Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Edge-]

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/0...rneys-00055084

Politico has an interesting piece about all the lawyers that Trump is employing across, and many of their respective problems. Counting through, Trump has at least 5 working on the Maralago FBI case, 2 on the NYAG investigation, 3 on the Fulton County investigation, 4 on the Jan. 6 grand jury investigation, 3 on his tax returns, 4 in a lawsuit relating to Clinton, 1 for separate Jan. 6 litigation, and a final one working on Hunter Biden.

That's a total of 23 lawyers. That's a lot!

- - - Updated - - -

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/fo...07/id/1086361/

This one comes via newsmax, but it's still interesting.

The media are buzzing that major Fox News personalities are attacking former President Donald Trump after the FBI raid, with one speculating Trump was selling secret U.S. documents to Russia.

"Fox News Sunday" host Eric Shawn on Sunday wondered aloud what Trump could have done with documents seized by the FBI during a raid at Mar-a-Lago on Aug. 8.

"More questions are being raised this morning. Did former President Trump try to sell or share the highly classified material to the Russians or to the Saudis or others?" Shawn asked his fellow panelists.

A fair question, honestly! Which Newsmax seems triggered over. But the followup is better.

He continued: "Or were the documents innocently mishandled and stored because he thought he had a legal right to have them?"

Your honor, I was innocently holding onto 10 pound of fentanyl pressed into pill form because I thought I had a legal right to have them!

Largely, Newsmax is big mad that Fox hosts might even tepidly criticize or be open to criticism of Trump's behavior and actions.

- - - Updated - - -

https://www.motherjones.com/politics...a-kelly-thiel/

On Election Day in 2005, then–Stanford sophomore Blake Masters sent two emails to the listserv of his vegetarian co-op. In the first, Masters, now the Republican Senate candidate in Arizona, urged classmates to read an article about a California ballot measure “[i]f you must worship that miserably peculiar American diety [sic] called Democracy.” In the second, he put together a reading list that could have easily served as a crash course in anti-democratic libertarianism.

Two of the articles were by Hans-Hermann Hoppe, a German economist best known for his 2001 jeremiad Democracy: The God That Failed. One, a 1995 paper titled “The Political Economy of Monarchy and Democracy, and the Idea of a Natural Order,” argued that “the historic transition from monarchy to democracy represents not progress but civilizational decline.” In addition to advocating “the abdication of democracy,” Hoppe wanted people to accept a “natural order” under which a “voluntarily acknowledged ‘natural’ elite—a nobilitas naturalis” reigns supreme.

More in the article about Republican Senate candidate Blake Masters.

Just a reminder that these "college educated" conservative "elites" are still largely antidemocratic authoritarians at heart.

[Breccia]

FOX News, desperate for anything to change the topic to "our man Trump is a traitor", finally got something!

A Trump-appointed judge in Louisiana, yes that adds context, had demanded that Fauci turn over emails he sent to social media giants to crack down on misinformation.

"What crime is he indicted for?"

None.

"Accused of?"

None. This is a civil motion. Apparently, he's being sued for violating First Amendment rights by cracking down on free speech.

"Oh, Fauci was using his power over the social media branch of the government!"

Yeah, that's still not a thing. Twitter didn't work for Trump while Trump was in the White House. Oh, right, this is about when Trump was in the White House.

Fauci, as demonstrated recently, has multiple defenses he could use. He could, for example, claim Executive Privilege. It's stupid, and doesn't fit, but others have done the same. Or, he could claim it's medical information and go with doctor-client. Or just say it's an intrusion into his privacy, or claim the plaintiffs have no standing.

But I think his response will be "Sure. Here you are."

Dr. Fauci has never given any indication that he does anything other than follow the facts. I find it highly unlikely any emails he had with anyone were based on lies, conspiracy theories, or fiction. In fact, the lawsuit is about his attempts to stop the lies, conspiracy theories, and fiction. Also, again, Facebook and Twitter don't work for the government. Fauci couldn't order them to do shit, and he doesn't seem like the type that'd threaten them with legal action if they didn't comply.

Bear in mind, this lawsuit is, basically, someone yelling fire in a crowded theater, the theater manager saying "No, look around, there's clearly no fire, please stop panicking and trampling each other" and someone suing the manager.

Perfectly legitimate, responsible viewpoints and speakers have been unlawfully and unconstitutionally threatened in the modern public square.

Just a reminder: if a private company acts on its own accord, it's not unConstitutional. It's just businesses acting in their own best interest.

I fully expect this story to go nowhere. But it's FOX News' #3 headline, after Trump's rant about being caught and a white teacher murdered by a black guy.

[Edge-]

I mean...what power does Fauci himself have to force social media companies to do anything? What teeth does he have? What enforcement mechanisms? What penalties for failure to enforce?

DOES FAUCI HAVE ACCESS TO THE SECRET DENTAL POLICE THAT VERMIN SUPREME HAS BEEN WARNING US ABOUT?!?

[Breccia]

I mean...what power does Fauci himself have to force social media companies to do anything?

None. He could potentially ask the DOJ to prosecute a crime, but, private companies broadcasting conspiracy theories isn't a crime. If it was, OAN would be a smoking crater by now.

[Edge-]

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politic...-americans-say

As former President Donald Trump considers launching another bid for the White House, more than six in 10 Americans do not want him to run in 2024, according to a new PBS NewsHour/NPR/Marist poll. And while Trump’s possession of more than 10,000 government documents at his Florida home seems not to have changed the minds of his steady supporters, a plurality of Americans think he has done something illegal.

So...people still don't like Trump very much overall, but his supporters aren't going anywhere.

[Breccia]

So...people still don't like Trump very much overall, but his supporters aren't going anywhere.

As usual, this is bad news for the classic Republicans. It should be clear to them by now that they sold their party to the gun nuts, the religious right, and the conspiracy crazies, and it's no longer possible to get it back. The party of small government and personal responsibility is now openly embracing terrorism (yes, a murderous insurrection counts as terrorism) and, as you said, they can't even get the guy who stole nuclear secrets and claimed the FBI planted them off their ticket anymore.

It's what they deserved. If only someone had warned them!

[Edge-]

It's what they deserved. If only someone had warned them!

I do wonder if he's been asked about his 2016 prediction recently, and if he has any thoughts on its accuracy or what he's doing to attempt to disprove it.

- - - Updated - - -

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/09/07/bill...dnt-do-it.html

Former Attorney General William Barr said Wednesday he thinks the Justice Department is “getting very close” to having the evidence to indict Donald Trump — but hopes the agency declines to charge the ex-president.

Barr, who served under Trump, again criticized a judge’s order authorizing a so-called special master to review the thousands of documents that the FBI seized last month in a raid of Trump’s Florida home Mar-a-Lago.

Barr said the battle over those materials — many of which bore classification markings — currently boils down to two questions: whether the DOJ can make a case to charge Trump, and whether it should.

“Will the government be able to make out a technical case, will they have evidence by which — that they could indict somebody on, including him?” Barr said in a Fox News interview, his third appearance on the network in five days.

“That’s the first question, and I think they’re getting very close to that point, frankly,” said Barr, who led the Justice Department from early 2019 until the final months of the Trump administration.

“But I think at the end of the day, there’s another question, [which] is do you indict a former president? What will that do to the country, what kind of precedent will that set, will the people really understand that this is not, you know, failing to return a library book, that this was serious,” Barr went on.

“And so you have to worry about those things, and I hope that those kinds of factors will incline the administration not to indict him, because I don’t want to see him indicted as a former president,” Barr said.

“But I also think they’ll be under a lot of pressure to indict him, because — one question is, look, if anyone else would have gotten indicted, why not indict him?” he added.

Reminder: Republicans are the not the party of law and order. They are the party of lawlessness in pursuit of power.

I do wonder that if Barr is worried that if Trump actually gets indicted/charged that he'll start singing like a bird on literally anything - including making tons of shit up that won't be usable because there won't be a shred of evidence beyond is worthless word - and that folks like Barr would find themselves caught in the crossfire as Trump attempt to throw anyone under the bus to lessen his potential consequences.

[Breccia]

I do wonder if he's been asked about his 2016 prediction recently

Yes, in June 28 of this year. Guess why!

The problem wasn't his prediction. The problem is, he was right, he knew he was right, and still went all-in on Trump anyhow. I'm not even sure "hypocrisy" is the right word. I think he legit looked at the power the Republican Party was getting from Trump in charge, and said "this needs to continue, even though Trump is an evil man".

- - - Updated - - -

"do you indict a former president?".

To date, the answer has been "no". But Trump is the one poking the bear. When you accuse the other party of being the enemy of the state, even to the point of leading a murderous insurrection, the label "former president" is no longer the important one. The important one is "traitor". The person making the case to indict Trump, is Trump. If he'd done what everyone else had done, go home and write books/give speeches for money, this would be a much smaller problem for everyone.

[Milchshake]

It's gonna come out he sold out Israel and the GOP will literally start to disintegrate like the people in War of The Worlds, trying to figure out which they care about more.

That Trump and Jared betrayed them, cant be a better form of poetic justice for the Lukidniks. Sheldon Adelson payed a fortune for this, lol.

[Poopymonster]

I do wonder if he's been asked about his 2016 prediction recently, and if he has any thoughts on its accuracy or what he's doing to attempt to disprove it.

- - - Updated - - -

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/09/07/bill...dnt-do-it.html



Reminder: Republicans are the not the party of law and order. They are the party of lawlessness in pursuit of power.

I do wonder that if Barr is worried that if Trump actually gets indicted/charged that he'll start singing like a bird on literally anything - including making tons of shit up that won't be usable because there won't be a shred of evidence beyond is worthless word - and that folks like Barr would find themselves caught in the crossfire as Trump attempt to throw anyone under the bus to lessen his potential consequences.

So Trump "sings" about other people who did bad things, with no evidence to back it up. Lie to the FBI when you claim to have proof of someone's wrongdoing doesn't look good, especially during sentencing.
The part of Donald Trump in this portion of the NBC made for TV movie will be played by Fab Morvan.

- - - Updated - - -

It's gonna come out he sold out Israel and the GOP will literally start to disintegrate like the people in War of The Worlds, trying to figure out which they care about more.

That Trump and Jared betrayed them, cant be a better form of poetic justice for the Lukidniks. Sheldon Adelson payed a fortune for this, lol.

That particular faucet has been shut off.

[DarkTZeratul]

I do wonder that if Barr is worried that if Trump actually gets indicted/charged that he'll start singing like a bird on literally anything - including making tons of shit up that won't be usable because there won't be a shred of evidence beyond is worthless word - and that folks like Barr would find themselves caught in the crossfire as Trump attempt to throw anyone under the bus to lessen his potential consequences.

A reminder that Barr got the job by writing an op-ed that basically said, "if the president does it, it's not illegal." Saying "they have enough evidence to indict, but they shouldn't" is entirely ideologically consistent for him.

[Gorsameth]

A reminder that Barr got the job by writing an op-ed that basically said, "if the president does it, it's not illegal." Saying "they have enough evidence to indict, but they shouldn't" is entirely ideologically consistent for him.

exactly, Barr being against indictment makes perfect sense when his entire reason for becoming AG was the belief that a President is above the law.

[Edge-]

exactly, Barr being against indictment makes perfect sense when his entire reason for becoming AG was the belief that a President is above the law.

"Anything a president does isn't illegal."

also

"Anything a former president does may be illegal, but we shouldn't do anything about it anyways."

[Gorsameth]

what gets me mad tho is he questions what charging Trump would do to the country.

I wonder if he has thought about what NOT charging Trump would do the country.
What will it do to America and the future of democracy in America if a President can get away with all these crimes, and a literal coup attempt.

If Trump is not charged and ruined American democracy will not survive another 50 years.

[Breccia]

what gets me mad tho is he questions what charging Trump would do to the country.

You could use the same defense for literally anyone.

"Oh sure, my client stole $10 million from the SPCA and then raped some rescue horses, but really, Your Honor, what good would putting him in jail do for the country?"

- - - Updated - - -

"Anything a former president does may be illegal, but we shouldn't do anything about it anyways."

I hate defending Barr...so I won't

But Barr is not defending Trump, not even a little.

1) He scoffed at the "overdue book" defense. Called it out specifically and directly.

2) He thinks the "special master" call was wrong.
2a) And he also thinks it won't matter. Anything covered by Executive Privilege will still not be returned to Trump. It is still evidence Trump stole.

3) He confirmed the passports were taken for a reason, and that reason was to show how/where the stolen documents were stored.

As for the rest, Barr has spent his days looking at Nixon in the rear-view mirror while driving a Ford. He likely wishes Trump had stepped down long enough for Pence to pardon him and end some of the implosion on his party and his country that he helped facilitate. His comments never once said Trump is innocent of this crime, in fact the opposite, and I think he, Karl Rove, McConnell, and the other old guard regret the last six years more than the previous sixty.

[Gorsameth]

His comments never once said Trump is innocent of this crime, in fact the opposite , and I think he, Karl Rove, McConnell, and the other old guard regret the last six years more than the previous sixty.

And yet he doesn't want Trump to be charged. He admits he is a criminal and might regret having anything to do with him but it utterly unwilling to hold the most criminal President in history, a man guilty (in every way but the strict legal sensem yet) of insurrection and potentially actual espionage against the USA accountable for those things.

Letting him get away with it is how you get another guy to try, and another and another until finally one succeeds and democracy in America ends.

[DarkTZeratul]

Letting him get away with it is how you get another guy to try, and another and another until finally one succeeds and democracy in America ends.

I think this is the core of it, really. They're not worried they'll get caught up in the scandal, they're worried this will stop them from trying again.

[Poopymonster]

And yet he doesn't want Trump to be charged. He admits he is a criminal and might regret having anything to do with him but it utterly unwilling to hold the most criminal President in history, a man guilty (in every way but the strict legal sensem yet) of insurrection and potentially actual espionage against the USA accountable for those things.

Letting him get away with it is how you get another guy to try, and another and another until finally one succeeds and democracy in America ends.

Charging Trump and convicting could destroy "their team" so, yeah, they don't want that to happen to their team.

[Gorsameth]

Charging Trump and convicting could destroy "their team" so, yeah, they don't want that to happen to their team.

Right, but then you don't get to complain that you worked with him to get into this position and that you cultivated the base that were desperately hungry for a Trump to come along and voted him into power.

Both Barr and McConnel could have stopped all this at the first Impeachment (the fact I can even type 'first' there is.... wow). They did the absolutely opposite.
Both are indirectly entirely responsible for all 'this'.

[Endus]

To date, the answer has been "no".

See, that right there is the problem.

The President's not a king. He's not above the law. Refusal to charge them accordingly if they break the law is literally corruption. It's banana-republic dictator level stuff. And yet, Americans insist upon it as if it's protecting their system of governance.

It's not.

It's a gross failure of your legal and governmental systems, enshrining corruption and abuse as protected features of your government.

It's a completely ridiculous premise and there's no justification for it whatsoever.