Donald Trump discussion Thread IX (threadbanned users listed in OP)

robinph

Itssoeasy wrote: »

He’s lost another one it seems. So that’s three members of his legal team. It’s been reported that he wanted to argue there was massive voter fraud and that the election was stolen from him. Maybe the lawyers knew that’s not a good legal basis to defend the former president on.

Must be someone near the end of their career so no real need to worry about future reputation for getting more work who could go and work for him so that he gets the chance to rant about stolen elections and Hillary and Obama and Chavez as his "defence". Its important that he be given the opportunity to make a fool of himself, if all the lawyers run away then he won't get the chance.

looksee

Always bearing in mind they are not likely to get paid anyway. Apparently five have gone

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-impeachment/trump-parts-ways-with-impeachment-lawyers-sources-idUSKBN2A001T and

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/30/politics/butch-bowers-deborah-barbier-trump-impeachment-team/index.html Not sure why they are split into two groups.

The attorneys had not yet been paid any advance fees and a letter of intent was never signed.

check_six

The reason for taking on a case like this is because it is so high profile and you would, in theory, get well paid for it. You're going to have to rail against exceptionally strong evidence and probably end up looking very foolish indeed. In your mind you'd be balancing this against a big payday, but we all know that Trump never pays anyone, so now all you've got is being as well known as Rudy Giuliani, and about as well thought of too! Not a great result.

Also, I wonder if Trump ever paid his Whitehouse food bill? Every president gets presented with a bill for all the grub they had while staying there. The Obama's mentioned having to rein in a temptation to go too fancy with the food all the time for fear of a big bill. I'd guess that Trump's epic inattention to detail could mean that the bill would be a total surprise to him.

Leroy42

But its a no lose for a lawyer. GOP won't vote to convict, this isn't a legal case.

But on the mad instance that they actually did vote against Trump, then its a stitch up by the deep state and turncoat GOP taken over by the libtards and financed by Soros and the MSM.

Timberrrrrrrr

check_six wrote: »

The reason for taking on a case like this is because it is so high profile and you would, in theory, get well paid for it. You're going to have to rail against exceptionally strong evidence and probably end up looking very foolish indeed. In your mind you'd be balancing this against a big payday, but we all know that Trump never pays anyone, so now all you've got is being as well known as Rudy Giuliani, and about as well thought of too! Not a great result.

Also, [b[I wonder if Trump ever paid his Whitehouse food bill? Every president gets presented with a bill for all the grub they had while staying there.[/b] The Obama's mentioned having to rein in a temptation to go too fancy with the food all the time for fear of a big bill. I'd guess that Trump's epic inattention to detail could mean that the bill would be a total surprise to him.

Wow I never knew that!

And its not just food either.

https://www.robertreeveslaw.com/blog/president-pay-groceries/

This is a fact! The president of the United States pays for meals for himself, his family and personal guests. This includes the First Family’s private Thanksgiving meal.  The First Family must also pay for their own household expenses, down to the toothpaste and the First Lady’s clothing. Although the president pays his family’s personal meals, the White House chefs who often prepare the president’s meals are paid by the government.

abff

Whoever works for him, I hope they get paid in advance. Otherwise, they’re likely to end up doing it pro bono.

duploelabs

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Wow I never knew that!

And its not just food either.

https://www.robertreeveslaw.com/blog/president-pay-groceries/

Is it any wonder why he served burgers to guests? (apart from the shutdown of course)

check_six

duploelabs wrote: »

Is it any wonder why he served burgers to guests? (apart from the shutdown of course)

Cremated steak with ketchup every mealtime!

amandstu

Itssoeasy wrote: »

He’s lost another one it seems. So that’s three members of his legal team. It’s been reported that he wanted to argue there was massive voter fraud and that the election was stolen from him. Maybe the lawyers knew that’s not a good legal basis to defend the former president on.

That the definition of a show trial ?If true Trump wants to use the process for his personal benefit......

Same way as the IRA (and other anti state actors) doesn't recognize the legal process

Detritus70

looksee wrote: »

Always bearing in mind they are not likely to get paid anyway. Apparently five have gone

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-impeachment/trump-parts-ways-with-impeachment-lawyers-sources-idUSKBN2A001T and

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/30/politics/butch-bowers-deborah-barbier-trump-impeachment-team/index.html Not sure why they are split into two groups.

Can it be that the armies of patsies willing to throw themselves under a bus and get swindled out of their paycheck for Trump are dwindling?
It always amazes me how many people are willing to ruin their career and their reputation and even end up in jail for a man who looks upon them like sh*t on his shoes and more than likely won't pay them?
The same goes for the rioters who stormed the Capitol, they thought they would get a blanket pardon and are slowly waking up to the full extent of the trouble they're in.
Take Shaman guy:

Jacob Chansley, the face-paint and fur wearing Trump supporter whose images from inside the Capitol came to define the 6 January riots in Washington, is now offering to testify against the president, saying he feels betrayed.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/qanon-shaman-capitol-riots-testify-trump-b1794522.html

Leroy42

amandstu wrote: »

That the definition of a show trial ?If true Trump wants to use the process for his personal benefit......

Same way as the IRA (and other anti state actors) doesn't recognize the legal process

It is a show trial as the GOP have no intention of actually looking at it unbiased.

Graham was on TV the other day saying that if the DNC call any witnesses then the GOP will do the same to drag the whole thing out for months.

This is days after 45 GOP senators voting against the trial in the 1st place.

Itssoeasy

Detritus70 wrote: »

Can it be that the armies of patsies willing to throw themselves under a bus and get swindled out of their paycheck for Trump are dwindling?
It always amazes me how many people are willing to ruin their career and their reputation and even end up in jail for a man who looks upon them like sh*t on his shoes and more than likely won't pay them?
The same goes for the rioters who stormed the Capitol, they thought they would get a blanket pardon and are slowly waking up to the full extent of the trouble they're in.
Take Shaman guy:



https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/qanon-shaman-capitol-riots-testify-trump-b1794522.html

oh please let him testify. He might be able to enlighten the US senate as to the possible connections of hawley and Cruz and they can’t say anything.

amandstu

Itssoeasy wrote: »

oh please let him testify. He might be able to enlighten the US senate as to the possible connections of hawley and Cruz and they can’t say anything.

Can he be forced to testify?

And can he also (or failing that) be forced to testify in any of the upcoming civil (or non impeachment) cases?

Itssoeasy

amandstu wrote: »

Can he be forced to testify?

And can he also (or failing that) be forced to testify in any of the upcoming civil (or non impeachment) cases?

Doesn’t look like they will have to force him. I think witnesses can be subpoenaed to testify. I hope he brings receipts and nails these eijits in the senate.

Water John

Trump isn't a witness, he's the accused. Don't think any accused can be forced to testify. Not much point anyway as he has only a slight knowledge of the truth.

Itssoeasy

Water John wrote: »

Trump isn't a witness, he's the accused. Don't think any accused can be forced to testify. Not much point anyway as he has only a slight knowledge of the truth.

Can he defend himself though ? He might have to unless Lionel hutz is available. He’s less than two weeks away from a senate trial and he’s got no legal team. And given that his main legal strategy seems to be “fraud and a stolen election” then is it surprising he’s got no legal team.

Professor Moriarty

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Can he defend himself though ? He might have to unless Lionel hutz is available. He’s less than two weeks away from a senate trial and he’s got no legal team. And given that his main legal strategy seems to be “fraud and a stolen election” then is it surprising he’s got no legal team.

As the old saying goes, a man who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client.

Leroy42

You are overthinking this.

Sure it would be good to have a legal team, but the reason the legal team left, according to the reports I have seen, is that they disagreed with the strategy. Basically, Trump doesn't give two fecks about the allegations, he wants to rerun his campaign that the election was stolen.

(I'm sure the conservatives will be aghast at an accused claiming that circumstances made them do something, surely it is purely individual choice!).

He is not in the slightest bit worried about the actual impeachment charges, because no matter what happens the GOP are not going to vote for him to be convicted. So he isn't even thinking about mounting a defence because what is the point? He knows the outcome already.

Brian?

amandstu wrote: »

Can he be forced to testify?

And can he also (or failing that) be forced to testify in any of the upcoming civil (or non impeachment) cases?

No defendant can be forced to testify in court, so I think this holds for an impeachment trial.

amandstu

Brian? wrote: »

No defendant can be forced to testify in court, so I think this holds for an impeachment trial.

Indeed , I should have known that. . A very harsh regime that would force defendants to testify. A real show trial under those circumstances.

briany

If Trump knows he's not going to be convicted, then not only does he not need to hire another defence counsel, but would he have to show up, even?

I suppose that after he gets acquitted, then there's not really a whole lot stopping him from running again. He may not have been the best businessman, in the classical sense, but he was able to leverage loopholes in tax codes and bankruptcy legislation to his advantage throughout his career. Given his ability to duck and weave, I have the feeling he'll be able to dance rings around all the people who were supposed to be coming at him with civil lawsuits and such.

amandstu

briany wrote: »

If Trump knows he's not going to be convicted, then not only does he not need to hire another defence counsel, but would he have to show up, even?

I suppose that after he gets acquitted, then there's not really a whole lot stopping him from running again. He may not have been the best businessman, in the classical sense, but he was able to leverage loopholes in tax codes and bankruptcy legislation to his advantage throughout his career. Given his ability to duck and weave, I have the feeling he'll be able to dance rings around all the people who were supposed to be coming at him with civil lawsuits and such.

Amazing that the GOP did not immediately (post Jan6) make it clear that there are no circumstances where Trump will be selected by them as a candidate in 2024. This will be forever an albatross around their neck if the party survives as a going enterprise at the next election.

They can never go back and undo their inaction at that time .

Leroy42

amandstu wrote: »

Amazing that the GOP did not immediately (post Jan6) make it clear that there are no circumstances where Trump will be selected by them as a candidate in 2024. This will be forever an albatross around their neck if the party survives as a going enterprise at the next election.

They can never go back and undo their inaction at that time .

Very much depends. It seems that they feel that a very significant majority of the 74m voters for Trump are still very much behind Trump and that to split from him would lead to, at best, a split of the party.

They look at Trumps 4 years in office, particularly the last year, and see that rather than lose voters he actually gained in number.

If they bet that Biden vote was a protest, ie that the next election many simply will not bother to vote, then they are looking very good indeed.

aloyisious

Water John wrote: »

Trump isn't a witness, he's the accused. Don't think any accused can be forced to testify. Not much point anyway as he has only a slight knowledge of the truth.

There's his desire to be the centre of attraction which might deny him the sense not to speak if he attends his trial. As far as the truth applies, it doesn't when it comes to what's on/in his mind, he's likely to say it anyway. As for the lack of a defense legal team, that might be a deliberate act as he was given a two week delay already by the prosecution to let him get his team ready to defend his case.

briany

amandstu wrote: »

Amazing that the GOP did not immediately (post Jan6) make it clear that there are no circumstances where Trump will be selected by them as a candidate in 2024. This will be forever an albatross around their neck if the party survives as a going enterprise at the next election.

They can never go back and undo their inaction at that time .

If they turned their back on Trump at that time, the death threats would have probably increased dramatically. Trump now owns the Republican party. They don't tell him what to do. They're too afraid. He tells the party what to do.

listermint

Leroy42 wrote: »

Very much depends. It seems that they feel that a very significant majority of the 74m voters for Trump are still very much behind Trump and that to split from him would lead to, at best, a split of the party.

They look at Trumps 4 years in office, particularly the last year, and see that rather than lose voters he actually gained in number.

If they bet that Biden vote was a protest, ie that the next election many simply will not bother to vote, then they are looking very good indeed.

They lost Georgia and are very close to losing Texas. They're wrong on this. And they should go back to being a conservative party and not a right wing loons party. Loons might vote once but get bored quickly

briany

listermint wrote: »

They lost Georgia and are very close to losing Texas. They're wrong on this. And they should go back to being a conservative party and not a right wing loons party. Loons might vote once but get bored quickly

A party becomes a reflection of who supports them. Well, that's what they do if they want to remain electable, anyway.

I don't think it's so much that a gang of loons invaded the party's base as much as it is that the party's base has become radicalised on a deeply disturbing level. And these loons have to feel like they're close to breaching the gates. I don't expect them to become bored imminently.

Capt'n Midnight

Brian? wrote: »

No defendant can be forced to testify in court, so I think this holds for an impeachment trial.

But can the court draw inferences from silence ?

In the UK this has right to not incriminate yourself by silence has steadily eroded over time. Thanks to the Investigatory Powers Acts etc.

looksee

It seems to me that if the Capitol invaders claim that Trump said we should do it, and then Trump gets found guilty of insurrection (he most likely will not, but we don't know that yet) then presumably his invading cult members will be insurrectionists too. Whereas if they say it was nothing to do with Trump I was just on a bit of a protest that got out of hand they might find they are on lesser charges?

Likewise if Trump says the election was stolen he is effectively saying 'so I set the mob on the Capitol', whereas if he claimed the charge was unconstitutional they have to establish that it was constitutional as well as he was guilty of something.

aloyisious

briany wrote: »

A party becomes a reflection of who supports them. Well, that's what they do if they want to remain electable, anyway.

I don't think it's so much that a gang of loons invaded the party's base as much as it is that the party's base has become radicalised on a deeply disturbing level. And these loons have to feel like they're close to breaching the gates. I don't expect them to become bored imminently.

That's the difference, at present, between the GOP and the Democrats. The loons are in the GOP, with a few there [Cruz and two other senators] trying to use them to personal advantage for when McConnell and the anti-Trumps are gone. It's probable the rivalry between Cruz and his like will continue to give life to the GOP split for some years yet, all to the advantage of the Democrats. Whoever comes out on top in the GOP will have to clean it of the loons and that'll take years yet.

With the trials of the Capitol Hill mob due to start this year, the GOP will have to get its own lawyers into the courts as observers for when the accused start making defence statements from the witness stand. The accused have nothing to lose by dragging in people who encouraged and facilitated them as they are mostly caught on their own video recordings carrying out the acts they are accused of and likely to end in imprisonment.