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

banie01

This order from SecDef on the 4/1/21 makes for very, very interesting reading.

https://twitter.com/donwinslow/status/1355977325368623107?s=19

duploelabs

banie01 wrote: »

This order from SecDef on the 4/1/21 makes for very, very interesting reading.

https://twitter.com/donwinslow/status/1355977325368623107?s=19

Apart from the evidence of collusion, just look at the severe disproportionately to the BLM protests at the Capitol

aloyisious

banie01 wrote: »

This order from SecDef on the 4/1/21 makes for very, very interesting reading.

https://twitter.com/donwinslow/status/1355977325368623107?s=19

Given the request from Washington/s mayor for Nat Gd assistance for her cops around the same date before the attack, it seems DOD was aware of likely illegal actions and had plans to use tech and other facilities to observe what was ongoing in the Washington area from that date, and the mayor request tying down the Gd could explain it's exclusion from facilities to be used as per the Sec's letter. Coincidence would be hard to sell now, given how the media revealed how the different sections of DOD gave differing explanations as to their slow response in supplying the Nat Gd units to the mayor. The notion that Sec Def didn't trust the DC Nat Gd, well....

Edit: I'm going to add in a phrase I used to describe circumstances like the above and that is CIRCUMSTANTIAL. However that does not disbar it from being viewed as reliable.

Detritus70

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

Trump supporters everywhere: "Oh f*ck it's a bus"

aloyisious

aloyisious wrote: »

Given the request from Washington/s mayor for Nat Gd assistance for her cops around the same date before the attack, it seems DOD was aware of likely illegal actions and had plans to use tech and other facilities to observe what was ongoing in the Washington area from that date, and the mayor request tying down the Gd could explain it's exclusion from facilities to be used as per the Sec's letter. Coincidence would be hard to sell now, given how the media revealed how the different sections of DOD gave differing explanations as to their slow response in supplying the Nat Gd units to the mayor. The notion that Sec Def didn't trust the DC Nat Gd, well....

Given that the Secretary of Defense was a brand new appointment by trump to replace Esper,(who despite being controversial in the role, was starting to see the writing on the wall given the election result), more people are going to see it as deliberate interference by the Secretary of Defense in order to allow the Capitol breach proceed.

Water John

Trump has two new beauties representing him, Schoen and Castor. Schoen is Roger Stone's lawyer and Castor, refused to try Bill Cosby.

'Bruce Castor is a former acting attorney general of Pennsylvania and a prominent Republican who has been slammed by advocates for victims of sexual crimes because of his stance against reforms involving help for past victims of Catholic priests and in the case of university football coach and predator Jerry Sandusky.

And Castor gained notoriety for declining to prosecute Bill Cosby more than a decade before the entertainer was eventually convicted in 2018, and also sued Cosby’s victim, Andrea Constand, in a case that was dismissed, and then was sued by Constand for defamation, which was settled.'

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/31/donald-trumps-impeachment-defence-in-disarray-as-lead-lawyers-quit-reports

Brian?

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

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.

That's unconstitutional in the US, it breaches 5th amendment rights to infere guilt from silence.

Mjollnir

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 of today, he's now got two new lawyers. Known for work defending.... Wait for it.....

Mob bosses.

https://twitter.com/ericgarland/status/1356065500879609856

demfad

aloyisious wrote: »

Given the request from Washington/s mayor for Nat Gd assistance for her cops around the same date before the attack, it seems DOD was aware of likely illegal actions and had plans to use tech and other facilities to observe what was ongoing in the Washington area from that date, and the mayor request tying down the Gd could explain it's exclusion from facilities to be used as per the Sec's letter. Coincidence would be hard to sell now, given how the media revealed how the different sections of DOD gave differing explanations as to their slow response in supplying the Nat Gd units to the mayor. The notion that Sec Def didn't trust the DC Nat Gd, well....

Edit: I'm going to add in a phrase I used to describe circumstances like the above and that is CIRCUMSTANTIAL. However that does not disbar it from being viewed as reliable.

Worth your while reading this article from a Journo who was inbedded with Sec Def Miller for last few weeks.

Note Trump told Miller he would need "10,000" national guard troops to defend the Capitol.

This quote also interesting: "“If I was writing your headline,” he advised me, “it would be, ‘Who really is the secretary of defense? Chris Miller? Kash Patel? Ezra Cohen? Or [Chairman] Mark Milley?’"

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/01/embedding-with-pentagon-leadership-in-trumps-chaotic-last-week

Tell me how

Once again from the party of Law and Order...

https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1356403657370001408

This is such a blatant attempt at shutting down transparency part of me actually thought for a second that Graham is actually trying to goad the Democrats in to calling witnesses.

That person interviewing him? Former US Representative, the Republican, Trey Gowdy. Fox probably followed this with a segment about how the MSM is trying to tell people people what to think.
'Accuse others of that which you are guilty'

Quin_Dub

Tell me how wrote: »

Once again from the party of Law and Order...

https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1356403657370001408

This is such a blatant attempt at shutting down transparency part of me actually thought for a second that Graham is actually trying to goad the Democrats in to calling witnesses.

That person interviewing him? Former US Representative, the Republican, Trey Gowdy. Fox probably followed this with a segment about how the MSM is trying to tell people people what to think.
'Accuse others of that which you are guilty'

Trey Gowdy - The man that ran the Benghazi hearings giving Lindsey Graham a platform to try to shut down an investigation into the actions surrounding an Assault on a US Government Building that resulted in the deaths of multiple Americans...

My Irony metre is broken!!

amandstu

Just occurred to me there has been an improvement in the air this past week or so. Hmm,I know ..I got it didn't that pos lose the election ?
Was he forced to accept the results too?

That's funny though. No downsides:):):):)

Itssoeasy

Why does Trey gowdy look like a knock off Anderson Cooper ?

amandstu

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Why does Trey gowdy look like a knock off Anderson Cooper ?

Yes that is who I thought it was at first.

Ash.J.Williams

amandstu wrote: »

Just occurred to me there has been an improvement in the air this past week or so. Hmm,I know ..I got it didn't that pos lose the election ?
Was he forced to accept the results too?

That's funny though. No downsides:):):):)

On a good day in the previous administration you would least have several negative tweets and statements to bring down the mood, that all gone now.

Itssoeasy

So it seems Donald Trump is doubling down and saying him claiming election fraud is protected under the first amendment. It’s like a really bad comedy sketch at this point.

aloyisious

It looks like Trump is heeding his new [and old] legal teams advice "Do No Mention The Steal" when it comes to the defence line that the trial is unconstitutional as it refers to sitting office-holders, not ex office holders. The GOP line will be reliant on expert constitutional lawyers, same as last time, hoping he'll play ball and keep quiet.

mm_surf

Itssoeasy wrote: »

So it seems Donald Trump is doubling down and saying him claiming election fraud is protected under the first amendment. It’s like a really bad comedy sketch at this point.

Maybe thats his "i cant get done for perjury if i claim first ammendment" way of thinking..........

M.

NTC

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Why does Trey gowdy look like a knock off Anderson Cooper ?

I actually thought it was Anderson Cooper!

aloyisious

mm_surf wrote: »

Maybe thats his "i cant get done for perjury if i claim first ammendment" way of thinking..........

M.

Bloomberg news reported that Trump stated anything he said on the 6th Jan to the Capitol Hill mob is protected under his 1st amendment rights. That last piece from Trump might end up with the USSC on whether he can claim that, while speaking as the sitting U.S President, it was constitutional for him to tell the mob that he would walk with them to the Capitol and would be with them there, given the outcome of his speech. The fact that he didn't keep his word to them that day but left them to instead go to the White House should echo loud in their memories, as well as with the jurors to indicate that when the s*** hit the fan he had already retreated to a secure location to watch the action on TV, that he knew in advance what the mob was going to do at the Capitol.

StringerBell

Tell me how wrote: »

Once again from the party of Law and Order...

https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1356403657370001408

This is such a blatant attempt at shutting down transparency part of me actually thought for a second that Graham is actually trying to goad the Democrats in to calling witnesses.

That person interviewing him? Former US Representative, the Republican, Trey Gowdy. Fox probably followed this with a segment about how the MSM is trying to tell people people what to think.
'Accuse others of that which you are guilty'

Trey Gowdy works for fox now? Will fit right in.

It's actually an amazing threat if you step back and think about it, it amounts to hey you better not call witnesses or we will call witnesses and want the FBI to come in and we damn near may even get to the bottom of this and get the truth out to the people of everything.

Like that's a threat! only in America as Don king would say

Water John

Graham's threat is to drag out the trial for months and clog up the Biden presidency.

duploelabs

https://www.axios.com/trump-oval-office-meeting-sidney-powell-a8e1e466-2e42-42d0-9cf1-26eb267f8723.html

Trump was no longer focused on any semblance of a governing agenda, instead spending his days taking phone calls and meetings from anyone armed with conspiracy theories about the election. For the White House staff, it was an unending sea of garbage churned up by the bottom feeders.

Bottom feeders there, bottom feeders here

check_six

aloyisious wrote: »

Bloomberg news reported that Trump stated anything he said on the 6th Jan to the Capitol Hill mob is protected under his 1st amendment rights. That last piece from Trump might end up with the USSC on whether he can claim that, while speaking as the sitting U.S President, it was constitutional for him to tell the mob that he would walk with them to the Capitol and would be with them there, given the outcome of his speech. The fact that he didn't keep his word to them that day but left them to instead go to the White House should echo loud in their memories, as well as with the jurors to indicate that when the s*** hit the fan he had already retreated to a secure location to watch the action on TV, that he knew in advance what the mob was going to do at the Capitol.

This is a good point. If he thought that he had not inspired the crowd to attack the capitol, then why did he not walk up there with them? If he thought he had inspired them to attack the capitol 'by mistake' then why did he not call out the national guard?

So, if you were being *incredibly* generous to him, he only riled them up, skittered back under a stone, and then did nothing to stop them. That's not a great starting point for his defence is it?

mm_surf

AKA "the charles manson defense"

Not sure that holds any water, especially with the comments from Trump pre-election, about he could only loose if it was fixed, etc.

I believe that technically the Supreme Court would decline to consider. If they do, there's no way they will agree incitement is protected under first amendment. Best he can hope for is to claim that his words didn't incite them, they did it on their own accord.

Of course, the GOP won't vote to convict, regardless.

I think Lindsey Graham and Mitch McConnell need to be very careful how they handle this. The list of potential state level proceedings just sitting waiting are very, very numerous.

It must be really tempting to the Democrats to start encouraging the various Attorneys general about now.

M.

Itssoeasy

Water John wrote: »

Graham's threat is to drag out the trial for months and clog up the Biden presidency.

So much for tearful words about joe Biden a few years ago then. Crocodile tears it would appear.

banie01

I see Trump's legal eagles have quite an eye for detail and the minutiae of the Law and the body sitting in judgement.

https://twitter.com/jimsciutto/status/1356660605172789248?s=08

Water John

Some GOP incl McConnell disavowing Greene. At least they are coming back some bit from the cliff edge. Will they go the whole way and disavow Trump? Think they will do that if he argues on the basis of cheated out of the election.

Itssoeasy

Water John wrote: »

Some GOP incl McConnell disavowing Greene. At least they are coming back some bit from the cliff edge. Will they go the whole way and disavow Trump? Think they will do that if he argues on the basis of cheated out of the election.

The democrats could take adopt the tennis strategy of not trying to return a ball that’s going long. Let the GOP double fault all by themselves. Don’t give them an out.

Water John

It will be up to Trump to misstep again. Probably can't help himself. How can he leave go another opportunity to whinge about the stolen election. The GOP have given him an out for him and themselves by claiming unconstitutional to try President after leaving office.