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

In the time between Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony yesterday and today, has there been any denial or rebuttal of her statement by anyone that Trump had instructed the Secret Service to remove the metal detectors being used to detect weapons on the approach to his speech stage?

I copied this "June 28, 2022, 7:56 p.m. ET Zolan Kanno-Youngs. Asked about the claim that Trump urged the Secret Service to remove metal detectors and magnetometers, Anthony Guglielmi, a spokesman for the Secret Service, said, “We have never and would never take direction from a protectee to vacate those principles. We just wouldn’t do it.” from an NYT article but it is NOT a denial or rebuttal of Hutchinson's testimony as it avoids any reference to Trump by name at all issuing the detector removal instructions.

I'd imagine that to him, being president, he thought all he had to do is issue an instruction "make it so" and it would be done, regardless of the consequences. Probably a hangover from his previous occupation where he actually was the boss and didn't reckon on the invisible restraints that surround use of the presidential authority. Hopefully some-one on the committee will ask the question of the Secret Service at a hearing [in recorded private or public session] and get a full answer, not one intended to brush past an awkward question.

There's one thing I assume that the GOP political operatives [senators & congresspersons] will have learned from their Trump experience is that they will select one of their own schooled members next time, some-one who will stick to the telephone or closed GOP meeting-room for heated conversation, not a rank outsider like Trump who could run riot within the GOP again.

I am not sure as to whether or not the Democratic party ever had to sit and suffer while their own incumbent railed and attacked its senators like Trump did with the GOP and his own Attorneys General [plural] on a regular basis openly over the public media. In that regard, I expect the GOP to select a competent opponent whom the Democrats will [be able to] face up to and do deals with differently than the impossible Trump. Both parties must know that deals done differently than to the Trump rule-book are a better option for both in the long run.

I expect both parties will have their senators, congress-members and candidates take media-schooling courses and learn how to handle the internet media sources better for starters. The actual GOP party rule-book will probably change as well laying out internal punishments for people who try to ride rough-shod over others in its ranks and if one does not exist, it will probably be written for its Washington operatives across both houses so Trumpism cannot happen again.

he made one of his security detail, Tony Ornato, a deputy Chief of Staff in the white house..

Why would you assume that? The GOP have got exactly what they wanted. They only have an issue with Trump if he doesn't deliver for them. Once he continues to have support, the GOP have shown, consistently, that they have no problem with what he does or how he carries on.

The man basically led a attempted coup, which included the threat of hanging a very senior and respect elder of the GOP party. Hell, even Pence doesn't seem to have too much of an issue with that.

Re the future in the way the GOP proceeds electorally in two states, A: Florida and B: New York, can anyone familiar with the GOP scene in either/both states tell me how things are proceeding in those states GOP-wise for Don Trump senior and his family.

A: Would there be any alignment or meeting of minds between Gov De Santis and Don Jnr or other of Don Snr's kids in Florida on securing the GOP future there for both Gov De Santis and the Trumps?

B: Are Don Snr and his family totally blown out of any chance of involvement in NY GOP politics there now [even with Rudy in their background]?

I don't see the the junior Trumps losing interest in GOP politics at this stage of their life careers.

A declining of any offer of financial support for electoral success in order to make it clear the candidate was electorally honest and without ties to anyone intent on using his wealth to pursue Trump? entirely possible.

On from the USSC decision that the prior Roe V Wade ruling was wrong and set it aside as the right to abortions were not in the constitution, it interfered with matters best left to state legislators, Alabama's AG is using it to argue for a transgender medication ban as; quote. gender confirmation treatments are not “deeply rooted in our history or traditions,” and therefore should be banned.

Law cases are so interlinked in the US due to how the USSC ruling in one case can then used to overturn other dis-similar cases. I looked for info on the Alabama AG's decision and was referred on to the Dobbs [a Mississippi abortion clinic] ruling on abortions in Mississippi in 2018 whereby other courts overturned state legislation. He's using the Mississippi case to affirm last weeks ruling operates as a precedent across all the US states.

CNN is reporting on the testimony of Attorney Cipollone before the house committee for 8 hours without apparently contradicting the testimony of earlier witnesses AND also running an interview with the FBI director Chris Wray in which he said its investigation will follow the trail regardless of whom it upsets [or words to that effect].

It seems some person has gotten word to CNN of a strange tale that Don Trump is considering withdrawing executive privilege from Steve Bannon where it comes to the committee meeting Bannon for interview and/or testimony. I'm minded to treat this tale with scepticism even though I'd like to see if Trump's executive privilege wall was crumbling an he was going to throw Bannon under the bus.

Another strange tale on CNN is that one of the major militia members who supported the Capitol insurgency bid is supposed to be talking to the committee about testifying in OPEN SESSION before it. I'd be very sceptical about allowing such a person access to a public stage to make a political statement to justify that bid regardless to any right to put forward a defence to one's illegal actions as the committee hearing are not trial proceedings and definitely not something similar to that given to Hitler and Co during their trial after their Munich Putsch bid in 1923, just over a century ago.

The Irish Times and various US media outlets [incl Fox News] have reported in the past few hours that Steve Bannon's lawyer sent the committee a letter on Saturday to the effect that Bannon will testify before it. This is after former president Trump said he would withdraw the executive privilege claim both claimed exists AFTER Trump fired Bannon BEFORE they consulted in the run-up to the attack on the Capitol, meaning Bannon was a private citizen as a result of said firing. Mr Trump sent a different letter for Bannon's attention [in the possession of Bannon's lawyer] containing a statement that he would waive that executive privilege claim because he was angered with the way the committee was presenting the hearings. Mr Trump, according to the reports, wrote in his letter to Bannon "If you reach an agreement on a time and place for your testimony, I will waive executive privilege for you, which allows for you to go in and testify truthfully and fairly, as per the request of the unselect committee of political thugs and hacks". The next committee hearings are planned for Tuesday [tomorrow] and Thursday. I suppose the crux of any testimony from Bannon will be what one defines as truthful and fair testimony.

Judge Carl Nichols has refused to delay Bannon's trial for contempt of Congress [which the DOJ is prosecuting] next Monday after Bannon's lawyers sought a weeks adjournment from that date to allow them prepare a defence. The judge also threw out Bannon's claim of executive privilege. The judge ruled that the prosecutors only needed to prove that Bannon acted "deliberately" and "intentionally" to defy the select committee - not that he knew it was wrong or illegal. That [IMO] lessens the burden of proof for the prosecutors.

Judge Nichols also ruled "Bannon cannot present evidence that he relied on internal DOJ opinions or assertions of executive privilege". I'm reading that to refer to opinions or assertions of former Trump era AG's, Deputy & Assistant AG's from within the DOJ about executive privilege covering things discussed between Trump and former staffers like Bannon.

Allegedly Bannon's lawyer made a statement asking "what's the point of going to trial" after the judge made his rulings.

The discussion between the CNN panel after the public transmission of todays committee hearing and testimony showings seems to indicate the intent of the hearings is to sway the voters of both parties towards a verdict on Trump [should he signal an intent to stand again] in the next election AND not a verdict of a trial jury. Let's say the hearings seek a de facto, not a de jure, estimate be made in the minds of the US electorate on whether it would be safe for the US to vote for him again, given his political platform and the kind of strange close confidants he keeps as personal campaign advisers, extra to the group inclusive of his campaign manager.

The inclusion of Senator Mitch McConnell shown on tape during the hearing declaring Joe Biden to be the newly elected President before the coup bid is clearly meant to be a guiding light for the regular voters in the next election.

It's probable that Trump think's, as he made the offer, he's the only one who can withdraw it and definitely not the one who "stole" the elected office from him.

On the issue of theft of elected public office, given what he tried to do on the 06th, the offence of attempted theft could be laid at his door.

Melania Trump said in an interview with Fox News earlier today that she was not aware of the violence at the Capitol on the 06th Jan as she was performing her 1st Lady duties in the White House, as other 1st ladies did before her time, taking archive photos of the house interior with a photo crew following works on the house. She said her COS, Stephanie Grisham, was not in the White House on January 6, and her behavior in her role as Chief of Staff ultimately amounts to dereliction of duty. "In fact, Ms. Grisham failed to provide insight and information into the events surrounding January 6 as she had abandoned her post in Washington, D.C.". "Shamefully, this behavior has only partially become public knowledge; yet was consistent for Ms. Grisham."

She added: "It is evident that Grisham’s recent betrayals are a last-ditch attempt to resuscitate her ruined career and reputation."

An accusation by a Trump that the COS was guilty of dereliction of duty on the 06th while the Capitol insurgency was ongoing is refreshing to hear.