Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[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".

[Shadowferal]

At least four of SCOTUS are likely to crush the immunity argument.
Fuck Alito and Thomas.

[Edge-]

At least four of SCOTUS are likely to crush the immunity argument.
Fuck Alito and Thomas.

I mean...if they do they're basically asking for an executive order directing their assassination. It's an official act and all, can't sue or stop Joe because he's POTUS and immune.

Two new seats opening up soon?!

[Rasulis]

Listened to it on and off. I did miss Thomas segments.

The crazy part is that the defense attorney declined the chance for a rebuttal at the end. That would be the best time for him to establish his case. Unless he has no case.

[Breccia]

Unless he has no case.

Or feels he doesn't need one.

There is no ruling here Trump won't be okay with. The delay alone has been his friend. Even when SCOTUS rules that he doesn't have absolute immunity, all remaining cases will still crawl their way to SCOTUS who will shoot them down one at a time Because Reasons.

No closing was offered because they know this isn't the end.

[Gorsameth]

Listened to it on and off. I did miss Thomas segments.

The crazy part is that the defense attorney declined the chance for a rebuttal at the end. That would be the best time for him to establish his case. Unless he has no case.

They know. And by now they have been taken step by step through how much of a case they don't have through numerous courts.

[Nymrohd]

Or feels he doesn't need one.

There is no ruling here Trump won't be okay with. The delay alone has been his friend. Even when SCOTUS rules that he doesn't have absolute immunity, all remaining cases will still crawl their way to SCOTUS who will shoot them down one at a time Because Reasons.

No closing was offered because they know this isn't the end.

Pretty sure that's their entire strategy. Delay everything till after the elections and do everything possible to win the elections. No amount of ratfucking in these elections will matter if they can win the Presidency and Senate.

[The Stormbringer]

I mean...if they do they're basically asking for an executive order directing their assassination. It's an official act and all, can't sue or stop Joe because he's POTUS and immune.

Two new seats opening up soon?!

This got a good chuckle out of me. That's certainly one way to pack the courts! I don't think the Republicans would appreciate that method, though if we reached that point, I think they'd have other, more pressing issues to worry about... like updating their Last Will and Testament.

[zorkuus]

There's a little asshole in me who wishes presidents were granted total immunity, and 2 minutes after that decision Biden would have tRump executed live on air and end this degenerate maga madness once and for all.

[Edge-]

https://www.politico.com/live-update...ement-00154420

Before his testimony ended, David Pecker testified about a conference call former President Donald Trump set up between the tabloid publisher and two of his White House aides, Sarah Huckabee Sanders and Hope Hicks.

The call happened soon after Karen McDougal gave an interview to CNN anchor Anderson Cooper. On the call, Pecker told the aides he planned to extend an agreement with McDougal that would keep her from speaking more widely about her affair with the former president.

“They thought that it was a good idea,” Pecker said of Hicks and Sanders, whose name first came up at trial during this line of questioning.

Eyyyy, Arkansas governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders is now officially named during Donald's first criminal trial. I'm sure Republicans won't care that she thought it was great for a tabloid to pursue an illegal scheme to silence women who had claims of sexual assault or other tawdry affairs against Donald Trump specifically to benefit his campaign.

Truly shocking and unexpected stuff.

- - - Updated - - -

https://newrepublic.com/post/181023/...-supreme-court

Now if an incumbent who loses a very close, hotly contested election knows that a real possibility after leaving office is not that the president is going to be able to go off into a peaceful retirement, but that the president may be criminally prosecuted by a bitter political opponent, will that not lead us into a cycle that destabilizes the functioning of our country as a democracy?

A question asked by Justice Alito, as if we don't have just shy of 250 years of this process playing out without punative retribution by the incoming president.

This is a question only a vindictive, petty extremist like Donald would ask, and Alito is a lifetime Justice who has gone back to 14th century alchemists (or whatever hilarious shit) to justify his rulings.

This also presumes the POTUS can, and would, directly weaponize their DOJ to actively investigate and prosecute rivals. Also something only and extremist like Donald and Republicans have discussed or theorized or proposed - not something Democrats have ever proposed.

I continue to hope that Justice Alito suffers an unfortunate accident where he is hit by every bus in the Greyhound fleet.

[Gorsameth]

if the former President wanted to peacefully retire and not be criminally prosecuted then he shouldn't have organised an insurrection to overthrow our democracy your honour.

[Endus]

https://newrepublic.com/post/181023/...-supreme-court

A question asked by Justice Alito, as if we don't have just shy of 250 years of this process playing out without punative retribution by the incoming president.

Alito's also exposing himself to be a bit of a moron, or at least so up his own ass he's lost touch with reality.

The first relevant question is "is the sitting President ideologically biased towards committing crimes to remain in power?"

Do a Pascal's Wager type chart:

	Immunity Yes	Immunity No
Criminality Yes	Assassinations	Prison for crimes
Criminality No	No law-breaking	No law-breaking

Alito can't grasp something this basic. Or he's willing to lie about it. A President who won't commit crimes to remain in power has no need for immunity. Only a President who would commit crimes does.

[Breccia]

"the president may be criminally prosecuted by a bitter political opponent"

I mean, if they committed a crime, it'd be strange if they weren't.

Also bear in mind, we have things like "states" and "special prosecutors" for exactly this reason. Biden isn't prosecuting shit.

- - - Updated - - -

Redirect, your honor?

Prosecution: Did you suppress the stories to help a presidential candidate?

Pecker: Yes I did.

There is no wiggle room. Pecker is spelling out "what we did was illegal and we did it on purpose anyway".

[Edge-]

https://www.thedailybeast.com/fox-ne...rump-at-debate

After the rest of the panel suggested the campaign would give Biden “uppers” to debate or delay the events until “most of the electorate has voted by mail,” Compagno jumped in to offer up her typically sober and informed political analysis.

“It will probably be a Nancy Kerrigan situation,” she exclaimed, referencing the time that famed figure skater Tonya Harding arranged for Kerrigan, her rival, to be assaulted ahead of key championship event in 1994. “Where right as Trump’s walking out, they like snip the mic. ‘Oh no! We tried! We showed up! There was a flat tire!’”

Honestly this is pretty deranged shit at this point. These peoples brains are genuinely fucking broken.

[Breccia]

Trump wishes his wife a happy birthday.

It would be nice to be with her, but I’m at a courthouse for a rigged trial

"Question: why isn't she in New York? The city where they lived for many years, where one assumes she has friends and favorite stores?"

Enough about Trump's loveless marriage. Let's talk about the porn star he had sex with that wasn't his wife. Today in court, the defense suggested Daniels took the deal because she wanted to restart her career.

"But she didn't."

Correct. Team Trump also suggested that Pecker is cooperating because he has an upcoming business deal, and that deal is threatened if he's arrested.

"Can't everyone say that about Trump?"

Yes.

"Wouldn't he take a non-prosecution deal for other reasons, for example, not wanting to go to prison?"

Yes.

"Isn't the entire deal based on him telling the truth?"

Yes. It doesn't matter how good the deal is. If you lie on the stand, the deal is off.

Team Trump also tried to bring up "you can't trust Cohen" again. It was objected against, and sustained. Incidentally, the correct response is "he was representing your client, asshole, if he couldn't be trusted that's on Trump". As a reminder, "Cohen can't be trusted" is a dead end for Team Trump, because trying that avenue brings up everything Trump has ever said on social media and Trump's lies outnumber Cohens by thousands and thousands.

Team Trump crossed Pecker for about two hours, the DA had asked questions for two days. Trump has nothing to work with but baseless rumors and accusations while Pecker flat-out admitted he conspired with Trump to break the law, under oath.

- - - Updated - - -

Honestly this is pretty deranged shit at this point.

Actually that would be completely okay. Remember, Biden has absolute immunity. He can wait for Trump to arrive, have him summarily executed, then speak for 3 hours interrupted while eating ice cream.

[Paranoid Android]

Trump's VP pick people.

Kristi Noem describes killing dog after bad hunting trip in new book

In the book, Noem, who has been discussed as a possible running mate for former President Trump, describes growing angry with the nearly 14-month-old “Cricket,” a wirehaired pointer, during a hunting trip.

Noem shot the dog after taking it on a pheasant hunt.

She writes that she had taken Cricket on the hunt hoping she would learn from older dogs, but that instead the younger dog ruined the hunt by “chasing all those birds and having the time of her life,” per the Guardian.

On the way home, the dog escaped her truck and attacked a local family’s chickens, “grabb[ing] one chicken at a time, crunching it to death with one bite, then dropping it to attack another,” Noem wrote.

When Noem tried to grab the dog, she wrote that it whipped around to bite her. Noem said she wrote the family a check for their chickens and helped them dispose of the carcasses “littering the scene of the crime.”

“I hated that dog,” she wrote, adding that Cricket was untrainable, dangerous and worthless as a hunting dog.

“At that moment,” Noem wrote, “I realized I had to put her down.”

She then led Cricket to a gravel pit on her property and shot it, writing it was “not a pleasant job” but it “had to be done.”

I don't know why she had to brag about this. She seems that this is a great story of the dog not being trained to hunt and killing chickens, is none of her fault at all.

[Gorsameth]

Is it even legal in the US to shoot your dog (and goat) in the head because you felt like it?

[Edge-]

Is it even legal in the US to shoot your dog (and goat) in the head because you felt like it?

Generally, yes, I believe. You can put down your animal as long as you're not engaged in animal cruelty, and a bullet to the head would likely not raise to that level.

[Sunseeker]

Is it even legal in the US to shoot your dog (and goat) in the head because you felt like it?

Yes and no. Yes, in the sense that shooting an animal(usually in the head) is not an unusual way of putting it down, for a variety of reasons(not usually "I don't like it"). No in the sense that the legality of this depends heavily on where you live. Ex: it could be legal on a ranch, in a state where it is not legal in town. If she doesn't own the gravel pit, then it would probably be illegal. But again, this can vary greatly between states.

Also "often illegal but..." in the sense that it happens, but people have the good sense not to yap about it.

[Breccia]

Virtually every Legal Scholar and Expert has stated that there is no Crime, there never was. It is a complete HOAX, but the other side has a Judge who is fighting for them all the way!

Once again, Trump forgetting the jury doesn't get his fake Chinese knockoff tweets. Or even if they did, they still see the legal arguments in the courtroom, in which, yes, they are presenting evidence of an actual law being actually broken.

Trump is basically just whining like a bitch at this point. Or, did I miss something? I would keep asking that one Trump supporter but he failed the last two 24-hour challenges and, well, at this point that means I get to answer for him. Perhaps some other Trump supporter can name at least two different lawyers who said some version of "there is no Crime" caps optional?