Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Benggaul]

You ever wonder if the ABA is super annoyed at how these two are dragging their profession through the mud? Lol.

I'm honestly surprised they haven't been disbarred more generally or declared vexatious litigants.

Er, to be fair, lawyers didn't exactly have a solid reputation in the States even before they came along. I think if you had asked most people to describe a lawyer they'd have been more likely to picture the ambulance-chaser types given how litigious Americans are in general.

[Elegiac]

If the ABA or AMA want to address the issues with licensing absolute nutters to practice their professions without any mechanisms allowing for reviews and removals of those licenses, they're absolutely welcome to.

Until then, I won't feel bad for either one of them.

Oh, I don't feel bad. The feeling is entirely one of schadenfreude.

[shimerra]

Er, to be fair, lawyers didn't exactly have a solid reputation in the States even before they came along. I think if you had asked most people to describe a lawyer they'd have been more likely to picture the ambulance-chaser types given how litigious Americans are in general.

Yeah the "Americans are too litigious" point is largely a myth pushed by conservatives pundits trying to lobby for tort reform in their favor. Aka corporations, like McDonalds in the coffee spill situation, who want to avoid having to pay when it actually is their fault. While these people aren't doing anything to help it it's far more of a media narrative than an actual truth.

It's the same non-sense when the ACA was proposed. Republicans acting like tort reform/saving doctor's from the crippling fear of being sued for mistakes would save American health care when even the most optimistic estimates had it at I think around 5% of total costs maximum.

[Breccia]

You can't just make shit up while asking the court to disenfranchise millions of voters.

You can't make stuff like this up.

I have practiced law for 43 years and have never witnessed a proceeding like this. I take full responsibility for the pleadings in this case.

We had a legal obligation to the country and to the electors to raise these issues. It is the duty of lawyers in the highest tradition of the practice of law to raise unpopular issues.

-- Powell

I don't think I've really ever seen an affidavit that has made so many leaps. This is really fantastical. So my question to counsel here is how could any of you as officers of the court present this type of an affidavit?

-- the judge, right back at Powell

Simply put, there is "raise unpopular opinion" and "submit bullshit backless claims under oath". I can say "Trump is morbidly obese and weighs six hundred pounds" all I want...here. I say that under oath, I'm in trouble. So why the hell would I submit a court claim saying "Trump weighs 600 pounds" if I couldn't back that up?

The judge took issue with the team that used public court filings to baselessly claim that there was something wrong with the election, such as a guy who said he saw two post office guys with plastic bags that could have had illegal ballots, no really, that's what was submittted, a guy who says he saw plastic bags. That shit was filed as "evidence". The judge is being asked to force Powell and her Krak team to
(a) pay for taxpayer court costs
(b) lose their licences, henceforth to be known as "pulling a Giuliani"
and from the back-and-forth, the judge is leaning further in that direction than away from it.

I will also point out that Lin Wood's name came up. I don't know why, He's been cited but has publicly denied being part of the case. I remember Wood, I think he's a proven doucehbag, but if he was cited without his permission then we get something even better: Team Trump turning on itself in broad fucking daylight.

@cubby your thoughts? Laughing so hard you choke on Greymane-brand popcorn doesn't count.

- - - Updated - - -

On Saturday, the DoJ released a new video of

three officers waded into the crowd to save a pro-Trump rioter who was trampled, only to be stripped of their protective gear, dragged down a set of stairs and attacked with crutches, flagpoles, batons and bare hands.

"Surely the rioter was trampled because the WH cops did something!"

Well, first of all, they were invading the WH, aren't they supposed to?

Second of all, no, they didn't.

Officer A.W. stepped out of a tunnel where police were congregated and into the crowd to help Rosanne Boyland, 34, a rioter and QAnon supporter who was trampled by the mob. She died of an accidental drug overdose, according to Washington, DC's chief medical examiner. Boyland's body is seen in some of the new videos, which also show her friend screaming for assistance.

Prosecutors say A.W.'s body-worn camera video shows defendant Jack Whitton leaping over a barricade, knocking A.W. onto his back and attempting to wrestle away his baton. Over A.W.'s head, other rioters hit the police line with flagpoles and metal poles. The crowd drags A.W. into the crowd while he pleads for help. Members of the crowd ignore the plea, one rioter leans down and shouts, "traitor." Much of the clip is from A.W.'s perspective on the ground looking up.

This bottom-up angle shows a man wearing a "sheriff" vest pulling A.W. down the stairs. He's also wearing a patch with the logo of the Three Percenters, a right-wing extremist group. Despite the "sheriff" label, there's no indication this man was part of the police defending the Capitol. In fact, he was included on a wanted poster from DC's police department and named as "person of interest" in the assault on A.W..

The attack landed A.W. in the hospital, where he got staples in his head to stop the bleeding. Whitton was charged with several felonies, including assault. He hasn't yet entered a plea.

Another officer, C.M., tried to help his colleagues. C.M.'s bodycam footage shows another officer dragged into the crowd. It also shows Boyland lying on the ground. This is the first footage the US government has released showing Boyland's death. She was one of a few Trump supporters who died in the attack.
Prosecutors say the footage then shows defendant Michael Lopatic rushing toward C.M., attacking the officer and grabbing him by the head and punching him.

C.M.'s bodycam is dislodged and falls to the ground, briefly revealing a splatter of blood.

Holy shit, that's movie/video game level of "that guy is dead" right there. I didn't think that actually happened.

C.M. got a concussion that day, though it may have been caused when he was assaulted a second time later in the day in a different incident, according to court filings. Lopatic was charged with several felonies, including assault, and hasn't entered a plea yet.

The Justice Department released two bodycam clips from another officer. One clip shows the tug-of-war between the rioters and the officers who were trying to pull their colleague to safety. The officers are repeatedly pummeled with poles and what appear to be stolen police batons.

Another bodycam clip, recorded about 20 minutes later, shows police in a second tunnel, holding the line with riot shields. Rioters throw objects, hitting the shields. According to prosecutors, Whitton is the man who is heard in the clip, shouting at the police, "you're gonna die tonight" (He later boasted to friends, saying that "I fed him to the people," referring to the officer, according to court filings).

You know. Normal "on the tour" stuff.

Anyone defending these people as peaceful who somehow hasn't changed their tune yet, not that there's this extra evidence, needs to do so. I mean, at the minimum they should say "those who committed violent crimes should XXX". I mean, that's a gimme.

In fact, I'd love for our local Trump supporters to say that, right now. You know the deal, 24 hours to say "I condemn these acts of violence" which should be very easy to say. I mean, how hard can it be to say "I condemn these acts of violence"? Hell, maybe they already have and just want to self-quote, that's good too. But until that happens, I think I'll have to, because they are Trump supporters, lump them in with Trump, the man who incited the attacks.

"Whoa! You can't say Trump supports the attacks! He said he condemned the violence!"

Yes, but five days ago he said that one murderous insurrectionist shouldn't have been shot. So it seems he's changed his mind. Perhaps this new evidence will change it back, but at time of writing, he's said no such thing.

[Benggaul]

Yeah the "Americans are too litigious" point is largely a myth pushed by conservatives pundits trying to lobby for tort reform in their favor. Aka corporations, like McDonalds in the coffee spill situation, who want to avoid having to pay when it actually is their fault. While these people aren't doing anything to help it it's far more of a media narrative than an actual truth.

It's the same non-sense when the ACA was proposed. Republicans acting like tort reform/saving doctor's from the crippling fear of being sued for mistakes would save American health care when even the most optimistic estimates had it at I think around 5% of total costs maximum.

Yeah, no, it's not entirely nonsense. The per capita litigation rate in the US is higher than most other Western nations (or at least had been at the time of my studying the matter--which admittedly was nearly 20 years ago). Now, we can argue about whether or not threats to sue are included in that and we can argue about whether or not the reputation is deserved, but you can bet you'll hear "I'll sue!" more often in the US than out. None of that, however, really detracts from my initial point: "lawyers" as a profession in the US didn't have a sterling reputation to begin with.

Purely anecdotal: I accidentally rear-ended an off-duty cop in their personal car when they were trying to make an illegal left turn. They stopped more suddenly than I was prepared for, I slammed on my brakes and the front bumper of my car slid under the rear bumper of his truck. Minimal damage to his truck; totaled my car. He then spent the next 15-20 minutes physically trying to pry our two cars apart using an iron bar he borrowed from some road workers nearby. After exchanging information he drove off (his truck was fine) and I waited for my parents (I was 18) to come pick me up and take me to where my car was towed...where it was pronounced DOA, basically. A little under a week later we got a knock on our door on Sunday morning and I was served. Cop was suing me for *pinky to mouth* one million dollars in physical trauma that prevented him from "performing his husbandly duties" as it was written. I'm sure him throwing his back out trying to physically yank our cars apart had nothing to do with it. Yeah yeah, "ACAB" and all that, but my family has a bunch of stories like this from fuckers who thought they could earn a quick buck by suing the pants off of one of us with little cause. I think my insurance ended up settling with him for 10k, so he got something out of it. Hope his pecker fell off.

At any rate, while there are certainly some made-up narratives pushed by the right to appease their corporate owners, it's not all pure hokum. Just not for the reasons they propose.

[gondrin]

Yeah, no, it's not entirely nonsense. The per capita litigation rate in the US is higher than most other Western nations (or at least had been at the time of my studying the matter--which admittedly was nearly 20 years ago). Now, we can argue about whether or not threats to sue are included in that and we can argue about whether or not the reputation is deserved, but you can bet you'll hear "I'll sue!" more often in the US than out. None of that, however, really detracts from my initial point: "lawyers" as a profession in the US didn't have a sterling reputation to begin with.

Purely anecdotal: I accidentally rear-ended an off-duty cop in their personal car when they were trying to make an illegal left turn. They stopped more suddenly than I was prepared for, I slammed on my brakes and the front bumper of my car slid under the rear bumper of his truck. Minimal damage to his truck; totaled my car. He then spent the next 15-20 minutes physically trying to pry our two cars apart using an iron bar he borrowed from some road workers nearby. After exchanging information he drove off (his truck was fine) and I waited for my parents (I was 18) to come pick me up and take me to where my car was towed...where it was pronounced DOA, basically. A little under a week later we got a knock on our door on Sunday morning and I was served. Cop was suing me for *pinky to mouth* one million dollars in physical trauma that prevented him from "performing his husbandly duties" as it was written. I'm sure him throwing his back out trying to physically yank our cars apart had nothing to do with it. Yeah yeah, "ACAB" and all that, but my family has a bunch of stories like this from fuckers who thought they could earn a quick buck by suing the pants off of one of us with little cause. I think my insurance ended up settling with him for 10k, so he got something out of it. Hope his pecker fell off.

At any rate, while there are certainly some made-up narratives pushed by the right to appease their corporate owners, it's not all pure hokum. Just not for the reasons they propose.

Honestly, if someone says it is all a myth, all they need to do is take a look at the history of the person this thread is named after. Trump is known for suing anyone. Hell, he made it a campaign promise to allow people to sue anyone that says an opinion about them they don't agree with and win. It gets so bad with people like him that they had to enact Anti-SLAPP legislation in some states.

[Elegiac]

Weisselberg has officially been terminated from his position at Mar-a-Lago and several other Trump subsidiaries. No explanation given yet since he's still CFO of the main organization.

Other subsidiaries that he has been removed from as an officer include the Trump Payroll Corp., which was also named in the indictment, Trump National Golf Club, Trump International Hotels Management and the Trump International Golf Club in Scotland, according to publicly filed corporation documents.

[Benggaul]

Weisselberg has officially been terminated from his position at Mar-a-Lago and several other Trump subsidiaries. No explanation given yet since he's still CFO of the main organization.

Guess we'll find out if @Breccia 's prediction is true:

So that leaves only two reasonable options (yes, this is Team Trump, I'm not going to list all the crazy ones)

1) Trump thinks Weaselberg will flip and is prying his name off his businesses one by one, or
2) The Scottish govt is considering an investigation and firing Weaselberg is the only action Trump can take to delay it.



Let's give it a month. If Weaselberg gets fired from anywhere else, it's the former. If not, it's the latter.

[cubby]

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/ne...ys/7934063002/

Judge asks Trump attorneys in Michigan, including Lin Wood who apparently didn't know his name was even on the lawsuit (kek), if they like...checked any of the claims of massive fraud before bringing them to the court. You know, because as a lawyer you need to do some due diligence on behalf of your client before bringing their claims of fact in front of the court. You can't just make shit up while asking the court to disenfranchise millions of voters.

You can't make stuff like this up.

I have practiced law for 43 years and have never witnessed a proceeding like this. I take full responsibility for the pleadings in this case.

We had a legal obligation to the country and to the electors to raise these issues. It is the duty of lawyers in the highest tradition of the practice of law to raise unpopular issues.

-- Powell

I don't think I've really ever seen an affidavit that has made so many leaps. This is really fantastical. So my question to counsel here is how could any of you as officers of the court present this type of an affidavit?

-- the judge, right back at Powell

Simply put, there is "raise unpopular opinion" and "submit bullshit backless claims under oath". I can say "Trump is morbidly obese and weighs six hundred pounds" all I want...here. I say that under oath, I'm in trouble. So why the hell would I submit a court claim saying "Trump weighs 600 pounds" if I couldn't back that up?

The judge took issue with the team that used public court filings to baselessly claim that there was something wrong with the election, such as a guy who said he saw two post office guys with plastic bags that could have had illegal ballots, no really, that's what was submittted, a guy who says he saw plastic bags. That shit was filed as "evidence". The judge is being asked to force Powell and her Krak team to
(a) pay for taxpayer court costs
(b) lose their licences, henceforth to be known as "pulling a Giuliani"
and from the back-and-forth, the judge is leaning further in that direction than away from it.

I will also point out that Lin Wood's name came up. I don't know why, He's been cited but has publicly denied being part of the case. I remember Wood, I think he's a proven doucehbag, but if he was cited without his permission then we get something even better: Team Trump turning on itself in broad fucking daylight.

@cubby your thoughts? Laughing so hard you choke on Greymane-brand popcorn doesn't count.

The gravity of the literal lies these people not only filed suits upon but swore affidavits to is staggering. They questioned the entirely unproven and unverified root of our democracy, KNOWING that the truth was in fact the opposite, and then ignited an entire industry of lies and deceit just to make some more money and keep their grifting ass-hat of a traitor in the limelight a few more desperate seconds.

What are my thoughts?

They all ought to be taken out back behind Four Seasons Total Landscaping, shot in the head, and buried in unmarked graves. Treason has a penalty, and they declared war on our democracy.

(and to be clear to those fuckwad trump followers still skulking around these forums looking to bait click others into perma-bans: no, I'm not calling for violence, I'm hoping people are punished for their obvious crimes)

[Breccia]

The gravity of the literal lies these people not only filed suits upon but swore affidavits to is staggering.

If there are no sanctions, I'm going to need to know why. Or, failing that, I have every right, and standing precedent, to challenge my whore Party of Trump Rep's election when she inevitably wins. I mean, at that point why not?

[Trifle]

Yeah the "Americans are too litigious" point is largely a myth pushed by conservatives pundits trying to lobby for tort reform in their favor. Aka corporations, like McDonalds in the coffee spill situation, who want to avoid having to pay when it actually is their fault. While these people aren't doing anything to help it it's far more of a media narrative than an actual truth.

"Too litigious" is subjective, but Americans are more litigious that many other countries mainly because of the way the systems are set up rather than any real desire on the part of individuals (presumably). Like the case of the aunt suing the niece because it was the only way to get the insurance company to pay out. In my country her medical needs would be covered by a state run accident compensation system, so suing at all would be completely unnecessary in that situation.

[cubby]

If there are no sanctions, I'm going to need to know why. Or, failing that, I have every right, and standing precedent, to challenge my whore Party of Trump Rep's election when she inevitably wins. I mean, at that point why not?

To the very core of what you are saying, exactly. If these people can file suits questioning our democracy, knowing they are lying when they file them, and not face consequences - what's the point any more.

- - - Updated - - -

"Too litigious" is subjective, but Americans are more litigious that many other countries mainly because of the way the systems are set up rather than any real desire on the part of individuals (presumably). Like the case of the aunt suing the niece because it was the only way to get the insurance company to pay out. In my country her medical needs would be covered by a state run accident compensation system, so suing at all would be completely unnecessary in that situation.

There are three entire categories of political-social-historical reasons why the United States is more litigious than most other nations. Chiefly among them, and bringing two posts to one, is that we never adopted the English system of the third option of jury rulings - that being the plaintiff pays the defendants court costs because the suit was so egregiously ridiculous.

[gondrin]

Well, I am not shocked at this, but Lin Wood decided to go against the judge's orders and post a small video snippet from the court proceedings when the judge "Absolutely prohibited" all recordings.

Immediately After ‘Kraken’ Sanctions Hearing, Lin Wood Posted a Video Snippet of Zoom Court. The Judge ‘Absolutely Prohibited’ Any Recordings.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime...?ocid=msedgntp

[beanman12345]

Well, I am not shocked at this, but Lin Wood decided to go against the judge's orders and post a small video snippet from the court proceedings when the judge "Absolutely prohibited" all recordings.



https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime...?ocid=msedgntp

Well, gonna get disbarred anyways, might as well be held in contempt as well right?

[Poopymonster]

Well, gonna get disbarred anyways, might as well be held in contempt as well right?

On National Kool-Aid Day, I mean, August 13th, Trump as president will super duper pardon him and rebar him!

[gondrin]

On National Kool-Aid Day, I mean, August 13th, Trump as president will super duper pardon him and rebar him!

Will Trump appear as the Kool Aid Man to break him out of prison? I mean, he is fat enough.

[Kaleredar]

Well, gonna get disbarred anyways, might as well be held in contempt as well right?

…except contempt charges usually land your ass in jail, no?

[cubby]

Well, gonna get disbarred anyways, might as well be held in contempt as well right?

That would be excellent. Contempt charges can encompass jail time as well as prison time (being held vs being sentenced). I sure as hell hope that judge throws everything they can at those attorneys.

- - - Updated - - -

…except contempt charges usually land your ass in jail, no?

Indeed.

[beanman12345]

…except contempt charges usually land your ass in jail, no?

Yup. But they can't help themselves but double down on the stupid.

[Edge-]

https://www.insider.com/us-border-pa...ckpoint-2021-7

The drug smugglers are inside the house! We've all heard about the trials CBP has had with recruiting competent people, especially given that they market themselves like ultra-hard special forces where agents will be going on daring raids, tearing through the desert in armored vehicles, and waging a constant war against coyotes and druglords to keep our borders safe...when in reality most of the job is hanging around empty borders, driving around empty landscape, being a first-responder to asylum seekers who are in need of medical assistance, and doing a lot of paperwork.

One of them decided to spice things up a bit and make some scratch on the side by working with the cartels, helping two shipments of cocaine get passed the border safely. And all this for a measly $1K per run, which seems like a pretty stupid amount of money to be risking *checks article* a $10M maximum fine and up to 10 years in prison.

Sure, this isn't Trump specific, but given his love of CBP and his championing of them I feel it fits.