What does the future hold for Donald Trump? - threadbans in OP

Flaneur OBrien

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122063153#Comment_122063153

What would Trump do with confirmed immunity?

everlast75

I keep thinking about what I read online about Trump not trashing, or even mentioning, David Pecker.

He must have some serious dirt on Trump.

Flaneur OBrien

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122063375#Comment_122063375

Oh big time. I found this quite telling, "Even though we haven’t spoken, I’m seeing him, I still consider him a friend." They haven't spoke since 2019 apparently.

kowloon

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122063375#Comment_122063375

I wonder if Trump was privy to some quality dirt on the likes of Linsey Graham.

Overheal

”wah I have to be in court but I want to campaign”

When he can campaign:

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4621546-biden-campaign-trolls-trump-golfing-court/

Manic Moran

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122062579#Comment_122062579

You can get the audio here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ex87haMPB5s

I listened to it live. To their credit, both lawyers were very good (I have listened to a fair few SCOTUS oral arguments by now, both were well above average). Sauer did the best he could with a bad hand, and seems to have settled on playing for time instead of trying to go for the sweeping immunity previously claimed. Dreeban I caught making a mistake or two, to an extent actually supporting the Trump argument (to the surprise of, I believe, Gorsuch (the SCOTUS livestream doesn't put up captions), who then pressed him on the position).

It seems pretty likely that the court is going to rule that actions taken outside of the scope of office are not going to be granted immunity. Dreeban made a very good point that the President has absolutely no role in the certification process of an election, and thus by definition, no action taken by him with respect to the recertification process could be covered as an official act. However, the process, if that is the ruling, is that it needs to go back down on remand for fact-finding as to whether any particular acts are official or unofficial, which is the 'play for time' ploy I mentioned. By the time that gets done, the elections will be over.

That official acts will retain general immunity, at least absent impeachment also seems likely. Levels of immunity for government personnel acting in the course of their work go down to the level of street cops and ambulance workers, it's hardly a novel concept, and i just didn't hear leanings in questioning that enough judges disagreed with that concept.

"Trumps appointees really seem to be leaning towards him even bringing up CIA and military actions carried out abroad and asking why previous presidents weren’t charged. What’s happened the US, even the Supreme Court seems to be having been corrupted by Trump."

They were legitimate questions. Remember, just because the question is asked of counsel doesn't necessarily mean that the questioner disagrees with counsel, but it does provide counsel an option to place, on the record, where he believes the lines should be which can aid in finding an opinion acceptable to more judges. Note, the Trump appointees were pretty damned hard on Sauer as well.

Overheal

”we have lawsuits in 81 states” 🤪

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/lara-trump-81-states-rnc_n_66294c21e4b0edb0e80a1cef

LambshankRedemption

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122063278#Comment_122063278

It was a rhetorical observation. No response necessary.

everlast75

https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1783600220653191619

Can't help but believe the date was scheduled to piss Trump off.

.

LambshankRedemption

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122063375#Comment_122063375

An analyst on CNN was saying exactly that just last night. Considering all the people Trump has taken aim at on Twitter / X / Truth Social or at rallies, not a single mention of Pecker anywhere.

robinph

But what other dirt could there be on Trump. There has been everything from cheating on the wife to attempted coup and he's still a potential candidate for president.

Other than consequences finally catching up with him in a court, what tabloid level scandal could there possibly be that he thinks could sink his election prospects?

amandstu

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122064098#Comment_122064098

Maybe something on tape where he disses his voting base?

I.R.Y.E.D

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122064013#Comment_122064013

People wishing harm to U.S. presidents be they sitting or former isn't anything new, and neither is someone acting on those wishes, though the latter have been rarely successful.

It isn't even something unique to the U.S. , so unless the Feds are monitoring your posts on boards, I reckon you are safe enough.

Quin_Dub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122064098#Comment_122064098

The obvious one is abortion.

Does he have evidence that Trump paid for an abortion on foot of another extra-marital incident?

No evidence that he did, but I think that is probably the one thing that would damage him with a decent chunk of his base.

I.R.Y.E.D

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122064118#Comment_122064118

Even if was the case, it would be unlikely to put them off him.

I.R.Y.E.D

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122064266#Comment_122064266

It would depend on when it occurred. There are pro life campaigners across the globe that claim to be so because they had an abortion and they are accepted and rolled out regularly.

All he would have to say is that it was in the past and he got rid of roe because of it. Also he wouldn't be the first gop politician that has been found out paying for an abortion.

Quin_Dub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122064305#Comment_122064305

Might also depend on how many there were.

Once is a "mistake" that might be explained away by a later Damascene conversion.

Multiple incidents would be a lot harder for even the "Gods imperfect vessel" head-bangers to justify.

I.R.Y.E.D

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122064317#Comment_122064317

"Multiple incidents would be a lot harder for even the "Gods imperfect vessel" head-bangers to justify"

For a normal rational person yes, but you aren't taking about such in this situation, and as it was with Stormy and others, you would certainly see them try to justify it.

robinph

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122064266#Comment_122064266

Even that might not be too big a deal for them to ignore at this stage. In 2016 I could see it being enough to sink him, but not sure even that would be enough now.

That Trump hasn't been attacking the witness, and the witness clearly stating that he considers Trump a freind still despite mot having spoken in years definitely suggests something odd going on behind the scenes though. Not going to be broken by this case, but worth someone doing some digging into.

Fathom

The US Supreme Court met today regarding Trump’s claim for absolute immunity while president. It appears from arguments and discussions among the conservative justice majority, 3 of 6 appointed by Trump, that their ruling may take months before given. The 3 remaining justices of the 9 may file an opposing opinion, but this will be moot if the 6-3 majority delays their ruling into summer.

This extensive delay “bigly” benefits Trump to where the time left before the 5 November 2024 election will not allow enough to try Trump on any 3 of the remaining criminal cases indicted. So the weakest one, the porn star hush money criminal trial that’s ongoing more than likely be the only one adjudicated before the election. Especially if the Trump appointed judge over the documents federal criminal case continues to delay that trial, which is likely.

If Trump is re-elected, he can squash the two Smith prosecuted federal criminal indictments through his newly appointed Attorney General, just like the Russia investigation; or burp, and say “pardon me”, for all federal crimes committed since he was a bouncy baby boy.

The remaining State of Georgia criminal case has already been terribly confounded by the DAs alleged affair with a prosecutor on her team, which may or may not be true. This scandal has resulted in delays also benefiting Trump. If re-elected, Trump could exercise executive privilege as the sitting president for 4 years, delaying Georgia prosecution, more than likely exhausting the impetus to try Trump, as well as the potential change of Georgia prosecutorial office holders.

Highly doubtful that the other state criminal fraudulent electors cases will impact Trump before 5 November elections. The recent Arizona indictments did not name Trump, but the defendant number one is allegedly him. Such complexity can delay prosecution to once again “bigly” benefit Trump. If re-elected Trump will slip away accordingly.

Of course all of this post has been made by Fathom, an arm chair legally uneducated speculator of Trump’s future.

Overheal

Let's check in on Mike Lindell, you'll wanna see this

https://youtu.be/cmkA6k8mASY?si=1c9LnPX8syclPvzr&t=444

everlast75

Not sure why he wants to bring this up... Unless he's trying to regularise or encourage it?

https://twitter.com/BidenHQ/status/1783607245328072769

Flaneur OBrien

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122064519#Comment_122064519

He's hoping his one man mob outside the courthouse will grow, and is probably feeling very let down by his MAGA mob having better things to be doing.

Igotadose

Re: Trump & Pecker's friendship.

Might be Trump is deathly afraid of Pecker because of all the other catch-and-kill stories Pecker has the rights to. Just because his company hasn't published them, doesn't mean he doesn't have the dirt. Their relationship might go back decades, probably does.

Anyone know if Barron's had a DNA test? He could've been sired by Batboy! Enquiring minds want to know!

Quin_Dub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122064712#Comment_122064712

I assume that at some point Trumps lawyers will get to cross examine Pecker to attempt to refute the evidence that he has given thus far?

I haven't seen anything to suggest that they have even attempted to object to anything he has said and what he's said is pretty bloody damaging to Trump.

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122065139#Comment_122065139

are they not cross examining him?

Penn

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122065148#Comment_122065148

I assume they will, or at the very least they may recall him as a witness later, as part of their defence may be to get testimony from someone else, then bring back Pecker because that previous testimony disproves something Pecker said.

Flaneur OBrien

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122065139#Comment_122065139

They are, and they're generally only giving him time for yes/no answers, which they're perfectly entitled to, but might look bad to an intelligent jury, and I believe there's two lawyers on the jury?

As for their friendship, tenner bets Pecker has the wee-wee tape from Russia somewhere.

Leroy42

So far in the other trials, Trump has not put up much in the way of defence. Lots of bluster, and talk of how they will provide evidence, but when the time comes they have repeatedly failed to provide anything and then simply gone out to the court steps and complained that they weren't being listened to etc.

I don't think they is really any point disputing that the payment was made, or even what it was for.

The argument will be that regardless os the payment either Trump never 'knew' that Cohen was being repaid for Cohens payment to Daniels, Trump never knew that Cohen had made the payment and just assumed the issue had been taken care of the likes of Pecker, or that Trump knew all of that but apart from some minor accounting issues then isn't much as a case to answer.

Rawr

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122065139#Comment_122065139

I guess this will all depend on the calibre of lawyer Trump's got there. Maybe he got someone who can make a half-decent counter argument or can properly cross-examine. Although given the quality of council he's got so far, and that Trump himself appears to have had an unwise amount of say on legal "stategy" before, I wouldn't be surprised if silly MAGA nonsense becomes the core of the counter-"argument".

MAGA Lawyer: Mr Pecker. Is it, or is it not true that you are infact a plant for the Biden Crime Family, here to prevent President Donald Trump from campaigning?

Pecker: No that's tru-

MAGA Lawyer: Another lie! This witness works for the Saros Deep State and cannot tell the truth! We rest our case your honor.