Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Edge-]

Trump in heels loses Virginia GOP primary.

That's not me being clever, that's literally how incumbent state Senator Amanda Chase described herself in her re-election bid.

Sturtevant defeated Chase, the incumbent of the 11th district, in the GOP state Senate primary for Virginia’s 12th District. Chase was censured by her colleagues in the state Senate after she attended a rally for former President Trump in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 6, 2021, and later praised the rioters who breached the Capitol.

Chase, who also lost the GOP nomination for Virginia governor in 2021, later called on Trump at the time to declare martial law to prevent President Biden from being sworn into office.

[gondrin]

Trump in heels loses Virginia GOP primary.

That's not me being clever, that's literally how incumbent state Senator Amanda Chase described herself in her re-election bid.

Eh, it isn't a stretch to say Trump wears heels. The man always wore heeled shoes. The headline though had a great chance to be clever by saying "Trump in pumps".

[Kathranis]

Eh, it isn't a stretch to say Trump wears heels. The man always wore heeled shoes. The headline though had a great chance to be clever by saying "Trump in pumps".

Chump in pumps stumps for Trump, gets dumped.

[Breccia]

"The Radical Left Investigations of me now, Federal, State, and City, are a SCAM and continuation, tightly coordinated with each jurisdiction and run by the now fully exposed as being corrupt and shameless, DOJ & FBI," he wrote in the first post.

(sighs)

Okay...going to need some mods on this one.

You know I want to ask proven Trump supporters like @tehdang and @GreenJesus to comment on this, as it is a statement by Trump, something they have shown in the past they view positively, in a fast-moving thread. And their opinions would be valued -- anything else would be an echo chamber.

But in this case, they would have a hard time answering. Trump is putting out a conspiracy theory, plain and simple.

In order to stand by their chosen candidate, they would have to embrace a conspiracy theory. Which is not allowed on these anonymous video game forums, only, you know, major press releases by the leader of the US's second-largest party.

Hence, needing mods for a clarification. Yes, I know this sort of question is frowned upon, but honestly what choice do we have? Locking out an entire political party from talking about their core values?

So....sorry. @Rozz and/or @Flarelaine is it allowed, by the rules of the MMO-C Politics Forum, for a a Trump supporter to show support for Trump, when the issue in question is objectively a conspiracy theory? I do hate to ask publicly, but you see the bind Trump supporters are in if they're not allowed to discuss their own candidate's views and opinions, because those views and opinions are conspiracy theories.

I guess, to rephrase, is it okay to post something which is so blatantly obviously a conspiracy theory, when it's not your theory, but the conspiracy theory of the leader of a major political party, that they also believe and endorse?

2024 is not that far away. If Trump is going to campaign and run on blatant conspiracy theories, we need a public answer to this question. After all, both of you know full well there are many Trump supporters on these forums -- you saw it yourselves. Everyone needs to know if America's second-biggest political party is free to discuss their own party's core conspiracy theory beliefs and ideals, which they are now openly sharing in public.

Thanks in advance for your time -- I don't envy your job next year, but at least answering this question in public might make it easier going forwards. So, please, if you could.

[Edge-]

https://news.yahoo.com/arizona-elect...214226619.html

Lots of reporting about Kari Lake basically moving into Mar a Lago recently, but an amusing note from a former Trump lawyer on the topic -

She's couch-surfing at her friend's house like a bum college dropout

That's Jenna Ellis, you know one of the lawyers with Rudy while his head was leaking ink that one time.

Anyways it's funny that now we've got reports of Mike Pence and Mother couch surfing after leaving the White House and now Kari Lake couch surfing at Trump's place years after losing her election and while she's continuing to rack up an impressive number of losing lawsuits.

[Breccia]

Well...I'm not yet ready to say "I was wrong"...but....

Court filing suggests Jack Smith plans to use Trump's public statements against him

The Justice Department has provided the first batch of evidence in the classified documents case to Donald Trump's legal team, which includes multiple "interviews" of Trump "conducted by non-government entities," which legal experts believe could be used against him.

The evidence also includes transcripts of grand jury testimony taken in both Washington and Florida, materials collected via subpoenas and search warrants, witness interviews conducted through mid-May and copies of the surveillance footage investigators obtained in the investigation, according to CNN.

"Trump's public statements about the mishandling of classified information – whether through TV interviews, social media activity, or print commentary – could possibly be used by prosecutors as additional evidence on top of the information already collected to support the 37 charges brought against him," Javed Ali, a former senior counterterrorism official at the Department of Homeland Security, told Salon.

Adam Kamenstein, a former federal prosecutor and partner at Los Angeles-based Adams, Duerk & Kamenstein, told Salon that there is "no question whatsoever that Trump's statements to the media, or almost anyone else for that matter, can be used against him."

"It's Defendant School 101: Never talk about the facts of your case," he added.

As the article continues, using a suspect's statements against them is fair game, unless the statement was obtained illegally. Public statements 100% remove that problem. So, when Trump says in public "I was too busy to return the government non-personal secrets I stole" yes, that can be used.

Now, we'll still see if it is used. But everyone who called me out for dismissing the idea, this is a big check mark in your column.

Also, lordy, apparently are even more tapes.

No wonder he ran sobbing and sniffling to Congress, desperately pleading for them to make new laws/break existing ones to keep him from the consequences of his own words and actions.

CONGRESS, PLEASE INVESTIGATE THE POLITICAL WITCH HUNTS AGAINST ME CURRENTLY BEING BROUGHT BY THE CORRUPT DOJ AND FBI, WHO ARE TOTALLY OUT OF CONTROL

Either Trump still thinks he's in the White House and also somehow in charge of Congress at the same time, or more sanely, he knows how fucked he is and knows the current evidence and rules will convict him, and needs the rules changed before they finally apply to him.

[Gorsameth]

I imagine the main use for Trumps public statements is to remove possible defences because they contract his public statements.

[Breccia]

I imagine the main use for Trumps public statements is to remove possible defences because they contract his public statements.

Now, once again to salvage my standing here, I still say his lawyers can, and likely have no choice but to, say "Trump was lying to the American people, which is not a crime".

Yes, that means, just like the ridiciulous idea that the Twitter Files are somehow meaningful, Trump will have to say, under oath, that he was lying to his own supporters. This is not a massive problem for him -- he could shoot someone in the middle of 5th Avenue and not lose his cult.

But, again, we'll see. Actual lawyers in actual interviews are saying I'm wrong, just like a lot of posters here did.

[Templar 331]

I kind of feel that the defense of "I was lying to the whole country then but not to you right now" would strengthen the prosecution. But I also would think no one would vote for Trump a third time and I'd be wrong on that.

[Edge-]

Well...I'm not yet ready to say "I was wrong"...but....

Court filing suggests Jack Smith plans to use Trump's public statements against him

All these lawyers he's largely not paying when he could have saved himself a heap of trouble by simply listening to the free advice of these guys -

[Poopymonster]

Also, lordy, apparently are even more tapes.

....Agent Smith has the peepee tapes.

[postman1782]

Well...I'm not yet ready to say "I was wrong"...but....

Court filing suggests Jack Smith plans to use Trump's public statements against him



As the article continues, using a suspect's statements against them is fair game, unless the statement was obtained illegally. Public statements 100% remove that problem. So, when Trump says in public "I was too busy to return the government non-personal secrets I stole" yes, that can be used.

Now, we'll still see if it is used. But everyone who called me out for dismissing the idea, this is a big check mark in your column.

Also, lordy, apparently are even more tapes.

No wonder he ran sobbing and sniffling to Congress, desperately pleading for them to make new laws/break existing ones to keep him from the consequences of his own words and actions.



Either Trump still thinks he's in the White House and also somehow in charge of Congress at the same time, or more sanely, he knows how fucked he is and knows the current evidence and rules will convict him, and needs the rules changed before they finally apply to him.

Just FYI, Jack Smith's investigation into the 2nd half of his case, Jan 6th is heating up. Jack Smith gave immunity to some of the fake electors, at least 2 that we know of so far, have been given immunity from Jack Smith, besides the 8 or so that were given immunity in Georgia already by Fanni Willis.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/23/polit...n-6/index.html

[Breccia]

It's early, it's breaking, and it's not 100% verified.

But CNN reports that Agent Smith offered two Fake Electors immunity for testifying against the others.

And!

Agent Smith is also looking at Giuliani, Powell, Jeffrey Clark, and the rest of Trump's post-election "no really we won" team.

They could be unrelated. Or, Giuliani could have sent a message from his "Helen" account asking fake electors to stand by.

If Team Trump did not direct the efforts, they have nothing to worry about. If they did, we should expect some furious tweeting and frantic interviews soon.

EDIT: Shit, The Postman Rings Twice already posted that.

[postman1782]

It's early, it's breaking, and it's not 100% verified.

But CNN reports that Agent Smith offered two Fake Electors immunity for testifying against the others.

And!

Agent Smith is also looking at Giuliani, Powell, Jeffrey Clark, and the rest of Trump's post-election "no really we won" team.

They could be unrelated. Or, Giuliani could have sent a message from his "Helen" account asking fake electors to stand by.

If Team Trump did not direct the efforts, they have nothing to worry about. If they did, we should expect some furious tweeting and frantic interviews soon.

EDIT: Shit, The Postman Rings Twice already posted that.

Only got you by 2 minutes. Word on the street is that Ginny Thomas might be involved in this too. Would be great to take out Clarence with this as well, since she is involved with Jan 6th personally by renting buses for the insurrectionists. And I highly doubt Clarence didn't know about it.

[Templar 331]

Only got you by 2 minutes. Word on the street is that Ginny Thomas might be involved in this too. Would be great to take out Clarence with this as well, since she is involved with Jan 6th personally by renting buses for the insurrectionists. And I highly doubt Clarence didn't know about it.

Jesus, imagine if Trump actually came through with his "draining the swamp" promise by taking all these people down with him. But the GOP would upend the whole government before that happens. We have Boebert and MTG literally fighting on the House floor over who will impeach Biden first and Adam Schiff being censored for quoting a report showing Trump being Trump.

[Breccia]

There are some days the jokes write themselves.

Trump says he turned down the best law firms because he doesn't need their help.

No, really.

I tell all these people, they all come in — they want to help. The biggest, some of the biggest people, the biggest law firms, the biggest lawyers, I say listen, “I don’t need any help. I don’t want any help in campaigns.”

To be fair, he's not talking about his criminal trials, plural. Or his lawsuits. Still, you'd think a man in his position would want some big lawyers on his side.

"You know he's lying, right? Big lawyers offering to help his campaign but not his trials makes no sense. Or, big lawyers offering to help his campaign and Trump saying 'yes if you help my many indictments and many lawsuits' would make sense, but he didn't do that, either. He's either lying, or insane."

Probs.

So let's talk about his legal issues.

1) As the WSJ explains, prosecutors--

"Paywall."

Um, as The Daily Best summarizes, prosecutors investigating Trump weren't sure which crimes they could/should charge him with.

Then they listened to the tapes.

At first, prosecutors struggled to pinpoint a motive and could not prove rumors that Trump shared classified information with others, sources told the Journal. Even Trump’s alleged refusal to respond to a subpoena to hand over all classified material wasn’t quite enough. But when prosecutors got their hands on a tape of a meeting at Trump’s golf club in New Jersey, it reportedly pushed the case over the edge. In the tape, detailed in Trump’s eventual indictment, the ex-president allegedly brandished a classified Pentagon document and confessed he knew it hadn’t been declassified. Trump has insisted he didn’t know “anything about it” and that “everything I did was right.”

2) CNN found out what's on the other tapes. Apparently, there's a few of them.

But the fact that there were additional interviews, well, that piqued our interest. So we started calling our sources and we learned that, in fact, Trump’s own lawyers actually handed over around a half a dozen additional recordings.

They were subpoenaed earlier this year for any materials related to Mark Milley. And they did find additional recordings where Trump talked about Mark Milley, but he didn’t reference any classified material. So it’s unclear if these are going to be really helpful to prosecutors in any eventual trial.

But as part of Discovery, Kate, lawyers have to hand over everything they’ve collected, even if it’s not incriminating, even if they’re not going to use it at trial. Now, we know they also have at least one additional source that has provided them with additional recordings.

But at this point, multiple sources tell CNN that none of these additional interviews will rise to the level of incriminating material the same way that Bedminster 2021 recording does.

But all of this just speaks to a how quickly the special counsel is moving that he’s trying to already hand over this evidence, get this process under way. And also just how much stuff they’ve collected in the course of this investigation now.

3) Speaking of CNN, they posted an OP ED with the headline "As a former AG, I know why Trump’s defenders are wrong"

An overwhelming number of federal prosecutors, like Special Counsel Jack Smith, who is overseeing the Trump probe, are career employees of the Justice Department rather than political appointees of the president. Nor was this prosecution instigated by the White House. Attorney General Merrick Garland recused himself and appointed Smith as a special counsel under DOJ regulations, which are designed to shield special investigations and prosecutors from possible political interference from the normal day-to-day supervision of the attorney general and other political appointees.

Though Garland is himself a political appointee, he was confirmed with bipartisan support in the Senate, and Smith has a track record as an impartial upholder of the law. This insulation is important because the political appointees in the Justice Department unfortunately do sometimes cross lines.

The impartial application of the law is how our system, informed by facts and undergirded by checks and balances, has worked – and must continue to work. In the case of Trump’s indictment, those facts, as presented to the grand jury of American citizens, supported bringing serious charges.

It goes on from there, but boils down to "a Republican would have found the same pile of boxes in Mar-a-Lago as a Democrat, sit down and shut up".

4) Kari Lake is being sued for defamation.

"What did she say?"

It was "I won the election".

In the lawsuit, Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer asserts that Lake, her campaign and an affiliated fundraising committee have spread "malicious falsehoods" that have made Richer and his family the targets "threats of violence, and even death."

"This case is about a losing candidate for office refusing to accept the will of the voters and, instead, spreading malicious falsehoods to raise money and garner attention," Richer wrote in an op-ed published Thursday in The Arizona Republic,

Well, we know the four-part requirements for defamation. Honestly, I think Lake needs a good lawyer. She might be able to fight the idea that she knew the election was fair and legal, but only with a competent team.

"It may not matter if she knew. It matters that a reasonable person should have known."

5) And finally, federal prosecutors ask Cannon to push the trial from August to December.

"Why? They have Trump dead to rights."

To be fair to Trump, and give him every possible chance.

"No, really."

Yes, really.

In their filing, prosecutors said the additional time would be needed to obtain security clearances for defense lawyers and deal with the procedures around classified evidence. It would also give defense lawyers more time to review the volumes of materials prosecutors have turned over to them, the filing said.

December is still fairly speedy. But Smith is playing this one out the only way that makes sense. He doesn't want this case getting even a whiff of bias or mistreatment. Shoving 84 witnesses and requiring security clearances in a few weeks could make it look like Trump is being railroaded and his weak-ass legal team bullied and overwhelmed. You know, like Trump does to employees he refuses to pay. If Trump has every single option available under the law, and still loses, then it's not because of a loophole. It's because he's objectively guilty.

There is also the possibility that Smith knows Trump will try to delay, and come December, will be able to reply. "Your Honor, they've already had four months to bring these issues up, but instead they decided to wait until past the deadline. I move their motions be denied."

"There is another option."

You again!

"He could be giving Nauta chance to plead out and turn on Trump. Nauta hasn't been dragged into court yet. Besides the mountain of evidence they have, including video evidence of him personally moving the boxes and witnesses saying they saw him personally moving the boxes, Nauta can't afford a decent lawyer, can't coordinate with Team Trump, and surely knows how Trump discards employees who are no longer of use. Nauta must know Trump could throw him under the bus."

But Trump has insisted in public everything was fine and he was smart and correct to do it.

"Yes. And he said that about which boxes, again? He never said 'every single one' he kept talking about his golf shirts. It would be trivial for him to say he told Nauta to give his lawyers everything, and that Nauta didn't do it. Or, claim Nauta is a Democrat traitor trying to frame him. Or any number of things that make the objective pile of damning evidence somehow magically not his fault. Trump is not on video moving boxes. Smith surely knows all of this, and has surely made sure Nauta knows all of this, too. Nauta's plea deal would turn a slam dunk into a slam dunk buzzer beater."

We'll see. Nothing I've read about Nauta suggests he's anything other than a loyal cultist. Even if Smith is going for this, that's no assurance he'll succeed.

[Lanrefni]

Trump and his supporters must be thanking god for Prighozin right now,he has made sure the 24/7 news cycle is focused on Russia and not Trump.

[gondrin]

So Trump, being the eternal scrooge that he is, has decided that he doesn't want a bond held for him that is to go to E. Jean Carroll for her settlement. He would rather have it go into an interest bearing account because, and this number is correct, it could potentially save him $55,000. While for most people that is a lot of money, it is literally 1% of the entire amount of the settlement. Best part is, if he loses his appeal, any interest that was generated would ALSO go to her.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/mark...86de43151&ei=9

Trump wants the $5 million he owes E. Jean Carroll held as cash, not as a bond, in a weird move that saves him just $55,000

In an unusual move that saves him just $55,500, Donald Trump has asked a federal judge in Manhattan to allow the $5 million he owes writer E. Jean Carroll to be held aside as cash, and not as a bond, while he appeals her May sex abuse and defamation trial victory.

It's a highly uncommon move, surety experts told Insider, noting that the only real benefit to going cash is the savings of a 1% bond premium.

"The only thing I could see as a reason for this is they don't want to spend the extra $55,000" to pay for the bond, said Mike Lapre, a senior vice president in the surety division of NFP, a global property and casualty broker.

"I guarantee there are companies that would write this bond for him," Lapre said. He noted that should the appeal drag out a year, the one-percent bond premium would have to be renewed, bringing Trump's cost to $110,000.

"He may just be trying to save a little money that way," Lapre told Insider.

Trump attorney Joe Tacopina filed the request Friday with US District Court Judge Lewis Kaplan, who presided over the defamation and sexual assault trial.

His law firm, Tacopina Seigel & DeOreo, is currently holding the $5,550,000 in trust, "which is 111% of the judgment amount and is consistent with the traditional security percentage of supersedeas bonds," Tacopina wrote the judge, using the legal name for appeal bonds.

His firm is prepared to "promptly" transfer that money to the court once the judge approves the cash-not-bond arrangement, he wrote.

Tacopina did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Carroll attorney Roberta Kaplan, who signed onto a proposed order for the judge to sign, allowing the arrangement, declined to comment.

Under the proposed order, the court would set up an interest-bearing account to hold Trump's $5.55 million.

Once Trump's appeals have been exhausted, Carroll would collect from the court whatever the former president then owes her.

That amount could be nothing if Trump wins an outright reversal of the judgment, or less than $5 million if an appeals court reduces the judgment.

And it could be more than $5 million if an appeals court upholds the judgment and the sum has grown by whatever interest Trump must pay based on the duration of the appeal. Carroll would additionally be entitled to whatever interest the interest-bearing account has accrued.

It's unclear when the judge would rule on the request.

"You're not talking a lot of money," New York City bondsman Ira Judelson agreed of the premium Trump would avoid.

Trump may also be seeking to avoid having a bond on his books as a potential credit liability, said Judelson, whose criminal-court clients have included former IMF chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn, NFL star Plaxico Burress and Irish mixed martial arts star Conor McGregor.

Lapre said he doubted that fear of credit liability would be a factor in Trump deciding to forgo a bond, as Trump has the cash on hand, and wouldn't need to use property as collateral.

In any event, the judge could still nix the deal, Lapre said.

Courts prefer a bond, and typically don't want to handle the paperwork of setting up an interest-bearing account that would hold the money for the duration of any appeals, he said.

Trump can be notoriously tight-fisted when it comes to penalties he's faced in court. In January, he paid his lawyers to file some 1,000 pages in briefs to fight a $130,000 contempt-of-court order.

[Breccia]

So let's talk about Eastman.

"He's fucked?"

Probably. But it's going to get worse.

Eastman's plot to subvert the 2020 election and defraud millions of American voters will almost certainly be central to the next two indictments facing Trump, those being conspiracy charges likely to be filed this summer by prosecutor Fani Willis in Georgia and special counsel Jack Smith in Washington, D.C.

Like so many other attorneys, advisers and aides who have fallen under Trump's spell and done his bidding, Eastman must now face the consequences of his actions. Last week his trial before the California Bar Court began in Los Angeles, with prosecutor Duncan Carling arguing that Eastman should be disbarred as "the architect of a legal strategy aimed at keeping former President Donald Trump in power, [who had] concocted a baseless theory and made false claims of fraud in an attempt to overturn the 2020 election."

All of Eastman's legal misconduct, Carling continued, "was done with one singular purpose: To obstruct the electoral count on Jan. 6 and stop Vice President Pence from certifying Joe Biden as the winner of the election." Furthermore, the prosecutor argued, Eastman knew exactly what he was doing, and was "fully aware in real time that his plan was damaging the nation."

The 11 charges against Eastman specifically allege that he assisted Trump "in executing a strategy, unsupported by facts or law, to overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 presidential election by obstructing the count of electoral votes of certain states."

Eastman's lawyer, yes a lawyer needed a lawyer apparently it's not that funny, has, oddly enough, used what some of our own, erm, "completely genuine posters" have used as a defense: I was just raising questions, I was just giving discussion topics.

...almost.

Eastman's goal was not to reverse the election results but "to delay the counting of the electoral votes so that there could be reasonable investigation undertaken by those states."

And

Lawyers get to argue debatable issues. The State Bar cannot discipline a lawyer for advancing tenable positions.

"The election and certification are two months apart. There were plenty of investigations, Trump lost every one of them and nothing was ever found."

Correct.

"Hell nothing was found in Arizona and they looked there for another few million dollars."

Also correct.

"Even if a lawyer has to defend a deplorable and objectively guilty client, they still aren't allowed to lie or present knowingly false information."

Also also correct.

"Eastman was at Jan 6th, right?"

He was, and he was spouting the same things that got FOX News sued, plus other unrelated bullshit like "dead people voted" and "why is Giuliani emailing me as Helen, wait, is he transgender? I thought he was cis. Wait, why is my Twitter account blocked?"

Eastman has not done great on the stand in what few questions he answered. For example, when "evidence" came to him, he admitted he did not vet it, but just assumed such well-respected lawyers as Giuliani and Powell had. Then went to court with it anyhow. He also testified that, when experts proved Trump's conspiracy theories were false, he ignored that, too.

Which is not the sort of thing you want to admit when you took the nation to court to install a dictator. "Your Honor, I assume all the stuff I like is true and I assume all the stuff I don't like is false. Please overturn the election of what used to be the prouded democracy on the planet until I got done with it."

Eastman is almost certainly going to get disbarred, but also, it seems fairly likely that Georgia will want to talk with him. As in, he could be indicted, along with his fellow co-conspirators. Eastman has been taking the 5th a lot, but anything he says in a disbarment hearing, I think, is allowed to be used in other courtrooms too -- he is under oath in those.

And for what?

Between November 2020 and this month, at least 13 attorneys have severed their working relationships with Trump, either resigning or being fired due to some version of "irreconcilable differences." There are also several attorneys who were never officially retained by Trump, and never paid by him, but who nonetheless acted in his interests, including Sidney Powell, Rudy Giuliani and quite likely John Eastman. As of March 2023, 17 current or former Trump lawyers had been sanctioned by various courts, mostly because of their involvement in dubious litigation challenging the 2020 election.

And just to demonstrate how badly he's fucked, we already know this:

On Wednesday, the State Bar called Greg Jacob, counsel to Vice President Pence, as a witness, and Jacob testified about his interactions with Eastman in the days leading up to Jan. 6.

According to Jacob, Eastman admitted that the Supreme Court would likely block his plan for Pence to reject several states' electors by a vote of nine-to-zero. (Though Jacob testified Eastman initially thought he could possibly win the vote of conservative Justice Clarence Thomas, for whom Eastman worked as a law clerk.)

Jacob was in the Capitol during the Jan. 6 insurrection, and while under lockdown due to the violence, Jacob sent an email to Eastman that ended by saying: "Thanks to your bullshit we are now under siege."

Eastman responded that the evidence that the election was "stolen" was "already overwhelming."

"The 'siege' is because YOU and your boss did not do what was necessary to allow this to be aired in a public way so that the American people can see for themselves what happened," Eastman wrote.

There was no evidence at the time. There still isn't. Eastman never had any and admitted that under oath.

He's not just fucked. The state bar, Georgia, and hopefully Smith are going to run a train on him.

[postman1782]

So let's talk about Eastman[/url].

FYI, dunno if you meant to use a link here, but its not there. Otherwise, I hope Eastman has the cell next to Trump.