Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[postman1782]

Oh nice, video.

Cool, so now we wait to see if anything leaks, or until any announcements are made. But I see Twitter is doing their usual thing and just making up all kinds of stories, lol.

So far, speculation from Twitter, is that 3 indictments were unsealed, but I haven't found any actual info on it. But again, there is still no reason for him being in DC, as he had nothing on his schedule that wouldn't require him to change from golf shit.

[Kaleredar]

Fair enough, but I'll follow @Edge- 's lead on this one. If it turns out to be anything, I won't feel bad about waiting overnight. If it doesn't, I'll feel even less bad.

I will say, I did predict earlier that the most likely result was Biden dragging Trump into his office to say "you shut the fuck up and sit the fuck down, fatty, or I'll take the brake pads off the FBI Train and let NARA tie you to the tracks. Go ahead, Merrick My Day." Not a pardon, just a technically legal threat that Trump buys his freedom with his silence. I stand by that -- as much as I want to see the taxpayer bill for extra-small handcuffs, I don't have enough faith in the justice system to say that's the most likely outcome. But, I wouldn't expect something this blatant -- assuming the video/photos aren't faked of course -- to be that. The bargain for Trump's silence doesn't work if everyone knows Biden ordered it personally.

Biden saying anything resembling "look Trump, lemme make a deal with you, I call off the FBI and you don't run for president" would be monumentally disastrous if word leaked that it had happened. It would basically legitimize every conspiracy about the FBI raid by means of "Biden is trying to persecute trump, it's all an FBI partisan ruse, Biden is weaponizing the FBI" and would turn the whole situation right back on Biden. Suddenly every headline is no longer "trump coming under scrutiny for X" or "new details about what Trump was hiding and how," every news article is now "Biden tried to make deal over 2024 election to call off FBI inquiry."

Plus, Trump reneges on deals all the time. Who's to say that he "accepts" Biden's deal and then come 2024 just runs anyway?

[Breccia]

he had nothing on his schedule that wouldn't require him to change from golf shit.

To misquote Conway, it wasn't very good golf weather anyhow. It was arraigning all day. I'll see myself out.

[postman1782]

To misquote Conway, it wasn't very good golf weather anyhow. It was arraigning all day. I'll see myself out.

Here's to hoping.

[YUPPIE]

between just joe biden vs trump in 2024, trump is going to get re-elected without a doubt.

so the only hope people can cling to is trump gets prosecuted for some crime before those elections happen. But he always finds some way out of the worst atrocities. Contrary to Clinton's bullshit claim "no one is above the law" it's pretty obvious Trump is somehow above it. An insurrection and insider dealing on top secrets and he's still free! If that isn't being above everything in life, nothing is.

[Breccia]

Biden saying anything resembling "look Trump, lemme make a deal with you, I call off the FBI and you don't run for president" would be monumentally disastrous if word leaked that it had happened.

Maybe, but if it happened, it would take place in such a way Trump could never prove it happened. Dragging him to the WH in shackles 100% does not fit.

- - - Updated - - -

trump is going to get re-elected without a doubt.

Link one poll from the last month that backs this up. Here's one that says Biden leads by six points. This one says he's lost the independant vote. Here's one that says almost half the US wants him arrested. The same poll says 65% of Republicans want him to run even if arrested, one might call "blind loyalty".

So put up a poll that backs your claim, or admit you're projecting.

- - - Updated - - -

ho's to say that he "accepts" Biden's deal and then come 2024 just runs anyway?

Easy. He has to announce far enough out to actually run. That's plenty of time for him to be arrested. The deal I'm suggesting is one in which Biden holds every single card.

[swiftowner]

Biden saying anything resembling "look Trump, lemme make a deal with you, I call off the FBI and you don't run for president" would be monumentally disastrous

I agree with this sentiment except I’d phrase it as monumentally stupid, and without the extras of “if it got out”. Whether it got out or not, it would be exactly what Trump cultist are calling it. Biden should be hands-off of the DOJ/FBI on this, regardless of the outcome whether positive or negative, and certainly should avoid having any conversations with Trump.

[Breccia]

You know, he could be going to the hospital. Yeah I know, NJ and NY have those too, but Trump seems like the kind of guy who only goes to the hospital if he's basically at death's door because of his macho image he feels the need to cultivate from within 300 pounds of cheese grease. And, well, where was the last time that happened? They might have the last doctor he's seen and therefore the one he trusts/the one who's won't refuse to help him. Oh, and also, the FBI has his medical records, he says.

[postman1782]

between just joe biden vs trump in 2024, trump is going to get re-elected without a doubt.

so the only hope people can cling to is trump gets prosecuted for some crime before those elections happen. But he always finds some way out of the worst atrocities. Contrary to Clinton's bullshit claim "no one is above the law" it's pretty obvious Trump is somehow above it. An insurrection and insider dealing on top secrets and he's still free! If that isn't being above everything in life, nothing is.

I can guarantee that doesn't fucking happen. Trump has only lost support since January 6th.

[Breccia]

I can guarantee that doesn't fucking happen. Trump has only lost support since January 6th.

While Biden is currently on the rise. Anyone even pretending to follow these threads knows that.

Incidentally, Trump's arrest would further tank his ratings, because Garland would never allow it without public, airtight evidence even stronger than we've seen. Something along the lines of Melania ratting him out in public.

[postman1782]

While Biden is currently on the rise. Anyone even pretending to follow these threads knows that.

Incidentally, Trump's arrest would further tank his ratings, because Garland would never allow it without public, airtight evidence even stronger than we've seen. Something along the lines of Melania ratting him out in public.

Yep, Garland has a 100% conviction record.

[Breccia]

Trump backed failed campaign coup against Kushner, Navarro book says

In June 2020, less than five months before polling day, Donald Trump agreed to a “coup d’état” to remove his son-in-law Jared Kushner from control of his presidential re-election campaign and replace him with the far-right provocateur Steve Bannon.

The coup had support from Donald Trump Jr but according to a new book by the former Trump aide Peter Navarro it did not work, after Trump refused to give Kushner the bad news himself.

Fearing “family troubles if [he] himself had to deliver the bad news to … the father of his grandchildren”, Trump asked Bernie Marcus, the founder of Home Depot, a major Republican donor and a central player in the coup, “to be the messenger” to Kushner.

In Navarro’s telling, Kushner first insulted Marcus by skipping a call, then told Trump’s emissary “things were fine with the campaign, there was no way he was stepping down and, in effect, Bernie Marcus and his big moneybags could go pound sand”.

Navarro writes: “And that was that. And the rest is a catastrophic strategic failure history.”

Navarro isn't exactly a spotless source. Rumor has it he hated Kushner: if the chapter title "Both Nepotism and Excrement Roll Downhill" wasn't enough, Kushner publicly muscled Navarro out of several key decisions, including COVID response. Navarro has a PhD in Economics from Harvard, Kushner has a MBA from NYU. His entitled ass probably fumed at being upstaged by someone, to him, objectively worse in every way. Oh, and Navarro is facing a trial for refusing to comply with the Jan 6th panel, while Kushner is eating caviar off a dead baby seal.

That said, his story does ring true. It was written before Bannon got arrested, of course, and Navarro says Bannon would have led Trump to victory over Clinton. Of course, if he is right, we're lucky this coup failed.

- - - Updated - - -

Newsweek has an explanation. Kishner is giving a speech today.

- - - Updated - - -

Team Trump files counterargument to DOJ.

This just happened, and legal experts will surely weigh in, but this part stuck out:

Moreover, the ultimate disposition of all the “classified records,” and likely
most of the seized materials, is indisputably governed exclusively by the provisions
of the Presidential Records Act (“PRA”). See 44 U.S.C. §§ 2201, et seq. The PRA
accords any President extraordinary discretion to categorize all his or her records as
either Presidential or personal records, and established case law provides for very
limited judicial oversight over such categorization. The PRA further contains no
provision authorizing or allowing for any criminal enforcement. Rather, disputes
regarding the disposition of any Presidential record are to be resolved between such
President and the National Archives and Records Administration (“NARA”). Thus, at
best, the Government might ultimately be able to establish certain Presidential
records should be returned to NARA. What is clear regarding all of the seized
materials is that they belong with either Trump (as his personal property
to be returned pursuant to Rule 41(g)) or with NARA, but not with the Department
of Justice.

Besides the admission that NARA was supposed to get them back, the problem is, Trump is using a defense for a crime he's not accused of. The warrant didn't mention 2201 at all. Trump and the Trump defenders need to stop defending him for crimes he hasn't been accused of yet, and focus on the ones he has been.

[tehdang]

So you admit that everything you've said is useless, since the issue isn't Trump declaring privilege before leaving office.

Minor correction, but the issue is solely the process issue of not instructing the taint team to look for documents potentially protected by executive privilege.

And by "assertions of executive privilege survive leaving the office," I mean "it is wrong to say leaving the office takes away his ability to assert them under the law (because his leaving office removes them)." I linked the relevant case law in earlier posts.

His capacity to assert and potentially win in court ("survives the office") necessitates a court case to overrule it. Not the DoJ deciding, in its wisdom, that it'll disregard Supreme Court precedent.

Wrong, 100% wrong. Trump doesn't have executive privilege. Only the current president does.

Definitely enough repetition on this one. I only wonder if you think the Supreme Court didn't write the opinion, or Supreme Court opinions do not matter, or you don't think Nixon was president (in order to be an ex-president), or if you don't think Nixon ever left office (in which case, he can't have been party to a lawsuit as an ex-president, since he was current president until death).

...So when did Trump exert executive privilege on these documents when he was president such that it could then "extend" to him retaining said privilege after having left office?

His capacity to assert it over documents survives leaving the office. It is up to the courts to determine whether or not particular documents are subject to it, or higher concerns overrule actual executive privilege, not the DoJ.

Because only the president can exert executive privilege on anything, and Trump isn't the president.

The Supreme Court, in Nixon vs GSA, found that ex-presidents still retained executive privilege. They reasoned that it was for the same reasons executive privilege exists in the first place. They even wrote on intricacies surrounding retained executive privilege, after they stated it exists.

[Canpinter]

Again going to point out if something is executive privilege that makes it by definition government property and thus stolen.

[Muzjhath]

Minor correction, but the issue is solely the process issue of not instructing the taint team to look for documents potentially protected by executive privilege.

And by "assertions of executive privilege survive leaving the office," I mean "it is wrong to say leaving the office takes away his ability to assert them under the law (because his leaving office removes them)." I linked the relevant case law in earlier posts.

His capacity to assert and potentially win in court ("survives the office") necessitates a court case to overrule it. Not the DoJ deciding, in its wisdom, that it'll disregard Supreme Court precedent.

Definitely enough repetition on this one. I only wonder if you think the Supreme Court didn't write the opinion, or Supreme Court opinions do not matter, or you don't think Nixon was president (in order to be an ex-president), or if you don't think Nixon ever left office (in which case, he can't have been party to a lawsuit as an ex-president, since he was current president until death).

His capacity to assert it over documents survives leaving the office. It is up to the courts to determine whether or not particular documents are subject to it, or higher concerns overrule actual executive privilege, not the DoJ.

The Supreme Court, in Nixon vs GSA, found that ex-presidents still retained executive privilege. They reasoned that it was for the same reasons executive privilege exists in the first place. They even wrote on intricacies surrounding retained executive privilege, after they stated it exists.

Those documents might have privilege.

They should still be in the hands of NARA

What are your thoughts on them being in the wrong hands?

[Endus]

His capacity to assert it over documents survives leaving the office. It is up to the courts to determine whether or not particular documents are subject to it, or higher concerns overrule actual executive privilege, not the DoJ.

The most hilarious thing about this incredibly ridiculous argument is that if Trump had documents covered by executive privilege in his possession, he had classified material he'd stolen unlawfully and what you're describing is a confession to a crime, not a defense.

[masterhorus8]

Newsweek has an explanation. Kishner is giving a speech today.

- - - Updated - - -

Team Trump files counterargument to DOJ.

This just happened, and legal experts will surely weigh in, but this part stuck out:



Besides the admission that NARA was supposed to get them back, the problem is, Trump is using a defense for a crime he's not accused of. The warrant didn't mention 2201 at all. Trump and the Trump defenders need to stop defending him for crimes he hasn't been accused of yet, and focus on the ones he has been.

Reading through the PRA, I love how it already argues against their stance...

Under "Presidential Records":

(B) does not include any documentary materials that are (i) official records of an agency (as defined in section 552(e) of title 5, United States Code; (ii) personal records; (iii) stocks of publications and stationery; or (iv) extra copies of documents produced only for convenience of reference, when such copies are clearly so identified.

"Ownership of Presidential records"

The United States shall reserve and retain complete ownership, possession, and control of Presidential records

"Management and custody of Presidential records"

(g)(1) Upon the conclusion of a President’s term of office, or if a President serves consecutive terms upon the conclusion of the last term, the Archivist of the United States shall assume responsibility for the custody, control, and preservation of, and access to, the Presidential records of that President. The Archivist shall have an affirmative duty to make such records available to the public as rapidly and completely as possible consistent with the provisions of this chapter.

This is just so typically Trump and his supporters... Always arguing against themselves when they try to provide evidence.

[Breccia]

Minor correction, but the is--

As you spent the last entire week arguing an irrelevant point, your claim "but the issue" is summarily handwaved. You voluntarily gave up the right to debate this topic when you made the same wrong point six times in a row despite being corrected with evidence. I am merely taking you up on that offer. P.S. Your second line is still wrong.

On topic: it has not been a good morning for Trump.

1) A growing number of GOP members are publicly breaking with Trump, specifically, on Trump's offer to pardon the people who tried to murder the GOP members.

Big surprise, there are exceptions like Rep. Hawley (R-Hey-Moe)

“I think that the folks who committed crimes, particularly violent crimes, on that day ought to be prosecuted,” Hawley said of the Jan. 6 protesters who have been sentenced to prison. “I think the question becomes, are there people who’ve been caught up in this drag net who, for instance, didn’t know that they were trespassing?“

“There’s a lot of concern about, frankly, the double standard at [the Department of Justice] going after people who may have at most trespassed on federal property and not even known they did it versus folks who have in [Black Lives Matter] riots committed violent crimes and not been prosecuted,” he added, referring to the failure to prosecute people who destroyed property at riots in the wake of George Floyd’s death at the hands of police.

“There absolutely is undeniably a double standard,” he said.

Funny how all of a sudden racial equality is a concern. Now, for the record, is it fair to treat two people differently for basically the same crime and basically the same motive? No, not really. Of course, it isn't the same crime. BLM never attacked the election, for example. And, pretty sure I've said this once or twice, someone else getting a lesser/no punishment for a crime is not a valid excuse for you to avoid punishment for your own crime. If you run a stop sign, and you get pulled over, "that guy also ran the sign" doesn't get you out of a ticket.

That said, it's nice for these Party of Trump members to self-identify as pro-terrorist. Makes the voting easier.

2) By now, you've probably seen the headlines about a new book -- by a reporter this time, not the 34th Only Sane Man In The WH -- that Trump said he wasn't going to leave the WH if he lost, because he refused to admit he lost.

Yes, we all know he did anyhow. But he was saying ahead of time he wouldn't. I believe the term for that is "evidence of motive".

“I’m just not going to leave,” Trump allegedly told staff, according to Confidence Man: The Making of Donald Trump and the Breaking of America, which is set to be released on Oct. 4. Haberman details how the former president initially accepted his electoral loss but quickly latched onto narratives of electoral fraud. “Why should I leave if they stole it from me?” Trump reportedly complained to Republican National Committee Chair Ronna McDaniel, while affirming to an aide that “we’re never leaving … how can you leave when you won an election?”

Haberman adds that Trump questioned virtually anyone who walked into his office about how he might be able to stay in power — including the valet who hand-delivered Diet Cokes, which infamously summoned via a button in the Oval Office.

You forgot about the Diet Coke button, didn't you?

3) The 34th Only Sane Man In The WH...okay no, he was just a Trump-appointed attorney for the Southern District of New York, not in the WH. But again, a Trump appointee points out that Trump was, in fact, doing the same thing in office as he's worried about now.

Berman described a tenure under Attorney Generals Jeff Sessions and Bill Barr and acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker rife with politics and constant interference, pressuring him to remove references to Individual-1, aka Donald Trump, in the case against Michael Cohen, the president's former lawyer.

"On the eve of Cohen's guilty plea, main Justice tried to get our office to remove any reference to Individual-1, who was President Trump. They were unsuccessful in that venture. And they were unsuccessful in every attempt to politically interfere with our office. We held the line in every instance," Berman told ABC's "Good Morning America."

Berman said his office was urged to bring charges against Kerry for violations of the Logan Act -- which makes it illegal for U.S. citizens to take part in unauthorized foreign diplomacy -- over Kerry's discussions about the Iran nuclear agreement.

Yeah, we've heard a lot about the Logan Act, haven't we? Considering Trump saw it violated by his own people and then tried to defend that, comes off as pretty damned hypocritical.

Which of course, is how it happened.

"That was truly outrageous," Berman said.

No charges were ever brought against Kerry.

"President Trump attacks John Kerry in two tweets saying that Kerry engaged in possible illegal conversations with Iranian officials regarding the Iran nuclear deal. The very next day, the Trump Justice Department refers the John Kerry criminal case to the Southern District of New York. Two tweets by the president and the John Kerry criminal case becomes a priority," Berman said.

4) That filing I mentioned earlier is yet another attempt by Team Trump to downplay the severity of his crime. Under oath:

This investigation of the 45th president of the United States

(eyeroll)

is both unprecedented and misguided. In what at its core is a document storage dispute that has spiraled out of control, the government wrongfully seeks to criminalize the possession by the 45th president

Yeah, by the way, "President Trump" appears 22 times in 21 pages. "Former President Trump" appears zero times. Looks like someone filed the director's cut.

of his own presidential and personal records.

This is, of course, a lie. If your car ends up in my garage without your knowledge or permission, that's not "parking in the wrong spot". That's not even including the issue with Trump saying they were his presidential records when they were still SCI. And his personal stuff will be returned...after it's done being evidence that Trump stole government property.

Team Trump also tried to claim the FBI's cited sense of urgency wasn't there when he refused to return things in April and May, which is a fucking stupid thing to admit. Again, the entire "why didn't they just ask?" defense has been so brutally torn to shreds at this point, Freddy Krueger and Wolverine are jealous. Then there's the whole "the FBI didn't know there was a threat to national security until they saw Trump had stolen SCI and left it in his desk drawer" bit. You don't probably have a sense of urgency about where your car is until you need to drive it. When you find it's not in your driveway, that's when you call the police.

The judge is a chaotic, unpredictable influence, like a piece of artillery rolling around on a boat...there should be a name for that...and may or may not use Trump's lame-ass limp-dick IMPOTUS excuses, which in turn will hand the DOJ their appeal. Even Team Trump has now admitted under oath they had things they weren't allowed I quoted them in my previous post.

There is no useful defense here, not even privilege.

- - - Updated - - -

Under "Presidential Records":

Very handy, thanks for taking the time. Yes, there's a reason 2201 wasn't on the warrant, it's because it was as irrelevant as Executive Privilege.

- - - Updated - - -

Another line in Team Trump's filing sticks out, but it's one we've seen before.

Second, the Government’s stance assumes that if a document has a
classification marking, it remains classified irrespective of any actions taken during
President Trump's term in office.

See, this is why you can't just think "I deem it declassified" and expect that shit to work. NARA knows full well what was declassified, because you're supposed to write that shit down. Didn't tell anyone? Then you didn't declassify it.

Oh, and of course, Trump isn't allowed to steal government property, even if it's declassified. It's still not his. Master Horus already proved that.

[beanman12345]

Again going to point out if something is executive privilege that makes it by definition government property and thus stolen.

Yeah, Trump's own lawyers conceded this today. But when someone tries to communicate very basic things to the type of person who literally requested sex tapes involving their beloved Trump on an internet forum this past week, I doubt much of anything is getting through.

[Breccia]

Again going to point out if something is executive privilege that makes it by definition government property and thus stolen.

Yeah, Trump's own lawyers conceded this today.

It's not like Team Trump has a choice. He was caught with material he was told he needed to hand over, and not because of Jan 6th, but because he wasn't allowed to have it. And he blatantly didn't do it.

It really feels like Team Trump (and the rabid fanbase) is now trying to defend Trump against the next crime, because they know that the documents he stole could easily be evidence in that case, too. We'll revisit the idea of privilege and the grand jury subpoena later, I'm sure, but that's not the issue with this court case.

I wonder how long before the judge just gives up, names the obviously-biased Trump suggestion for special master, just to get the whole thing appealed so it's not her problem anymore.