Donald Trump: Classic or Dud?

we're already missing how badly he lost yesterday morning around when he was heading over to court when the DC Circuit said 'lol no' to his attempt to stop a slew of various WH aides etc from testifying to the J6 grand jury. To give you an idea of how that played out, Ken Cuccinelli *already* went in yesterday afternoon to answer questions as a result -- Trump didn't even try to appeal to the Supreme Court

― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, April 5, 2023 10:42 AM (thirteen minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

wonder if he just forgot

"there was *something* I was supposed to do today, I tied a string around my finger"

My tiny finger

he did not look good in those court pics

i mean he never looks good but

if he keeps frowning like that his face will freeze that way.

In re those advisors having to testify, this story notes what some had been asked about already earlier in the year, plus:

Cuccinelli was spotted going back into the grand jury on Tuesday, April 4.

Without that privilege shield, former officials must answer questions about their interactions and conversations with the former president, including what he was told about the lack of evidence for election fraud and the legal remedies he could pursue.

That line of questioning goes to the heart of Smith’s challenge in any criminal case he might bring – to prove that Trump and his allies pursued their efforts despite knowing their fraud claims were false or their gambits weren’t lawful. To bring any potential criminal charges, prosecutors would have to overcome Trump’s public claim that he believed then and now that fraud really did cost him the election.

“There’s lots of ways you can show that. But certainly one of them is if they were told by people who knew what they were talking about, that that there was no basis to take the actions,” said Adav Noti, an election law attorney who previously served in the US Attorney’s Office in Washington, DC, and at the Federal Election Commission’s general counsel’s office.

“I would not want to be a defense lawyer trying to argue, ‘Well, yes, my client was told that, but he never really believed it,’” Noti said.

I know people are still pretending that political gravity doesn't exist since Trump won, but the last 6 years sure seem to suggest otherwise.

people are still astounded that he won in 2016 and that has left them believing the up is down and left is right and this fuckin hateable asshat could one day cause an upset like that again, even though he's been box office poison at the ballot box since the very moment he won.

I have no way to assess the likelihood of conviction here, but I don't think there's a universe where "Well, those hush payments to the porn star didn't actually break any laws" is a good headline for him. Of course if he's acquitted Trump will declare massive victory etc, but I think the primary effect of all of this for anyone except true Trump believers is exhaustion with the whole idea and persona of Trump.

I just remember Trump's presidency, where "payoffs to a porn star" was a non-needle moving event that quickly got swept into the whole Trump-gets-away-with-everything narrative and normalized.

lets roll lol

Trump just called for — wait for it — defunding federal police.

— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) April 5, 2023

HE ADMIT IT

"The only crime that I have committed is to fearlessly defend our nation from those who seek to destroy it," the 76-year-old told supporters

I remember when Hillary Clinton was asked at a debate whether she had any faults, and it was something like "I guess my main fault is just caring too much"

I just remember Trump's presidency, where "payoffs to a porn star" was a non-needle moving event that quickly got swept into the whole Trump-gets-away-with-everything narrative and normalized.

Hard to say, really. The guy didn't get re-elected. I don't think the Stormy Daniels story was a big part of that, but I don't think it's entirely negligible. If you think about those precious purple suburbs where Trump underperformed, I think the general miasma of ickiness about him was a factor. So to the degree that all of this keeps that miasma front and center, I don't think it does him any favors regardless of the verdict.

it's a lot easier to wriggle out of jams when you're President! many legal scholars believe you *can't* indict a President, plus you have all of the various wings of government at your disposal to use as he did.

and while Biden's approval ratings currently suck, he was above 50% significantly longer than Trump ever was. Trump eventually settled into a 40-45% floor after the tax code changes passed, but before that dude was cratering in his first year (was once 16% underwater in a Rasmussen poll).

his devoted followers believe he can do no wrong, but they're not who lifted him into the White House. Independent voters, disillusioned (read: DUMB) Democrats etc pushed him across the finish line, and a significant number of them said things like "He's just saying <thing> to get elected, he won't be all that bad" or "His power will really be limited and he'll be more middle of the road", and many of those people began having buyer's remorse on Day 1, others came around to it later.

Independents *are* the type that could easily break away from Biden because they tend to be the wishy washy type, but the thing about Trump in 2016 vs now is people were voting for a potential outcome in 2016, and now they have 4 hours of empirical evidence, and unlike 2020, he's not an incumbent anymore.

that said, I don't see Trump getting blown out even in "Obama-McCain" or "Obama-Romney" fashion. he'll probably clear 200 EVs easily just like last time.

At this point if the Republican nominee were an inanimate carbon rod it would clear 200 EV easily, as long as it promised to "take back our nation" and defeat the evil schemes of the socialist traitors.

Inanimate Carbon Rod is my new porn name.

“I would not want to be a defense lawyer trying to argue, ‘Well, yes, my client was told that, but he never really believed it,’” Noti said.

it would be particularly satisfying to see him get nailed down on this, because central to Trump's whole persona is that he doesn't really believe in anything besides his own greatness and I think that is part of what made him essentially bulletproof. so many Republicans defended him by saying "well, I don't know about the truthfulness of it, but it is clearly a valid feeling that he shares with many Republicans" which is such a bullshit argument and one I don't think any other politician could really get away with.

I daresay carbon rod would outpoll Pence rn

I think it’s also worth noting that his personality is such that, the more legal trouble he’s in, the less he can stop himself from digging himself a deeper hole. Case in point, the judge told him specifically not to make any statements that might jeopardize the rule of law or cause civil unrest (as he has a well-documented history of doing!), and he immediately went on the offensive against the judge and the prosecutor that same day. He can’t help himself- it’s what he thinks he needs to do in order to “win” and look strong- even when he is under a legal microscope. The more legal jeopardy he is in, the more opportunity he has to slip up, say the wrong thing, go off script, etc., so I say let’s give him every opportunity to make things worse for himself.

^^^ the Alex Jones Effect

Contempt of court seems like a good bet, if only because Trump truly holds the court system in contempt.

Ah, Day Two of every relationship between Trump and a new lawyer, when Trump still pretends to be a good client and the same Trump-whisperers pretend he writes the polite statements. https://t.co/SH0tIQ5HqX

— emptywheel (@emptywheel) April 5, 2023

"sooo" is a nice touch

Ha, I think he's gotten word of the delight the nation felt when those cops didn't hold the door open for him

damn looks like hes getting off

BREAKING: Donald Trump's former attorney Alan Dershowitz admits that the indictment looks grim for the ex-president and says that he "probably will be convicted by a New York jury" and he doesn't think that he could "could get this case dismissed so easily" and it would be a…

— Occupy Democrats (@OccupyDemocrats) April 5, 2023

BREAKING

Occupy Democrats is 100% exhausting

otm

otm seconded. That perpetual outrage isn't any more palatable to me when Occupy does it than Fox News.

Outrage is fine, being a source-free clown show isn’t

In more down to earth stuff:

NEWS: Mike Pence will NOT appeal a court order to testify to Jack Smith's Jan. 6 grand jury.https://t.co/kTB1fWwquq

— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) April 5, 2023

(This was already kinda clear from the other week, but that's that. Reminder that Boasberg, the new judge in charge of things in general on the DC circuit but who has essentially approached everything so far much like Howell, told him "Yeah there are specific speech and debate things you aren't obligated to testify about but you still have to talk about anything illegal Trump did." Fun!)

Relatedly from the NYT story on this about the other aides who are being compelled to testify:

With their options narrowing, some of the witnesses who have recently lost their attempts to assert forms of privilege to avoid answering questions may soon take another tack and assert their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, according to people familiar with the matter.

Kinda inevitable: you either consult with your lawyer, talk to the prosecution in hopes re immunity and sell out Trump or take the Fifth and likely get charged as a result. Poor souls!

Inanimate Carbon Rod is my new porn name.

Separately, doing great over there:

Last night Trump mused about what Jack Smith's name possibly was before, indicating he has changed it or something. This is something Trump has been suggesting privately, often saying "if that's really even his name" when talking about the special counsel, per several people.

— Kaitlan Collins (@kaitlancollins) April 5, 2023

Jack Soros.

Tbf, his birth certificate probably reads 'John Smith' not Jack.

suuuuuure

Weird

Could be an antisemitism thing.

https://scontent-ord5-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/340075196_246219684491505_5357333091311833151_n.png?stp=dst-png_p526x296&_nc_cat=109&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=9267fe&_nc_ohc=2KL5dUvgV0UAX9aq9A5&_nc_ht=scontent-ord5-1.xx&oh=00_AfByj1LJfyEWP-p2xWkCJTa8W9FjbvM3ePgz2ThztPpEyw&oe=643353C0

First time the NY'er is using a courtroom sketch as a cover.

lol that is not flattering

The New Yorker has not been quiet, to date, on its contempt for the orange individual. There have been a bunch of anti-Trump covers.

That said, I am pretty sure there is not a single Trump supporter who reads the New Yorker or gives a shit what it thinks of them.

Like, New Yorker readers (of whom I am one!) are a subset of a subset of mostly coastal liberals.

Us coastal liberals may get a mild chuckle from this but let's be realistic - it does not even budge the needle of national politics.

I will never not love that magazine but I am fully aware that it's conversation with its audience is a circular one. It preaches to a very specific choir.

NY'er knows this will rile him something fierce. good on them!

Aimless otm

Yer a mean one, Mr. Trump

All credit to Jane Rosenberg, the artist. I bet Drew Friedman said "oh hell yeah."

he loves being hated and the new yorker love hating him. the relationship between trump and places like the new yorker is symbiotic.