Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Edge-]

In the tight battle for the Senate in Missouri, Trump throws his backing behind Eric.

"Um...which one? There's former Missouri Gov. Eric Greitens, and also Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt."

Yes. Trump didn't specify.



Can't help but notice he also made it about himself.

I kinda love that he just kinda sent them out there to wage battle over his endorsement. And both appear to be claiming it's for them.

I think Trump really does enjoy the power he wields within the Republican party, sometimes.

[Trifle]

I love the "I trust the Great People of Missouri, on this one, to make up their own minds" straight into telling them who to vote for, and thus obviously not trusting them to make up their own minds.

[Canpinter]

In the tight battle for the Senate in Missouri, Trump throws his backing behind Eric.

"Um...which one? There's former Missouri Gov. Eric Greitens, and also Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt."

Yes. Trump didn't specify.



Can't help but notice he also made it about himself.

It's kind of brilliant because whoever wins he can claim it was because he endorsed them.

[Edge-]

I love the "I trust the Great People of Missouri, on this one, to make up their own minds" straight into telling them who to vote for, and thus obviously not trusting them to make up their own minds.

But he didn't. There are two Eric's running in the state. And who knows, maybe he was talking about his own son for some reason?

Or maybe none of them, since I don't believe any spell their names in allcaps "ERIC".

[Nurasu]

So, we already know Alex Jones was found liable, not because his defense failed, but he just didn't comply with subpoena's and was just found guilty on the spot. This then began the court proceedings where damages were decided, that was last week, and Jones just declared he was bankrupt.

Evidently the trial against Jones is just part of a secret plot to destroy the First Amendment! He's just asking questions, guys. /s

https://twitter.com/Cernovich/status...BwPIlJJi9xHbUA

[Edge-]

Evidently the trial against Jones is just part of a secret plot to destroy the First Amendment! He's just asking questions, guys. /s

https://twitter.com/Cernovich/status...BwPIlJJi9xHbUA

brb, creating a "news outlet" dedicated to denying that the Las Vegas shooting ever happened or that anyone ever died, and then sending my audience after the families of the "crisis actors" to harass them to the point where they need to repeatedly move for their own safety. BECAUSE THAT IS APPARENTLY MY FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT!

- - - Updated - - -

https://www.tucsonsentinel.com/local...iff-out-fraud/

AZ Republicans encourage maximum legal voter intimidation, encouraging their supporters to "monitor" ballot dropoff locations and take peoples license plates and information down when they drop off ballots and to stand just outside the 75ft limit around polling locations to "scare the hell out of them".

[Breccia]

Evidently the trial against Jones is just part of a secret plot to destroy the First Amendment!

Yeah, a few things.

One, he's being sued by private citizens. So, no, it's not a secret plot.

Two, Alex Jones just got caught Trump-handed trying to manipulate bankruptcy to escape the judgement.

So y'all know those pills Jones sells on his site? They come from PQPR holdings, in Nevada. Over the last two years, they've sent Alex Jones $50 million or so in pills...okay, the list price is $50 million, they don't do shit...and Jones has just not paid them. He has a giant IOU and is also accumulating interest.

"Wow, the owners must be livid."

I doubt it. The owners are Alex Jones and his parents. Jones has spent the last two years building up a massive debt that, in his mind at least, bankruptcy officials would have to clear first. "First in, first out" or some other Magic: the Gathering stuff. So, naturally, if he pays all that money to PQPR holdings and, what a surprise, there's none left for the victims, the victims get nothing.

In theory. Funny story: the people who decide who gets what in bankruptcy are human beings with free will. Also, the lawyers working for the victims also caught this. Two of the three lawsuits have already brought the "Jones wants to give his money absolute immunity" issue to the judges in their cases.

"What about the third one?"

If I'm reading this right, the two victims who caught it, were the two victims whose cases were delayed by Jones filing bankruptcy this most recent time. The third case is proceeding full steam ahead. I suspect, because I don't know the law very well, that because that case started before Jones filed for bankruptcy, its judgement will take effect before bankruptcy is settled. I mean, if Alex Jones is trying "first in, first out" so is everyone else. Fair's fair, right? Remember, these three trials are damages only. Jones already accepted a "guilty" plea by inaction, the only question is how much he pays.

If this sounds Trumpian, it should. Remember this post from April 2016 where Trump was caught tiny-handed loaning his own campaign money at prime plus five percent, brilliantly caught and posted by some handsome devil? Jones is basically trying the same idea. Difference is, he doesn't have the luxury of time to dance around legal niceties. Three of his victims are speeding towards him at $150 million miles per hour.

[Endus]

I doubt it. The owners are Alex Jones and his parents. Jones has spent the last two years building up a massive debt that, in his mind at least, bankruptcy officials would have to clear first. "First in, first out" or some other Magic: the Gathering stuff. So, naturally, if he pays all that money to PQPR holdings and, what a surprise, there's none left for the victims, the victims get nothing.

See, this is why limited liability is just a spectacularly fucking stupid idea.

In Canada, it's real simple. If Jones lost a lawsuit like this here and tried that, they'd take all the money from Infowars. When Infowars ran out, they'd take it from Jones' property. Which would include his share of PQPR. If his parents tried to claim they owned it and he didn't have any shares to get around this, any decent forensic accountant would be able to demonstrate this was false in practice and then the parents and their property would end up liable right alongside Jones.

The only concept of "limited liability" in Canada, via incorporation, is that your liability is limited proportionally to your investment. If you only own 50% of the shares, you're "only" liable for 50% of whatever debts it still owes.

[Breccia]

And now, purely to be vindictive to someone who deserves it, one of Alex Jones' victims in a video from CNN.

That's not all that the trial has dumped on Alex Jones so far. The judge yelled at him for committing perjury, basically.

Judge Maya Guerra Gamble of Travis County District Court admonished him later for lying under oath in parts of his testimony. Mr. Jones had told the jury he is “bankrupt,” even though his bankruptcy filing has yet to be adjudicated and the families’ lawyers say it is a tactic to avoid upcoming trials. He also claimed that he had complied with court orders in the defamation suits, when in fact his yearslong failure to submit documents and testimony was the reason he lost all of them.

“You’re under oath. That means things must actually be true when you say them,” Judge Guerra Gamble told Mr. Jones. He tried to interject, but she stopped him: “Don’t talk.”

Far more generous than he deserves.

Then, Jones left the courtroom and loudly announced in public that the parents were being controlled.

[gondrin]

And now, purely to be vindictive to someone who deserves it, one of Alex Jones' victims in a video from CNN.

That's not all that the trial has dumped on Alex Jones so far. The judge yelled at him for committing perjury, basically.



Far more generous than he deserves.

Then, Jones left the courtroom and loudly announced in public that the parents were being controlled.

Well, the Judge is sick of seeing the inside of Jones mouth anyway.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...5341516c676eca

During the Sandy Hook families’ defamation trial against professional tinhatter Alex Jones on Tuesday, the judge told Jones to spit out the gum he was apparently chewing in the court. Jones insisted that he wasn’t chewing gum; he was merely using his tongue to massage the hole left by a tooth removal, and offered to show the judge the hole to prove it.

The judge wasn’t interested in witnessing the hole.

“I don’t want to see the inside of your mouth,” she told him. “Sit down.”

[Poopymonster]

And now, purely to be vindictive to someone who deserves it, one of Alex Jones' victims in a video from CNN.

That's not all that the trial has dumped on Alex Jones so far. The judge yelled at him for committing perjury, basically.



Far more generous than he deserves.

Then, Jones left the courtroom and loudly announced in public that the parents were being controlled.

I can see Jones adopting the defense style of Denver Fenton Allen.
Scratch that, I NEED him to use that style of defense.

[Edge-]

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/tax-e...b09d09a2bfa33b

Why do Republicans love tax dodgers/cheats so much? I'm still beginning to think they're not actually the party of "law and order".

[Gorsameth]

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/tax-e...b09d09a2bfa33b

Why do Republicans love tax dodgers/cheats so much? I'm still beginning to think they're not actually the party of "law and order".

Rich people want to be able to dodge taxes to be even more rich, because greed is good. And the poor think they are just temporarily embarrassed millionaires so they want to be able to dodge taxes once they are millionaires themselves.

[Breccia]

Cipollone subpoena'd.

"Paywall."

This one isn't.

"Wait, again?"

Yes, he was subpoena'd before, by the Jan 6th panel. This appears to be a grand jury subpoena. He's already testified before Congress. That's part of how we know he pushed back on Trump's insurrection attempt.

As a reminder, Cipollone was at the time White House Counsel. I'll ask @cubby for verification, but this seems really bad to me. There's at least two forms of privilege in play here, lawyer-client and Executive Time. We also know that Cipollone invoked both when testifying before the Jan 6th panel.

And yet, subpoena.

So, if I had to guess, I'd say Cipollone is being asked about Trump's call to Georgia. For one, we know that was a re-election issue, therefore, no Executive Time. For two, I don't believe Trump had Cipollone talk to Georgia on his behalf, which means no lawyer-client either. And for three, if Trump was committing a crime by extorting Georgia, Cipollone wouldn't be able to invoke privilege anyhow. Privilege doesn't cover criminal behavior.

Cipollone, as a witness, holds high value. Trump hired him, so there's that, but he also pushed back. Everyone who isn't being an intentional contrarian, and isn't insane, will give his word respect. And I'm guessing, due to timing, the subpoena will only ask Cipollone questions to which we already know the answers. I admit it's possible the prosecutor will also ask for more, but at listed above, I don't know what Cipollone can say is covered by privilege when he wasn't part of the insurrection, part of a re-election, or part of a criminal conspiracy.

[Paranoid Android]

Once more of what are the duties or at least responsibility of WH Counsel. In all honesty idk how Cippillone should be holding out for any reason.

This piece of crap, in my mind so far, must have a nice Republican job ready to go, cause any law firm hiring him has some questions. Whom am I kidding even some law firm will hire this guy cause of previous title.

[Breccia]

idk how Cippillone should be holding out for any reason.

Based on his previous testimony, there are still things he thinks he isn't allowed to say. If Trump asked him for legal advice on how to ruin the election, for example.

[Paranoid Android]

Based on his previous testimony, there are still things he thinks he isn't allowed to say. If Trump asked him for legal advice on how to ruin the election, for example.

Huh on this? WH Counsel is legal advice to the office of President and VP.. There is no executive privilege since the simple explanation is the office, not the individual.

I'm just brain hurt. If the stretch here is the office of the President has protect asking WH Counsel 'Can I usurp an election? ' Like WTF man!

In our world and I understand you have to follow procedure. Fine. Yet Cippillone trying to not do his duty makes that position irrelevant if it's helping to dish legal advice on an inserruction.

[Breccia]

There is no executive privilege since the simple explanation is the office, not the individual.

Cipollone invoked executive privilege multiple times in his Jan 6th interview. So, yes, it's a thing he's apparently allowed to do.

Fortunately, it clearly didn't cover everything.

In our interview with Mr. Cipollone, the Committee received critical testimony on nearly every major topic in its investigation, reinforcing key points regarding Donald Trump's misconduct and providing highly relevant new information that will play a central role in its upcoming hearings. This includes information demonstrating Donald Trump's supreme dereliction of duty. The testimony also corroborated key elements of Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony.

I believe what, for example, Georgia needs to know the most won't be covered by privilege. Regardless of what Trump was scheming and who he asked for advice on how to do that, once you put a plan into action to commit a crime and/or call someone who's not your lawyer/Cabinet on the phone, there's no protection to that conversation anymore.

- - - Updated - - -

Ah...life has its little ironies.

DoJ sues Navarro for But His Emails.

Yep, the Trump WH advisor was caught using a private server and not archiving those records like you're supposed to. Who does he think he is, the secret service?

[solinari6]

Cipollone invoked executive privilege multiple times in his Jan 6th interview. So, yes, it's a thing he's apparently allowed to do.

I think there is a difference here, though. With a grand jury, the judge can say things like "executive privilege doesn't apply because we are investigating a crime, so tell us what we need or you are in contempt" ....the Jan 6 committee doesn't really have a way to do that. I think?

[Breccia]

I think there is a difference here, though. With a grand jury, the judge can say things like "executive privilege doesn't apply because we are investigating a crime, so tell us what we need or you are in contempt" ....the Jan 6 committee doesn't really have a way to do that. I think?

The Jan 6th committee has decimated people who claimed Executive Time applied, but didn't. Steve Bannon, for example. So yes, they do have a way to do that. I just don't think Bannon's claims and Cipollone's claims are anything like each other. Cipollone is a respected, competent lawyer who clearly testified a lot but did not answer some questions. Bannon's a fuckwit who got Will Smith'd by Congress for being a fuckwit.

Now you're probably still right, in that, Georgia probably knows what Cipollone said and also knows what they need to hear. I don't think GA prosecutors will ask Cipollone, on the stand, anything they think he'll assert privilege over, which again, they know where that line is drawn. Could they attempt to move that line? Sure. Jan 6th had a different focus.

So far, Cipollone has been more helpful than an obstacle. And we know his role in the murderous rebellion was begging Trump not to do it. There's no reason to treat him as a hostile witness or co-conspirator with the information we have.