Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Breccia]

I actually spend 5 minutes checking because I was curious. Gonzalas did vote to impeach Trump in his second impeachment trial and this is his first congress so he wasn't there during the Trump administration.

Thank you, I was going to say something like this.

[Kaleredar]

I actually spend 5 minutes checking because I was curious. Gonzalas did vote to impeach Trump in his second impeachment trial and this is his first congress so he wasn't there during the Trump administration.

Fair enough, but I know that there are other GOP congressmen who silently wring their hands and sigh in disbelief as Trump scuds their party. (I'd put McConnell up there with them) but who, as I said, remained largely silent during the Trump administration.

And by and large I have no real issue with the idea of Trump tanking the GOP; the only problem is that the GOP have maligned so much power for themselves that the Trump crazies can take over, despite Trump's unpopularity, and still retain power.

[Breccia]

DeSantis to hold special grandstanding session.

In addition to tilting at the federal vaccine windmill, another bill under consideration is, you guessed it, a way to penalize schools for mask mandates.

"The body count has gone down lower than I'd like," he didn't announce but may as well have, "and the holiday season is fast approaching. In order to bolster my re-election chances, I need as many people as possible celebrating their freedoms, possibly in an epitaph or eulogy. Seriously, there's no legit reason for this. It costs me far more to enforce a mask ban ban...ban...hold on, how many negatives? Ah fuck it. It costs more to force schools to admit sick, maskless children than it does to sit back and do nothing. This is a giant waste of time and innocent lives. VOTE FOR ME!"

[PhaelixWW]

DeSantis to hold special grandstanding session.

In addition to tilting at the federal vaccine windmill, another bill under consideration is, you guessed it, a way to penalize schools for mask mandates.

"The body count has gone down lower than I'd like," he didn't announce but may as well have, "and the holiday season is fast approaching. In order to bolster my re-election chances, I need as many people as possible celebrating their freedoms, possibly in an epitaph or eulogy. Seriously, there's no legit reason for this. It costs me far more to enforce a mask ban ban...ban...hold on, how many negatives? Ah fuck it. It costs more to force schools to admit sick, maskless children than it does to sit back and do nothing. This is a giant waste of time and innocent lives. VOTE FOR ME!"

Cue millions of Florida GoP voters cheering.

<sigh>

[postman1782]

DeSantis to hold special grandstanding session.

In addition to tilting at the federal vaccine windmill, another bill under consideration is, you guessed it, a way to penalize schools for mask mandates.

"The body count has gone down lower than I'd like," he didn't announce but may as well have, "and the holiday season is fast approaching. In order to bolster my re-election chances, I need as many people as possible celebrating their freedoms, possibly in an epitaph or eulogy. Seriously, there's no legit reason for this. It costs me far more to enforce a mask ban ban...ban...hold on, how many negatives? Ah fuck it. It costs more to force schools to admit sick, maskless children than it does to sit back and do nothing. This is a giant waste of time and innocent lives. VOTE FOR ME!"

So, he wants another mandate/law thrown out in court?

[Gorsameth]

Fair enough, but I know that there are other GOP congressmen who silently wring their hands and sigh in disbelief as Trump scuds their party. (I'd put McConnell up there with them) but who, as I said, remained largely silent during the Trump administration.

And by and large I have no real issue with the idea of Trump tanking the GOP; the only problem is that the GOP have maligned so much power for themselves that the Trump crazies can take over, despite Trump's unpopularity, and still retain power.

Absolutely, its a vast majority of the party, but this guy doesn't appear to be one of them and I think that is also important.

[Breccia]

Trump takes a bath.

The famous DC hotel he fought for? Sold. The WSJ reports that Trump sold it for $350 million, and part of the deal was "we get to scrape Trump's name off the property".

Now, I don't know how much Trump paid for it. I looked for about three minutes pre-coffee, so that number might exist, but I didn't see it. I did see that
a) he paid $200 million to renevate it, so I assume he paid at least $200 million to buy it
b) he lost $71 million during his tenure

So I'm using scientific guesstimation combined with napkin math and handwaving that he "paid" $471 million at least. CGI Merchant Group is paying less than that. Since Trump took over in 2012, inflation isn't a major factor.

If anyone can find a more accurate amount he earned/lost on the sale feel free to post it. Me, I'm willing to assume horrible businessman Trump lost money until I see proof otherwise.

Oh and I'm also glossing over the technicality that we're talking about the lease of the building and selling the leasing rights, not actual ownership of the property. Tomato, tomahto, Trump sold his stake.

Incidentally Trump should consider himself lucky. Forbes thinks the leasing rights are worth far less. So there may be more to this deal -- or, and even Forbes admits this, the value might immediately go up the second Trump's name vanishes like an Arizona recount.

[Lenonis]

Trump takes a bath.

The famous DC hotel he fought for? Sold. The WSJ reports that Trump sold it for $350 million, and part of the deal was "we get to scrape Trump's name off the property".

I'm quite surprised Trump didn't require keeping his name on it as part of the deal. He must be just livid people want to erase his name.

[Breccia]

I'm quite surprised Trump didn't require keeping his name on it as part of the deal.

I'm not. He was having a hard enough time dumping it as it was, and some big debts are coming due. He's desperate.

- - - Updated - - -

In a recent interview, yeah once again it's too little too late, Chris Christie said on Jan 6 he called KellyAnne Conway, and confirmed that neither of them could reach Trump. Christie would then just go on live TV because, as we've seen, the best way to get Trump's attention is to be on TV.

This lines up with what everyone else said. Christie, at least, is not pretending to be yet another "only sane person in the WH" because he wasn't in the WH. But with subpoenas turning into indictments, I think we're going to see more and more "oh, right, you're going to see me in the call logs, so what happened was..." hitting the headlines. I don't think Christie is trying to cover his ass, he was in public after all, but I think he does want to be on the right side of this when the smoke settles.

[Draco-Onis]

I'm not. He was having a hard enough time dumping it as it was, and some big debts are coming due. He's desperate.

Really? I thought he just made a ton of money using this SPAC for his social media he can use the shares as collateral though not sure if anyone would be dumb enough to give Trump a loan at this point.

[CostinR]

I'm quite surprised Trump didn't require keeping his name on it as part of the deal. He must be just livid people want to erase his name.

He gets 350 million dollars and a lot of people really hate seeing his name on anything in certain parts, like there's a huge fight over a golf course he has in New York.

Now maybe he has financial problems that he'd take the cash and accept the name loss, though I doubt @Breccia 's statement that he is desperate ( seeing as Breccia has gotten a hard on every story that paints Trump in any negative light ).

Really? I thought he just made a ton of money using this SPAC for his social media he can use the shares as collateral though not sure if anyone would be dumb enough to give Trump a loan at this point.

No major bank would want to associate itself with him right now. Though I wonder if he even runs the company at this point or if his sons are still in charge and he's focused on 2022 and 2024.

[Breccia]

Now maybe he has financial problems that he'd take the cash and accept the name loss, though I doubt @Breccia 's statement that he is desperate

"maybe"? You do know about the loans coming due, right?

Trump selling his DC hotel hurt his pride, as well as his wallet. He bragged about it in the 2016 debates. He fought for it with the FBI thing. He thought it would be a yuge bigly moneymaker, and it wasn't. Trump owes a literal billion dollars, and he's low on assets he can offload. CGI knew all of this and baited the hook.

Speaking of "the only sane person in the WH" William Barr wrote a book...sorry, was interviewed for a book by ABC's Jon Karl. In it, he said that FOX News called him to yell at him for not going after Democrats for election fraus, after FOX News hosted Sidney "Kraken" Powell on purpose. Barr's response, of course, was to do nothing because there was no fraud and he didn't work for FOX News. The book (not Barr) goes on to say FOX News did this sort of thing because they wanted to talk to Trump, and as we all know, that's how you do it.

Barr gets no sympathy. Maybe the election fraud was across Barr's line, maybe the murderous insurrection was, but Barr stuck with Trump up until that. That's bad enough. A thief doesn't get a pass on stealing just because they didn't murder anyone.

But Barr didn't bring this up to get out of the upcoming Trumptastrophe. As Bannon -- I love Esquire's headline -- fucked around and found out, everyone who wants to get out of the burning bus before it goes over the cliff is jumping.

Stephanie Grisham went on CNN, yeah I'm going to keep citing CNN as long as Republicans keep going on it, sorry, I don't make the rules. She said a lot of stuff -- Bannon will cry himself to sleep in prison, for example -- but also made it clear Trump was intentionally holding off-the-books meetings in the WH residence.

1) This would keep the National Archives from writing down what was said. Trump would also have control of the trash cans.
2) Trump would also then have a limited, controlled guest list. If anything leaked, he'd know who.
3) Hey, did I point out Trump tried to claim Executive Time on the visitor logs and his daily schedule? Because I think Grisham is telling the truth. And I think we're going to see a bunch of people invited to the WH residence...or, I think we're going to see a mysterious blank spot that reeks of Nixon.
4) Grisham was also very clear, that the Jan 6th committee knows all of this. Probably because she told them. But also, because they're not stupid.
5) Oh, and she also said that Trump willfully, intentionally pressed for his staff to campaign for him.

It was a joke in the White House. Trump used to say to us, ‘You know who’s in charge of the Hatch Act? It’s me. Go ahead, say whatever you want to say.

Yeah...um...he's not in charge of it anymore, is he? Perhaps we'll see that next. The WH is not a campaign office. You can't use it as one. You can't use Executive Time to protect that.

And, of course, let's talk about Steve Bannon's....cellmate, Jenna Ryan.

We're storming the Capitol!

-- Ryan, while storming the Capitol and broadcasting a video of herself storming the Capitol

Definitely not going to jail. Sorry I have blonde hair white skin a great job a great future and I’m not going to jail. Sorry to rain on your hater parade. I did nothing wrong.

-- Ryan, March 26

You're going to prison for 60 days

-- the judge in her trial

Ryan gave a local news interview in which she said, no really I'm not making this up:

I meant we’re storming with our words

Wanna see the video? I shouldn't have to tell someone wealthy enough to have her own private plane this, but, if you're going to commit a crime, don't say "I'm committing this crime!" in a live video you yourself are broadcasting of you committing the crime.

"Okay but what about Bannon?"

He surrendered 40 minutes ago. Why yes, I'm still citing real news CNN. If you don't like it, find a reliable news source that somehow contracts Bannon surrendering to the FBI.

"Did Bannon turn to the cameras and say something hilariously self-owning?"

We're taking down the Biden regime.

As a reminder, Bannon is not covered by Executive Time. He's trying to get out of a speeding ticket by claiming his license was revoked.

- - - Updated - - -

not sure if anyone would be dumb enough to give Trump a loan at this point.

At some point, Trump will be over a barrel deep enough that banks might taunt him with really aggressive collateral loans. I'm not sure what he has left to offer, though. The obvious choices are Trump Tower and Mar-a-Lago, two places he might literally rather die than sell.

As I posted before, Trump doesn't have enough money to pay his debts. He has assets, more than he owes, but not money. And with Biden looking over his shoulder 24/7, he can't just steal from campaign donations. He could hike up the rates and have rallies there, but that won't be the hundreds of millions he owes on mulitple properties fast enough. Selling the old post office leasing rights hurt, he didn't want to do that. But he's going to have to move smaller properties to keep the big ones.

I suppose, at some point, a bank CEO might say "You know what? Offer him $101 million at 10% interest with the collateral being Trump Tower on which he owes $100 million. Have him write it into the loan that, if he defaults, misses a payment even once, or goes bankrupt, we get Trump Tower and Deutsche Bank doesn't. Make it crystal fucking clear that nobody else is going to give him a better deal since he can't even sell shit as fertilizer, he owes nine figures, and he can take the incredibly unfair terms or he can take his chances in the wild". It's not that nobody would be stupid enough to loan him money, although yeah, most will back away saying "you know what, too much baggage there, I'm out". It's that, those few who are willing, will have a metaphorical loaded gun to Trump's metaphorical head. Not a literal gun, God no. You might blow DeSantis' dick off.

[Gorsameth]

Remember, Barr is the guy who literally wrote an 'opinion' piece that was basically a direct solicitation letter to Trump that if he was named Attorney General he would not indict a sitting President. And he was then named Attorney General and refused to indict the sitting president.

He lied about the conclusions of Mueller's investigation and Mueller public said that Barr misrepresented the conclusion of his investigation in an attempt to deceive the public about the reports findings.

I don't give a flying F*** about whether or not he thought the election investigations were a line he would not cross. He already took a dump all over the office of Attorney General.

[Breccia]

So let's cite CNN again. And let's talk about Alex Jones.

He's fucked.

A court just ruled against him in the Sandy Hook case.

Sandy Hook families suing InfoWars founder Alex Jones have won a case against him after a judge ruled against Jones who has failed to comply with the discovery process.

Jones and entities owned by him were found liable by default Monday in a defamation case against them.

"Wait, is that a real thing?"

It 100% is.

"Why haven't I heard of it before?"

Most people aren't stupid enough to do it. Alex Jones and Steve Bannon basically did the same thing on the same day: refuse to turn over documents demanded by authority. You can't do that. If you think you're not supposed to hand it over, you have to prove why not. Neither of them did that.

You know how everyone says "Trump is refusing to turn over his taxes, even though we know he doesn't pay taxes, so there must be something in there that's even worse"? This is legally that. By refusing to comply with mandatory discovery, Jones has basically admitted fault and also volunteered to take whatever ridiculous-ass penalty is levied against him. Alex Jones broke a contract, and he did it on purpose. Don't like it? Next time turn your stuff over.

Connecticut Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellis cited the defendants' "willful noncompliance" with the discovery process as her core reasoning behind the ruling. She specifically noted that they had not turned over financial and analytics data requested multiple times by the Sandy Hook family plaintiffs.

"All the defendants have failed to fully and fairly comply with their discovery obligations," Bellis said at the virtual hearing.

Party of law and order, everyone. "I'm not going to fallow the rules because I just don't want to".

Judge Bellis said that she had held off scheduling Monday's sanctions hearing "in hopes these problems would be corrected" by the Jones defendants.

"While the families are grateful for the Court's ruling, they remain focused on uncovering the truth. As the Court noted, Alex Jones and his companies have deliberately concealed evidence of the relationship between what they publish and how they make money," said Chris Mattei of Koskoff, Koskoff & Bieder, which represents the plaintiffs. "Mr. Jones was given every opportunity to comply but, when he chose instead to withhold evidence for more than two years, the Court was left with no choice but to rule as it did today. While today's ruling is a legal victory, the battle to shed light on how deeply Mr. Jones has harmed these families continues."

To the best of my knowledge, Alex Jones has intentionally damaged his chances for an appeal. @cubby will need to weigh in on this because, well, I'm only going on what these articles written with expert analysis said, he's an actual lawyer. But, it seems to me that, if you choose to tank your own defense, you don't get to say "Your Honor, I deserve an appeal because I intentionally tanked my own defense". I'm pretty sure that's like saying the cop only pulled you over because you were doing 120MPH in the 10-items-or-less lane of a supermarket.

The next step is damages. Since Jones refused to say how much he was worth, and how much of that money he earned by his crazy-ass claims, the court has every right to say the answer is "everything" and force Jones to write checks with more and more zeroes until one of them bounces.

[Edge-]

How much Brain Force is he gonna have to sell to cover the bills?

[Breccia]

How much Brain Force is he gonna have to sell to cover the bills?

We'll have to see the damages in...days? Weeks? Here's what we do know.

1) Jones already knew he was found liable in early October. I didn't mention that, I should have. He was then ordered to turn over his financial records to show how much he profited off calling "Sandy Hoax". That time expired just now.

2) The last time he lost, yes this is the second, it was $100,000
2a) Incidentally he took that one to the state, then US, Supreme Court. They told him to fuck right off.

3) Jones defaulted in that one, too.

4) The judge cited that in the ruling on Oct 1.

The court finds that defendants’ failure to comply … is greatly aggravated by [their] consistent pattern of discovery abuse throughout similar cases pending before this court.

The court finds that defendants’ discovery conduct in this case is the result of flagrant bad faith and callous disregard for the responsibilities of discovery under the rule

4a) The judge sounds pissed that they still didn't do anything.

5) Jones' lawyers have called the result "unConstitutional". Which might explain how Jones lost, because no it's not. Also the lawyer tried "Well so what if we didn't turn over that stuff you asked for? We turned over a bunch of stuff you didn't ask for, wasn't that good enough?" No, really, they tried that.

6) Not Jones, but two other fuckwits wrote a book about "Sandy Hoax" and it cost them $1 million.

So based on this continued pattern of disrespect to the legal process, I'm going to predict...$500,000 to $1.5 million. Punative damages for not just being a defaming conspiracy originator, but also being a dumbass who already knew the rules applied to him and still didn't follow them. If he says he's too poor to afford that, he can take it up with his bankruptcy lawyer, who will ask "Why didn't you just show your taxes, you fucking idiot?"

"Is the legal system really that big on repeat offenders?"

Ask the ACLU about "Three Strikes and You're Out".

Again, no expert, but that's what I'm going with based on what I've seen. He'll appeal, but considering the damage was 100% preventable and 100% self-inflicted, I don't see why anything would change.

[cubby]

To the best of my knowledge, Alex Jones has intentionally damaged his chances for an appeal. @cubby will need to weigh in on this because, well, I'm only going on what these articles written with expert analysis said, he's an actual lawyer. But, it seems to me that, if you choose to tank your own defense, you don't get to say "Your Honor, I deserve an appeal because I intentionally tanked my own defense". I'm pretty sure that's like saying the cop only pulled you over because you were doing 120MPH in the 10-items-or-less lane of a supermarket.

The next step is damages. Since Jones refused to say how much he was worth, and how much of that money he earned by his crazy-ass claims, the court has every right to say the answer is "everything" and force Jones to write checks with more and more zeroes until one of them bounces.

The Appealate process doesn't look too kindly on people who refuse to comply with any and all court orders during trial and then beg for help afterwards. His chances on appeal are slim and none, and both of them were at the Sandy Hook Memorial Garden, so he is fucked.

Damages will be interesting. Once they are determined, the defendants can sick the court and law enforcement backed forensic accountants on Alex Jones and get all the money.

[Poopymonster]

The Appealate process doesn't look too kindly on people who refuse to comply with any and all court orders during trial and then beg for help afterwards. His chances on appeal are slim and none, and both of them were at the Sandy Hook Memorial Garden, so he is fucked.

Damages will be interesting. Once they are determined, the defendants can sick the court and law enforcement backed forensic accountants on Alex Jones and get all the money.

ETA on his ̶I̶F̶u̶c̶k̶e̶d̶M̶e̶ GoFundMe?

[Breccia]

Well that was fast.

Once they are determined, the defendants can sick the court and law enforcement backed forensic accountants on Alex Jones and get all the money.

I'm hoping they slap on a really high penalty, just so he starts crying that he can't afford to pay it, and end up having to prove it by handing over everything he refused to hand over before.

[cubby]

Well that was fast.

I'm trying to do better.

I'm hoping they slap on a really high penalty, just so he starts crying that he can't afford to pay it, and end up having to prove it by handing over everything he refused to hand over before.

Same. The beauty of a court loss is that all those previous court "requests" for trial are now "seize your accounts" subpoenas up his ass. Colloquially compared to an eviction hearing vs an eviction notice. Now, the court can just go and get the money, just as if the eviction date came about.