance regulations due to an earlier catch-and-kill effort that aided Arnold Schwarzenegger’s campaign for California governor. After Schwarzenegger announced his candidacy, several women came to the National Enquirer with their stories—but even after scooping them up, one story leaked to the press, forcing Pecker to learn he had run afoul of campaign finance laws.

“Based on what happened 14 years ago, I wanted to be comfortable that the agreement we were going to prepare for Karen McDougal met all the obligations with respect to a campaign contribution,” Pecker said, explaining that his company had consulted an election law attorney on the matter before signing the contract with McDougal.

The week has been full of admissions by Pecker, who has been offered an immunity deal by the government in exchange for his full cooperation in the Trump trial.

On Tuesday, Pecker admitted that he and Trump had coordinated not just to publish positive coverage of his friend ahead of the 2016 election, but also to publish negative coverage of other presidential candidates. In doing so, Pecker practically admitted to the catch-and-kill media scheme that Trump has repeatedly denied.

Trump had asked “what can I do and what my magazines can do to help the campaign,” Pecker recalled to the court. Pecker had responded that he could “publish positive stories about Trump” and “negative stories about his opponents.”

Trump is accused of using Cohen to sweep an affair with porn star Stormy Daniels under the rug ahead of the 2016 presidential election. He faces 34 felony charges in this case for allegedly falsifying business records with the intent to further an underlying crime. Trump has pleaded not guilty on all counts.

https://newrepublic.com/post/180991/...roke-law-trump

Of course Pecker gets immunity for all this and shit which is bullshit but whatever.

Anyways, Don the wannabe crime lord and his criminal friends continues after these messages from our sponsors.

[Shadowferal]

I could dislike Amy Barrett on any given fir any reason, but today isn't that day;
'You concede that private acts don't get immunity?': Trump lawyer just handed Justice Barrett a reason to side with Jack Smith on Jan. 6 indictment

"You concede that private acts don’t get immunity?” the justice asked.

“We do,”

Trump’s attorney replied.

Barrett went on to read from the government’s early April response brief filed with the court, which characterizes several of Trump’s alleged actions as “private conduct” meant to achieve a “private aim.”

“Petitioner turned to a private attorney who ‘was willing to spread knowingly false claims’ of election fraud to spearhead his challenges to the election results,” the justice read before asking: “Private?”

To which Sauer replied: “As alleged, I mean, we dispute the allegation, but that sounds private.”

With the intonation of a box ticked, Barrett mimicked the response. “Sounds private.”

Then she read from Smith’s brief again: “Petitioner conspired with another private attorney who caused the filing in court of a ‘verification’ signed by petitioner that contained false allegations to support a challenge.”

"Also sounds private,” Sauer admitted.
This time, the justice did not respond, but barreled ahead, reciting the government’s brief yet again, and slightly paraphrasing. “Three private actors — two attorneys (including those mentioned above) and a political consultant — helped implement a plan to submit fraudulent slates of presidential electors to obstruct the certification proceeding, and petitioner and a co-conspirator attorney directed that effort,” Barrett said.
Sauer, this time, offered slight pushback about how fast the justice read the alleged conduct but ultimately said he believed it was private.

“So those acts you would not dispute?” Barrett drilled ahead. “Those were private and you wouldn’t raise a claim that they were official.”

Again, Sauer agreed: “As characterized.”

"Justice Barrett just got Sauer to concede that there are private acts alleged in the indictment — so that the trial could go forward at least in part,” University of Texas Law Professor Steve Vladeck wrote on the social media platform X (formerly Twitter).

Asked by Chief Justice John Roberts what the court should make of an indictment that contains both private and official conduct, the defendant’s attorney had two suggestions leading in the same direction.

Sauer said the high court should either hash out the issues themselves and remand to the lower court or simply remand for the lower court to determine how to deal with those issues — as long as the court’s order purges all of the official conduct from the indictment.

Perhaps feigning something not entirely unlike incredulity, Roberts characterized that idea as “like a one-legged stool.”

“If you say you have to expunge the official part, how does that go forward?” the chief justice asked.

Trump’s attorney, after some hedging, replied: “This particular indictment … we don’t believe it would be able to go forward.”

Not looking good for Trump...

[Breccia]

Of course Pecker gets immunity for all this and shit which is bullshit but whatever.

His testimony and immunity are meaningless if they aren't true. I'm willing to let this guy go for objective evidence that convicts Trump.

- - - Updated - - -

To which Sauer replied: “As alleged, I mean, we dispute the allegation, but that sounds private.”

Sounds more and more like "okay we don't have absolute immunity, but everything we did was still fine".