Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Poopymonster]

But postponing it indefinitely without a reason, isn't a good look for Cannon.

But she did have a reason. Just not a good one.

[Odinfrost]

Trump is right. The justice system is rigged towards him.
Just not in the way he's implying.

[Kathandira]

Has a cartoonist drawn this up yet? Donnie in a diaper getting spanked by Stormy with a magazine featuring him on the cover?

I feel like it would be an easy pay day.

[Sunseeker]

....and they've gotten a court to review the Fani Willis case again.

This is stupid. Why do we have a system that allows infinite appeals like this?

[Canpinter]

....and they've gotten a court to review the Fani Willis case again.

This is stupid. Why do we have a system that allows infinite appeals like this?

Because America is a shit hole country and we should all be ashamed for living here.

[Breccia]

Nikki Haley gets 21% of the Indiana GOP Primary.

"But she isn't running."

No, she isn't.

[DarkTZeratul]

This is stupid. Why do we have a system that allows infinite appeals like this?

To prevent actually innocent people from getting railroaded by the system.

Unfortunately, the same systems designed to protect innocent people are also prone to abuse by objectively guilty ones.

[ringpriest]

....and they've gotten a court to review the Fani Willis case again.

This is stupid. Why do we have a system that allows infinite appeals like this?

So that rich people with connections don't face the same punishments the rest of the citizenry do.

And you don't have to be Donald Trump (or Elon Musk) to be able to get away with flouting the law - it's a sliding scale, where the further up the hierarchy you are, the more you can get away with. If you can afford a decent lawyer and pay a fine, traffic and drug offenses never make it to your record. If you can afford a lawyer who is friends with the judge, you can make anything short of murder go away. And if you are friends with the people who gave the judge his job and have enough money, you can mitigate the personal consequences of just about anything.

There's a corollary, though - the social status and wealth of the person you victimized matters, too. Elizabeth Holmes at Theranos suckered and embarrassed a lot of well connected people, and is spending the rest of this decade in prison. Sam Bankman-Fried (what a name!) suckered big institutional players, and had his wealth seized and has been thrown in prison for decades, even though the investors are getting their money back (but not the profits he promised). That's why Donald is facing any consequences at all - he threatened many of the established power structures in and out of government, and they're not at all happy with him. That's not to say he doesn't belong in prison - he totally does. But like most billionaires, he belonged in prison decades ago, and even with a public laundry-list of flagrant crimes, the United States struggles to hold him to the same standard as Al Capone.

[Paranoid Android]

I'm certain Smith is adding this to the list of things to get her removed. She's been riding this fine line for a long while and each one of these tips her over the edge of being removed. She's doing all of this in the hopes if she helps Trump enough and he gets elected that she'll be at the top for the next SCOTUS pick.

Err idk. This is what has worried me and should have been in my original post. Idk why Smith has not asked for recusal and has very much slow played this case. I'm getting the Robert Mueller vibe of decorum over "let's win".

People can argue that it would get shot down by the 11th Circuit, but you have to take the shot.

Here is some projection by me that if 11th Circuit would back Cannon over Smith, than holy shit, our judicial system just has not held up over the past 200 years.

[Endus]

To prevent actually innocent people from getting railroaded by the system.

Unfortunately, the same systems designed to protect innocent people are also prone to abuse by objectively guilty ones.

You shouldn't be able to get an appeal just because you're not happy with the conviction. You should need new evidence regarding the crime or a demonstration of some unethical conduct by prosecutors or the judge in the original case. Or your own lawyer, theoretically, though it's harder to make that case; you basically have to prove collusion with prosecutors or something.

No new evidence of either sort? Fuck off.

Otherwise, you're empowering wealthy criminals to fuck with the process of justice for the hell of it and duck responsibility for their crimes almost forever.

A black man on death row for a shitty conviction getting released when DNA evidence is re-evaluated because it wasn't considered in the original conviction is justice. A rich fuckbag saying "I don't agree, do it again until I get the result I want" is not.

[DarkTZeratul]

You shouldn't be able to get an appeal just because you're not happy with the conviction. You should need new evidence regarding the crime or a demonstration of some unethical conduct by prosecutors or the judge in the original case. Or your own lawyer, theoretically, though it's harder to make that case; you basically have to prove collusion with prosecutors or something.

No new evidence of either sort? Fuck off.

Otherwise, you're empowering wealthy criminals to fuck with the process of justice for the hell of it and duck responsibility for their crimes almost forever.

A black man on death row for a shitty conviction getting released when DNA evidence is re-evaluated because it wasn't considered in the original conviction is justice. A rich fuckbag saying "I don't agree, do it again until I get the result I want" is not.

Unfortunately, said wealthy criminals have lawyers who are very good at coming up with a bunch of excuses for why they need a new trial that only have to be just reasonable enough to get one. Especially in a situation like this where they're not appealing a conviction, but a decision about the impartiality of a judge.

[Edge-]

Former President Donald Trump will spend his day off from court hosting a dinner at his Mar-a-Lago residence for buyers of his NFT trading cards, according to a source familiar with the planning.

Donald, who keeps crying he can't campaign because he's stuck at his criminal trial, doesn't even bother campaigning on his days off.

Instead he's inviting a bunch of digital beanie baby collectors to his house for dinner or something.

Over the last three years, Trump has used naming rights agreements with Florida-based LLCs to personally profit off his name and likeness. Financial disclosure statements showed that Trump made at least a six-figure dollar amount from his previous “superhero” NFT digital trading cards.

Trump has previously used similarly structured LLCs to promote and sell a Trump sneaker line, a Trump branded perfume and cologne, and a pricey copy of the Bible.

Trump’s newest round of digital trading cards, dubbed the “Mugshot Edition,” includes a bonus offer for a small swatch of the suit Trump wore during his mug shot in Fulton County, Georgia, where he faces racketeering charges related to attempts to overturn the 2020 election results in the state.

Well, you know what they say about where the real money is...

[Gorsameth]

To prevent actually innocent people from getting railroaded by the system.

Unfortunately, the same systems designed to protect innocent people are also prone to abuse by objectively guilty ones.

No, actual innocent people don't have the bankroll to keep a dozen appeals going.

This is just for rich people.

[Breccia]

Rolling their eyes no doubt, FEC gives Trump a 45-day extension to file his fiscal disclosure forms.

"Why hasn't he filed them already?"

Because they're super hard u gaiz! No really, that was their excuse.

But a legal representative for Trump on Wednesday requested the agency grant the candidate an extension, citing "the complexities of his financial holdings," according to a copy of the letter released by the agency. A second letter released by the agency showed it had granted the request.

"So Trump claimed these show more than his taxes, are more important than his taxes, and still can't do them?"

Correct.

"Is Trump concerned that he has to submit to the federal government a claim about his properties' values, which is what he's in court for lying about?"

Probably not. Trump lied about fiscal disclosures being all that useful. As we've seen over and over, they give a range of values like "$100,000 to $1 million" so he could just game the system by hiding in one of those. It's one of the reasons it's hard to find out how much he owes, he's put them in categories like "at least $5 million" which means he could potentially owe billions.

"Did Trump get extensions in 2016 or 2020?"

Trump filed in mid-May 2016, and I can't find anything about 2020. So I'm going to say "no" getting an extension would have made the headlines.

"What makes this year so special?"

It might have something to do with all his lawyers and accountants being arrested or fleeing in horror. I admit, Trump's income situation might be a bit more complicated this year, but he had to know this deadline was coming.

"What happens if July 1, the new deadline, happens and he hasn't filed?"

Well, in my fever dreams, Biden helps the problem along by handing Trump's taxes to the public and saying "this is an official act of the US Presidency, you can't arrest me for this" and watches as Trump squirms to find a flaw in that logic. Realistically, however, probably nothing, enforcement has been lax, probably because the Republican Party is full of criminals and ejecting them or charging them with crimes would reduce the political parties to one. Instead, Trump's failure to file will be painted by everyone as "he has something to hide" and "Trump is poor" and Trump will be unable to effectively defend against that. Ideally, it should come up at the debates. If Trump refuses to release his taxes because fiscal disclosures are better, and he doesn't hand those over as required by law, that should be shoved in his fat orange face, because it's direct admission he's hiding something.

- - - Updated - - -

Trump lawyer: Even though you had agreed that you would not discuss this supposed story and you had received a lot of money for that agreement, you then decided that you wanted to publicly say that you had sex with Donald Trump.

Daniels: Nobody would ever want to publicly say that.

"That sounds like a rehearsed, scripted answer you'd see on a TV show or movie, not a real legal case."

Yes. This is Trump, TV game show host, on trial here. You don't think Daniels would hit him where he lives? Also, she said he sucked in bed under oath. Trump, of course, is too big and fat of a coward to get on the stand. Her version of the story stands uncontested.

EDIT: Oh, I should add, Team Trump tried to have the gag order waived so Trump could attack Stormy Daniels on camera. The motion happened after a bunch of Daniels' testimony, and the request was denied. Trump wants to hit back and can't.

- - - Updated - - -

From NBC's rolling tracker:

Trump attorney Todd Blanche asked Judge Merchan to allow an exemption to the gag order so that Trump could respond publicly to Stormy Daniels' testimony.

"We ask that President Trump be allowed to respond publicly," Blanche said. “It cannot be that he cannot respond to that, now that she’s off the stand.”

They also filed for a mistrial on the same grounds.

Trump lawyer Todd Blanche has renewed his request for a mistrial.

"There is no way this case can go forward" because of Stormy Daniels' testimony over the last few days, Blanche said.

"Can't Trump just, you know, testify?"

That's what the judge said. Actually, the prosecution suggested that first. We all know the answer to that. Trump won't testify. He's a liar and a coward. Both motions were denied.

[postman1782]

Rolling their eyes no doubt, FEC gives Trump a 45-day extension to file his fiscal disclosure forms.

I guarantee that they aren't filing on time because that supposed fundraiser they had that claimed the got $50 million, didn't happen. So they gotta fudge the books somehow to make it look like it happened.

[gondrin]

Rolling their eyes no doubt, FEC gives Trump a 45-day extension to file his fiscal disclosure forms.

"Why hasn't he filed them already?"

Because they're super hard u gaiz! No really, that was their excuse.



"So Trump claimed these show more than his taxes, are more important than his taxes, and still can't do them?"

Correct.

"Is Trump concerned that he has to submit to the federal government a claim about his properties' values, which is what he's in court for lying about?"

Probably not. Trump lied about fiscal disclosures being all that useful. As we've seen over and over, they give a range of values like "$100,000 to $1 million" so he could just game the system by hiding in one of those. It's one of the reasons it's hard to find out how much he owes, he's put them in categories like "at least $5 million" which means he could potentially owe billions.

"Did Trump get extensions in 2016 or 2020?"

Trump filed in mid-May 2016, and I can't find anything about 2020. So I'm going to say "no" getting an extension would have made the headlines.

"What makes this year so special?"

It might have something to do with all his lawyers and accountants being arrested or fleeing in horror. I admit, Trump's income situation might be a bit more complicated this year, but he had to know this deadline was coming.

"What happens if July 1, the new deadline, happens and he hasn't filed?"

Well, in my fever dreams, Biden helps the problem along by handing Trump's taxes to the public and saying "this is an official act of the US Presidency, you can't arrest me for this" and watches as Trump squirms to find a flaw in that logic. Realistically, however, probably nothing, enforcement has been lax, probably because the Republican Party is full of criminals and ejecting them or charging them with crimes would reduce the political parties to one. Instead, Trump's failure to file will be painted by everyone as "he has something to hide" and "Trump is poor" and Trump will be unable to effectively defend against that. Ideally, it should come up at the debates. If Trump refuses to release his taxes because fiscal disclosures are better, and he doesn't hand those over as required by law, that should be shoved in his fat orange face, because it's direct admission he's hiding something.

- - - Updated - - -

Trump lawyer: Even though you had agreed that you would not discuss this supposed story and you had received a lot of money for that agreement, you then decided that you wanted to publicly say that you had sex with Donald Trump.

Daniels: Nobody would ever want to publicly say that.

"That sounds like a rehearsed, scripted answer you'd see on a TV show or movie, not a real legal case."

Yes. This is Trump, TV game show host, on trial here. You don't think Daniels would hit him where he lives? Also, she said he sucked in bed under oath. Trump, of course, is too big and fat of a coward to get on the stand. Her version of the story stands uncontested.

EDIT: Oh, I should add, Team Trump tried to have the gag order waived so Trump could attack Stormy Daniels on camera. The motion happened after a bunch of Daniels' testimony, and the request was denied. Trump wants to hit back and can't.

- - - Updated - - -

From NBC's rolling tracker:



They also filed for a mistrial on the same grounds.



"Can't Trump just, you know, testify?"

That's what the judge said. Actually, the prosecution suggested that first. We all know the answer to that. Trump won't testify. He's a liar and a coward. Both motions were denied.

Thing is, he can absolutely respond to what she said on the stand, if you know, he actually took the stand since his lawyer could ask him some "questions" and have him answer them in such a way that it is an actual response to her answers.

[Kaleredar]

"Can't Trump just, you know, testify?"

That's what the judge said. Actually, the prosecution suggested that first. We all know the answer to that. Trump won't testify. He's a liar and a coward. Both motions were denied.

Brass tacks, Trump's decision to testify or not, if the defense found the testimony uncouth or beyond the pale or whatever then they should have objected to it when it was being given. It would appear they, largely, did not. Moreover, you can have testimony stricken from the record at the judge's consent. I assume this did not happen. Now obviously testimony given even if technically stricken from the record can still effect the perception of the jury and perhaps be grounds for a mistrial because the jury can't actually "un-hear" it. But I would assume that, if that's what you were arguing, you would probably have to have had that testimony stricken first. If the judge disagrees with striking it, then clearly the judge thinks it's relevant to the case, regardless of how "nasty" the defense thinks it is. Because otherwise they're saying "this testimony that we allowed to happen, had almost no objections to, and which we don't seek to strike from the record is so bad and nasty and outside of what is acceptable that the entire trial should be scuttled over it."

[Shadowferal]

A few humiliating tidbits

“Even though you had agreed that you would not discuss this supposed story and you had received a lot of money for that agreement, you then decided that you wanted to publicly say that you had sex with Donald Trump,” prompted Trump attorney Susan Necheles.

“No, nobody would ever want to publicly say that,” Daniels replied.

“You bragged about being good at writing dialogue and sex scenes in adult films, right?” asked Necheles.

“If that story [with Trump] was untrue, I would have written it to be a lot better,” Daniels quipped back.

[Kaleredar]

A few humiliating tidbits

“Even though you had agreed that you would not discuss this supposed story and you had received a lot of money for that agreement, you then decided that you wanted to publicly say that you had sex with Donald Trump,” prompted Trump attorney Susan Necheles.

“No, nobody would ever want to publicly say that,” Daniels replied.

“You bragged about being good at writing dialogue and sex scenes in adult films, right?” asked Necheles.

“If that story [with Trump] was untrue, I would have written it to be a lot better,” Daniels quipped back.

What are Trump's lawyers even contesting, here? That she lied about the... details? Correct me if I'm wrong but whether or not he slept with her is not under contention, is it? It's about the nature of the hush money payments and those being illegally conducted?

And even if she signed an "NDA" about it, like... that doesn't mean it suddenly "legally didn't happen."

[Dontrike]

What are Trump's lawyers even contesting, here? That she lied about the... details? Correct me if I'm wrong but whether or not he slept with her is not under contention, is it? It's about the nature of the hush money payments and those being illegally conducted?

And even if she signed an "NDA" about it, like... that doesn't mean it suddenly "legally didn't happen."

You can tell Trump is swaying his lawyers. I doubt they'd ask these questions normally and he hates that he's being humiliated while being unable to do his normal bullying, and he can't risk being on the stand without fucking over his entire defense further.