Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty

[Gatorubet 30275]

11 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

Why thank you.

I’m a foul mouthed Gump but I’m literate and quick on my feet.

And gosh darn-it, people like you…

[Js1 85451]

43 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:

Jesus wasn’t as fab.
Of course you’re 100% correct.

But have you seen his abs? They’re fab!

[DDD Dad 14346]

20 minutes ago, Js1 said:

But have you seen his abs? They’re fab!

[The Dog 44073]

34 minutes ago, C-Man said:

Further fuel from the fire from TWSJ: https://www.wsj.com/us-news/mar-a-lago-it-director-flipped-on-trump-after-switching-lawyers-prosecutors-say-649b49c2

It's infuriating to still read "yeah, but mean tweets" from dipshit MAGA fucks on social media. Yeah, dipshit, it's because he tweeted "mean" things. That's why we want him swinging from the yardarm.

 

Smith is working through all of them and peeling them off to get them non-MAGA counsel who will get them to flip:

Spoiler

If your boss is accused of criming, and investigators want to talk to you, here’s a tip: Be wary if the company generously offers to pay for your lawyer.

Remember Cassidy Hutchinson, the former aide to former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows? She learned this lesson quickly. When January 6 investigators came asking questions about what she had seen and heard, she got assigned a Trumpworld lawyer, who apparently advised her that it was perfectly fine to say you didn’t remember something.

The problem was, Hutchinson did remember, very well in fact, and felt uncomfortable saying she didn’t. That would be false testimony, in her view. So she reached out to her friend Alyssa Farah Griffin, who was also a former aide within the White House, who in turn put her in touch with then-Rep. Liz Cheney of the January 6 Committee. From there, Hutchinson got herself a new lawyer— one whose loyalties were with her, and not with Trump. And that’s how the most explosive testimony of last summer came about.

We’re seeing something eerily familiar play out in the federal obstruction charges against Trump, his valet Walt Nauta, and a new defendant, Carlos De Oliveira, all in connection with a key witness identified only as Trump Employee 4 in the indictment. That man’s name, we have since learned, is Yuscil Taveras, and he worked in IT at Mar-a-Lago. According to the superceding indictment, Taveras is a key witness to a plot among Trump, Nauta and De Oliveira to delete video evidence related to the movement of boxes containing top secret and other classified documents, which was part of a broader effort to thwart their recovery by the Justice Department.

Let’s take a look at how Taveras flipped and became a witness for the prosecution. Like Hutchinson, it has to do with who his lawyer was at the time he first gave testimony, versus who it was when he later recanted and provided new testimony. You’ll see clearly how conflicts can quickly arise when your lawyer is working for the boss and not really at all on your behalf, and why that representation often comes with big strings attached.

Subscribe

 

 

 

Trumpworld lawyers up

When it became clear that the Justice Department was investigating the activity of Mar-a-Lago employees, including those who may have assisted Donald Trump in preventing the return of top secret and other classified documents, Trumpworld acted quickly. An attorney for Trump put Mar-a-Lago employees Walt Nauta and Yuscil Taveras in touch with the same lawyer, a guy named Stanley Woodward. His fees would be covered by Trump’s “Save America PAC.”

These lower-level employees must have initially felt very relieved. There is no way any of them on their own could afford legal representation. And according to prosecutors, they may have committed crimes on behalf of their boss, so it stood to reason that the boss or his political fund should pay for their lawyers. What a nice man!

This representation of course helps Trump keep his potential co-defendants loyal and on message. With a clever lawyer guiding their testimony, they might all just fall in line. After all, if none of them could recall what happened, or better yet if they all denied it ever did, then the government wouldn’t be able to make its case.

So Trump, in a way, did build a wall after all: a wall of silence from his underlings. But there were cracks in it, and Jack Smith set out to exploit them.

Taveras and Oliveira initially testify

According to a recent filing by Smith’s office, while Taveras was still represented by Woodward, he went before the grand jury in D.C. and “repeatedly denied or claimed not to recall any contacts or conversations about the security footage at Mar-a-Lago.” Not good for the prosecution, but great for Trump. 

Similarly, claimed Smith, “In testimony before the same grand jury, De Oliveira likewise denied any contact with [Taveras] regarding security footage.”

The thing was, Smith’s office already had evidence, in the form of text messages, video surveillance, and other witnesses, that both Taveras and De Oliveira were lying. And those lies seem coordinated, which was no surprise given that they were both represented by Woodward.

Note that a clever lawyer like Woodward doesn’t have to tell his clients to lie for Trump. That message can get delivered in all kinds of ways. But Woodward was not getting paid by these two men. His paycheck was coming from Trump’s PAC. I’m going to take a leap here and say Woodward likely didn’t have the two men’s best interests at heart and may not have given them the best legal advice—which would have been to cooperate and try to get the best deal you can and maybe even avoid prosecution.

The first indictment drops, but the grand jury continues to investigate

On June 8, 2023, Trump and Nauta were indicted by a grand jury in Florida, including on charges of obstruction. For the moment, De Oliveira and Taveras seemed in the clear. 

What they didn’t know, though, was that Smith’s grand jury in D.C. wasn’t done investigating. (Judge Aileen Cannon, that fount of raw intelligence and judicial experience, apparently has taken issue with the fact that a grand jury dared to continue to work on matters related to the case in D.C., outside of her jurisdiction. This is of course both normal and proper, as this example plainly shows.)

The D.C. grand jury obtained video evidence that contradicted the sworn testimony of De Oliveira and Taveras. So now they had a potential perjury charge hanging over them, as well as possible obstruction charges. The Justice Department sent Taveras a target letter saying he was the subject of a grand jury investigation due to his “false sworn denial” before the grand jury earlier.

The conflict over the Trump-paid lawyer crystallizes 

Imagine you are attorney Woodward, and your client Taveras receives such a letter. If you advise Taveras to testify truthfully, that will implicate and possibly condemn your other client, Nauta. But if you advise him not to correct his testimony, you could be condemning him to a perjury charge.

That’s what a real conflict looks like. You can’t help one of your clients without hurting the other.

At this point, the government moved for a hearing to resolve the conflict. This is called a “Garcia” hearing after the case United States v. Garcia, which first addressed what should be done in such an untenable situation.

And wow were there fireworks at that hearing. When the judge made independent counsel (a federal public defender) available to Taveras, and when that lawyer explained the stakes and the risks to him, Taveras promptly fired his Trump lawyer, Woodward. He then retracted his prior testimony and, according to the government, “provided information that implicated Nauta, De Oliveira, and Trump in efforts to delete security camera footage.”

That’s what led to a superseding indictment that named De Oliveira as a defendant and embroiled Trump and Nauta in a second effort to obstruct justice—one involving a plot, spoken aloud to Taveras, to delete video footage relating to the moving of boxes around Mar-a-Lago.

The conflict ain’t over

Today, Woodward continues to represent Nauta in the criminal case. But there’s a big steam train of a conflict heading his way, and the government has flagged it by asking for another Garcia hearing over Woodward’s representation of Nauta.

Why is this still a problem? Imagine that Taveras is called as a witness to the stand, as he almost certainly will be. Now Woodward has a serious dilemma. He used to represent the witness who is now on the stand. He knows things about that witness that were told to him in confidence. And he still owes a duty of loyalty to that former client.

How on earth can he cross-examine Taveras, his former client, to benefit Nauta, his current one?

It’s a big problem. And if Judge Aileen Cannon were even a shade smarter than she is, it would be a slam dunk. As another court in the Southern District of Florida found in United States v. Braun, such a scenario “presents defense counsel with the impossible dilemma of cross-examining one former client to benefit another current client.” 

The right answer here would be to allow Nauta the option to also have independent counsel, just like Taveras got in D.C. It took very little time for Tavera to flip once that happened.

And that’s precisely what Jack Smith wants now—to help pry Nauta away from the poisonous cloud of Trumpworld, to help him understand, from a new lawyer’s perspective, that going to jail in order to protect Trump is a really stupid move—and one that probably isn’t going to save Trump anyway.

Smith isn’t done, either. In addition to moving to expose Woodward’s continuing conflict, Smith has filed a motion for a Garcia hearing to consider the conflict with the other Trump employee defendant, De Oliveira. (A refresher: De Oliveira is the employee named in the superceding indictment who helped Trump and Nauta with the scheme to delete video evidence.) 

What’s that motion based on? It turns out, De Oliveira is represented by John Irving (not the best selling novelist, but a Trumpworld attorney) who, get this, is also representing three witnesses that the government intends to call to the stand.

The point of a Garcia hearing is not necessarily to oust the lawyer from representation but to allow the lawyer’s clients a chance to understand the conflict that has arisen and, if they desire, to obtain independent counsel. De Oliveira has got to be looking at what happened with his co-worker, Taveras, and wondering if he should get a non-Trump lawyer and listen to what they have to say. And that would be huge.

In short, the strings that came with those Trumpworld lawyers are looking more like ropes with which to hang themselves.

When lawyers remark that Smith is playing 3-D chess, this is the very kind of thing they mean. Smith has already flipped one key Trump employee by peeling away his lawyer. The other two Mar-a-Lago employees—Nauta and De Oliveira—could be next. 

 

32 minutes ago, Underdog said:

Fee for fundraiser at club. 
Trump appearance fee. 
Trump skimming off top. 
Rudy still at square by one. 

Rudy isn't going to see a dime of that I'd bet. Trump needs the money for lawyers too.

[Js1 85451]

1 minute ago, The Dog said:

Smith is working through all of them and peeling them off to get them non-MAGA counsel who will get them to flip:

  Reveal hidden contents

If your boss is accused of criming, and investigators want to talk to you, here’s a tip: Be wary if the company generously offers to pay for your lawyer.

Remember Cassidy Hutchinson, the former aide to former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows? She learned this lesson quickly. When January 6 investigators came asking questions about what she had seen and heard, she got assigned a Trumpworld lawyer, who apparently advised her that it was perfectly fine to say you didn’t remember something.

The problem was, Hutchinson did remember, very well in fact, and felt uncomfortable saying she didn’t. That would be false testimony, in her view. So she reached out to her friend Alyssa Farah Griffin, who was also a former aide within the White House, who in turn put her in touch with then-Rep. Liz Cheney of the January 6 Committee. From there, Hutchinson got herself a new lawyer— one whose loyalties were with her, and not with Trump. And that’s how the most explosive testimony of last summer came about.

We’re seeing something eerily familiar play out in the federal obstruction charges against Trump, his valet Walt Nauta, and a new defendant, Carlos De Oliveira, all in connection with a key witness identified only as Trump Employee 4 in the indictment. That man’s name, we have since learned, is Yuscil Taveras, and he worked in IT at Mar-a-Lago. According to the superceding indictment, Taveras is a key witness to a plot among Trump, Nauta and De Oliveira to delete video evidence related to the movement of boxes containing top secret and other classified documents, which was part of a broader effort to thwart their recovery by the Justice Department.

Let’s take a look at how Taveras flipped and became a witness for the prosecution. Like Hutchinson, it has to do with who his lawyer was at the time he first gave testimony, versus who it was when he later recanted and provided new testimony. You’ll see clearly how conflicts can quickly arise when your lawyer is working for the boss and not really at all on your behalf, and why that representation often comes with big strings attached.

Subscribe

 

 

 

Trumpworld lawyers up

When it became clear that the Justice Department was investigating the activity of Mar-a-Lago employees, including those who may have assisted Donald Trump in preventing the return of top secret and other classified documents, Trumpworld acted quickly. An attorney for Trump put Mar-a-Lago employees Walt Nauta and Yuscil Taveras in touch with the same lawyer, a guy named Stanley Woodward. His fees would be covered by Trump’s “Save America PAC.”

These lower-level employees must have initially felt very relieved. There is no way any of them on their own could afford legal representation. And according to prosecutors, they may have committed crimes on behalf of their boss, so it stood to reason that the boss or his political fund should pay for their lawyers. What a nice man!

This representation of course helps Trump keep his potential co-defendants loyal and on message. With a clever lawyer guiding their testimony, they might all just fall in line. After all, if none of them could recall what happened, or better yet if they all denied it ever did, then the government wouldn’t be able to make its case.

So Trump, in a way, did build a wall after all: a wall of silence from his underlings. But there were cracks in it, and Jack Smith set out to exploit them.

Taveras and Oliveira initially testify

According to a recent filing by Smith’s office, while Taveras was still represented by Woodward, he went before the grand jury in D.C. and “repeatedly denied or claimed not to recall any contacts or conversations about the security footage at Mar-a-Lago.” Not good for the prosecution, but great for Trump. 

Similarly, claimed Smith, “In testimony before the same grand jury, De Oliveira likewise denied any contact with [Taveras] regarding security footage.”

The thing was, Smith’s office already had evidence, in the form of text messages, video surveillance, and other witnesses, that both Taveras and De Oliveira were lying. And those lies seem coordinated, which was no surprise given that they were both represented by Woodward.

Note that a clever lawyer like Woodward doesn’t have to tell his clients to lie for Trump. That message can get delivered in all kinds of ways. But Woodward was not getting paid by these two men. His paycheck was coming from Trump’s PAC. I’m going to take a leap here and say Woodward likely didn’t have the two men’s best interests at heart and may not have given them the best legal advice—which would have been to cooperate and try to get the best deal you can and maybe even avoid prosecution.

The first indictment drops, but the grand jury continues to investigate

On June 8, 2023, Trump and Nauta were indicted by a grand jury in Florida, including on charges of obstruction. For the moment, De Oliveira and Taveras seemed in the clear. 

What they didn’t know, though, was that Smith’s grand jury in D.C. wasn’t done investigating. (Judge Aileen Cannon, that fount of raw intelligence and judicial experience, apparently has taken issue with the fact that a grand jury dared to continue to work on matters related to the case in D.C., outside of her jurisdiction. This is of course both normal and proper, as this example plainly shows.)

The D.C. grand jury obtained video evidence that contradicted the sworn testimony of De Oliveira and Taveras. So now they had a potential perjury charge hanging over them, as well as possible obstruction charges. The Justice Department sent Taveras a target letter saying he was the subject of a grand jury investigation due to his “false sworn denial” before the grand jury earlier.

The conflict over the Trump-paid lawyer crystallizes 

Imagine you are attorney Woodward, and your client Taveras receives such a letter. If you advise Taveras to testify truthfully, that will implicate and possibly condemn your other client, Nauta. But if you advise him not to correct his testimony, you could be condemning him to a perjury charge.

That’s what a real conflict looks like. You can’t help one of your clients without hurting the other.

At this point, the government moved for a hearing to resolve the conflict. This is called a “Garcia” hearing after the case United States v. Garcia, which first addressed what should be done in such an untenable situation.

And wow were there fireworks at that hearing. When the judge made independent counsel (a federal public defender) available to Taveras, and when that lawyer explained the stakes and the risks to him, Taveras promptly fired his Trump lawyer, Woodward. He then retracted his prior testimony and, according to the government, “provided information that implicated Nauta, De Oliveira, and Trump in efforts to delete security camera footage.”

That’s what led to a superseding indictment that named De Oliveira as a defendant and embroiled Trump and Nauta in a second effort to obstruct justice—one involving a plot, spoken aloud to Taveras, to delete video footage relating to the moving of boxes around Mar-a-Lago.

The conflict ain’t over

Today, Woodward continues to represent Nauta in the criminal case. But there’s a big steam train of a conflict heading his way, and the government has flagged it by asking for another Garcia hearing over Woodward’s representation of Nauta.

Why is this still a problem? Imagine that Taveras is called as a witness to the stand, as he almost certainly will be. Now Woodward has a serious dilemma. He used to represent the witness who is now on the stand. He knows things about that witness that were told to him in confidence. And he still owes a duty of loyalty to that former client.

How on earth can he cross-examine Taveras, his former client, to benefit Nauta, his current one?

It’s a big problem. And if Judge Aileen Cannon were even a shade smarter than she is, it would be a slam dunk. As another court in the Southern District of Florida found in United States v. Braun, such a scenario “presents defense counsel with the impossible dilemma of cross-examining one former client to benefit another current client.” 

The right answer here would be to allow Nauta the option to also have independent counsel, just like Taveras got in D.C. It took very little time for Tavera to flip once that happened.

And that’s precisely what Jack Smith wants now—to help pry Nauta away from the poisonous cloud of Trumpworld, to help him understand, from a new lawyer’s perspective, that going to jail in order to protect Trump is a really stupid move—and one that probably isn’t going to save Trump anyway.

Smith isn’t done, either. In addition to moving to expose Woodward’s continuing conflict, Smith has filed a motion for a Garcia hearing to consider the conflict with the other Trump employee defendant, De Oliveira. (A refresher: De Oliveira is the employee named in the superceding indictment who helped Trump and Nauta with the scheme to delete video evidence.) 

What’s that motion based on? It turns out, De Oliveira is represented by John Irving (not the best selling novelist, but a Trumpworld attorney) who, get this, is also representing three witnesses that the government intends to call to the stand.

The point of a Garcia hearing is not necessarily to oust the lawyer from representation but to allow the lawyer’s clients a chance to understand the conflict that has arisen and, if they desire, to obtain independent counsel. De Oliveira has got to be looking at what happened with his co-worker, Taveras, and wondering if he should get a non-Trump lawyer and listen to what they have to say. And that would be huge.

In short, the strings that came with those Trumpworld lawyers are looking more like ropes with which to hang themselves.

When lawyers remark that Smith is playing 3-D chess, this is the very kind of thing they mean. Smith has already flipped one key Trump employee by peeling away his lawyer. The other two Mar-a-Lago employees—Nauta and De Oliveira—could be next. 

 

Rudy isn't going to see a dime of that I'd bet. Trump needs the money for lawyers too.

In the fine print:

 

 

*99.8% of funds go to the Donald J Trump Patriot Legal Fund 

[Born to Run 6569]

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE just say “I’m more popular than Jesus”.  I’ve long thought that may be the one thing that would backfire on him.  I’m no longer as certain, but it would be an enjoyable theory to test.

Meh. Jesus wasn't all that popular in his day.

[TexasEd 8067]

6 minutes ago, Born to Run said:

3 hours ago, Lurch said:

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE just say “I’m more popular than Jesus”.  I’ve long thought that may be the one thing that would backfire on him.  I’m no longer as certain, but it would be an enjoyable theory to test.

Meh. Jesus wasn't all that popular in his day.

Maybe he’ll get the same fate. Without the resurrection of course. 

[YGIFS 19452]

Say what you want about Trump's inept lawyers.  getting that many powerful people who actually have something to lose, to lie to federal prosecutors about attempting to overthrow the U.S. Government or a properly conducted Presidential Election in exchange for next to nothing?  That's not nothing.  They may suck at pre-trial filings, motions, and actual trials.  But that's a skill set that's respectable.  

And it completely proves what his minions have refused to believe for decades.  There are two justice systems in our country.  Hundreds and Hundreds of January 6th rubes are rotting in prison with not so much as a $5 canteen donation or 1 hour of legal advice paid for by Donald Trump as he promised he would do.  And some of them really didn't do anything that serious but steal a pen on the way outta the Capitol but they're getting the shit beat out of them in federal lockup later today.  But more than half of the college educated, white collar co-conspirators to overthrow our Republic will walk away from that courthouse with no punishment at all and make six figures on the speaking/adjunct professor circuit.  Because we have two parallel systems.  The flag waving, gun owning, patriots?  They'll do every fucking last day of their sentence and they'll do it in fear and pain, wondering why their god has forsaken them.  Most of the powerful white people are getting away with all of this.  

[Red Five 40877]

2 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

Say what you want about Trump's inept lawyers.  getting that many powerful people who actually have something to lose, to lie to federal prosecutors about attempting to overthrow the U.S. Government or a properly conducted Presidential Election in exchange for next to nothing?  That's not nothing.  They may suck at pre-trial filings, motions, and actual trials.  But that's a skill set that's respectable.  

And it completely proves what his minions have refused to believe for decades.  There are two justice systems in our country.  Hundreds and Hundreds of January 6th rubes are rotting in prison with not so much as a $5 canteen donation or 1 hour of legal advice paid for by Donald Trump as he promised he would do.  And some of them really didn't do anything that serious but steal a pen on the way outta the Capitol but they're getting the shit beat out of them in federal lockup later today.  But more than half of the college educated, white collar co-conspirators to overthrow our Republic will walk away from that courthouse with no punishment at all and make six figures on the speaking/adjunct professor circuit.  Because we have two parallel systems.  The flag waving, gun owning, patriots?  They'll do every fucking last day of their sentence and they'll do it in fear and pain, wondering why their god has forsaken them.  Most of the powerful white people are getting away with all of this.  

We have people in jail for voting. After they were told they could. Voting. Trump tried to make himself dictator and it took two years to start looking into it. 

[Rimbo 26027]

5 hours ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

 

 

Change "FOUGHT FOR" to "FOUGHT AGAINST" and "PRESIDENT" to "FORMER PRESIDENT" and everything he said is true.

[Rimbo 26027]

3 hours ago, Lurch said:

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE just say “I’m more popular than Jesus”.  I’ve long thought that may be the one thing that would backfire on him.  I’m no longer as certain, but it would be an enjoyable theory to test.

I'm not sure it would any more.

[Rimbo 26027]

3 hours ago, BamaATL said:

I take it he hasn't seen any of 60 days in.  Fuck Bangkok making a hard man humble, Fulton County jail is no joke.  Trump will obviously have protection, but some of these clowns being in would be the scariest thing they have ever done.  I'm not agreeing with the state of what we have, including the desperate need for reform for the mentality ill to be in proper facilities and receive care, but right now, that's where they are.  So what you have is violent mentally ill people, who may or may not being getting their meds, packed into an overcrowded old building with failing mechanical systems, that is understaffed.  For ordinary people, not hardened by this sort of stuff, it's a shit your pants situation.  

It's a true Leopards Eating Faces moment. GOP members getting convicted on charges due to their own tough on crime laws, suffering in a shitty prison due to their own deliberate neglect.

[Brisketexan 105186]

40 minutes ago, Js1 said:

In the fine print:

 

 

*99.8% of funds go to the Donald J Trump Patriot Legal Fund 

Dammit.  Just beat me to the joke.

Seriously, whatever amount they raise (can you imagine forking over $100k for the privilege of a chicken dinner will Cheeto Benito and Painthead Rudy?), less than 5% will actually go to Rudy's legal defense.

Rudy.  Friend.  You should know this from your days prosecuting mobsters.  Once you are no longer useful to the Mafia Don, you get cut loose.  You're on your own now.

 

 

[RDCanecutter 26458]

6 hours ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

So, Dan OingoBoingo wants Trump to actually serve a day in jail, to show how Alpha he is, or something like that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dramatic posturing gestures are important to guys like Dan Bongino, and to the short little women who scream at them.

[Ghost of LL 15539]

3 hours ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

 

Honest question--who the fuck is paying $100K for dinner with Donald Trump and Rudy Giuliani?  If you have that kind of scratch, you buy your access through other (more effective) means.

And anyway--who with access to that kind of money wants access to Trump right now given where he is politically and legally?  The last thing you want to do is be known as a donor to this shitfest.  You might as well ask for a subpoena.  And at a time when Trump is pretty damned unlikely to win the presidency, there appears to be very little benefit.

[4th&Five 41571]

 

[RDCanecutter 26458]

3 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

Honest question--who the fuck is paying $100K for dinner with Donald Trump and Rudy Giuliani?  If you have that kind of scratch, you buy your access through other (more effective) means.

And anyway--who with access to that kind of money wants access to Trump right now given where he is politically and legally?  The last thing you want to do is be known as a donor to this shitfest.  You might as well ask for a subpoena.  And at a time when Trump is pretty damned unlikely to win the presidency, there appears to be very little benefit.

Probably the 100K is suggested retail, but if you show up waving a grand plus a handful of Topps baseball cards, you can get in somewhere and I don't even mean by the kitchen door.

[Red Five 40877]

Like a Texas OU $20 handshake back in the day.

[YGIFS 19452]

9 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

Honest question--who the fuck is paying $100K for dinner with Donald Trump and Rudy Giuliani?  If you have that kind of scratch, you buy your access through other (more effective) means.

And anyway--who with access to that kind of money wants access to Trump right now given where he is politically and legally?  The last thing you want to do is be known as a donor to this shitfest.  You might as well ask for a subpoena.  And at a time when Trump is pretty damned unlikely to win the presidency, there appears to be very little benefit.

The donations to a legal defense fund have different disclosures than do those to a political campaign or PAC.  So it would be difficult to get a list of people that dumb, with that kinda money, to part ways with $100k to back people who are about to be in deep shit.  Thankfully, both the resort and event organizers have substance abuse issues and gambling debts.  One of them will turn over the list for $20,000, guaranteed.  Plenty of oppo teams are already on it.  Plus you'll get a few folks that are so damn proud to be there, they'll let  slip who was at their table anyway

[RDCanecutter 26458]

Seems like it'd be simpler to stay home and just burn a pile of money, like literally burn it, and make a Tiktok video of it.

[Chad Fuck 17704]

Seems like it'd be simpler to stay home and just burn a pile of money, like literally burn it, and make a Tiktok video of it.

This isn’t a boycott, RD.

[Radical Larry 28656]

Cheese bro now booked

[Gatorubet 30275]

Looks like Trump may be reevaluating the merits of a private jet trip to Russia today….

[Francisco 2.0 32395]

57 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

Honest question--who the fuck is paying $100K for dinner with Donald Trump and Rudy Giuliani?  If you have that kind of scratch, you buy your access through other (more effective) means.

And anyway--who with access to that kind of money wants access to Trump right now given where he is politically and legally?  The last thing you want to do is be known as a donor to this shitfest.  You might as well ask for a subpoena.  And at a time when Trump is pretty damned unlikely to win the presidency, there appears to be very little benefit.

 

I'm assuming few will pay, but this is Trump's way of placating Rudy and his legal fees.  Trump can say he "tried".

Next stop is a telethon.  You know damned well stupid ass Lindell will gladly broadcast that to the hundreds that would watch.

 

 

 

[Pato del Muerto 52539]

Trump could probably announce that he IS THE NEW MESSIAH without losing much support. 

[TeeDubya 3362]

3 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Trump could probably announce that he IS THE NEW MESSIAH without losing much support. 

God's other son.

[Grade of D as in David 13253]

59 minutes ago, RDCanecutter said:

Seems like it'd be simpler to stay home and just burn a pile of money, like literally burn it, and make a Tiktok video of it.

Then they would miss out on the dinner of deconstructed cheeseburgers

[tx ind 7013]

Gotta give Rudy some credit, he owes money all over town but was able to pull off flying private to GA today.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2023/08/23/rudy-giuliani-plane-arrives-georgia-vpx.cnn

[tx 3 putt 77248]

6 hours ago, Lurch said:

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE just say “I’m more popular than Jesus”.  I’ve long thought that may be the one thing that would backfire on him.  I’m no longer as certain, but it would be an enjoyable theory to test.

‘like Jesus, I’m being persecuted to death. Some even say I’m more popular than him. Not all but some.’

[Pancho 44887]

Rudy's bond = $150,000

[Biff Tannen 45696]

2 hours ago, RDCanecutter said:

Seems like it'd be simpler to stay home and just burn a pile of money, like literally burn it, and make a Tiktok video of it.

[tx 3 putt 77248]

4 minutes ago, Pancho said:

Rudy's bond = $150,000

 

[DigglerontheHoof 21208]

Think Rudy has 10% of 150K?  Isn't that what one usually pays the bondsman?

[NWBuck 8576]

27 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Trump could probably announce that he IS THE NEW MESSIAH without losing much support. 

Lose support? That's already a part of his campaign strategy:

[DigglerontheHoof 21208]

1 minute ago, NWBuck said:

Lose support? That's already a part of his campaign strategy:

[dcbc 14497]

30 minutes ago, TeeDubya said:

God's other son.

 

 

 

25 minutes ago, tx ind said:

Gotta give Rudy some credit, he owes money all over town but was able to pull off flying private to GA today.

 

Probably kidnapped himself.

Edited August 23, 2023 by dcbc

[dcbc 14497]

12 minutes ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

Think Rudy has 10% of 150K?  Isn't that what one usually pays the bondsman?

Fifteen percent in GA.

[Rimbo 26027]

10 minutes ago, NWBuck said:

Lose support? That's already a part of his campaign strategy:

using "Reagan" for the ad company, and a German author, make those two a bit TOO on the nose

[TwiceHorn 31514]

5 hours ago, dcbc said:

"But the law presumes, absent a strong showing to the contrary, that a grand jury acts within the legitimate scope of its authority,” and the defendant has the burden of showing that the Government’s use of the grand jury was improper."  Well, it appears as though Cannon, J. was asking the wrong party to prove this up.  Whoops. 

Well, the real place to bring up grand jury misconduct is a motion to quash/dismiss the indictment, where the burden will be on Trump/Nauta.  I'm not sure there's really anything she can do at this stage, legitimately, at least.

But, you gotta admit, when the government shows you grand jury testimony from another district right after filing a superseding indictment in your district, that' does raise some questions.  Questions really only the government can answer.

[TwiceHorn 31514]

We need a statute that says a former President can't call himself President once out of office.  That's such syphilitic behavior.

[G650 14272]

16 minutes ago, dcbc said:

 

 

 

Probably kidnapped himself.

Trade him for your dirty undies. The whites.

[jimmyjazz 46002]

7 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

We need a statute that says a former President can't call himself President once out of office.  That's such syphilitic behavior.

It used to be a sign of respect when former presidents were referred to as "President so-and-so".

Trump pretty much destroyed that standard.

[The Hot Dog Buffet 1291]

36 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

 

How much of this ends up in Rudy's pocket? $1k per guest?

[Pig Bellmont 8719]

17 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

But, you gotta admit, when the government shows you grand jury testimony from another district right after filing a superseding indictment in your district, that' does raise some questions.  Questions really only the government can answer.

Except for the fact that the government already told her under seal about the conflict arising from the potential perjury before the DC grand jury. There’s no excuse for her falling victim to the Fox News “Doesn’t this seem improper?” trolling

[Pato del Muerto 52539]

13 minutes ago, The Hot Dog Buffet said:

How much of this ends up in Rudy's pocket? $1k per guest?

Well the first 10 guests pay for trump’s appearance fee, the next 10 pay for the venue which trump owns, they’ll probably charge a hundred grand to serve some crostini and then a chicken piccata lovingly thawed after Sysco delivery…so how many reservations can they expect at that price point?

Edited August 23, 2023 by Pato del Muerto

[Francisco 2.0 32395]

9 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Well the first 10 guests pay for trump’s appearance fee, the next 10 pay for the venue which trump owns, they’ll probably charge a hundred grand to serve some crostini and then a chicken piccata lovingly thawed after Sysco delivery…so how many reservations can they expect at that price point?

 

Even better, Trump will use this as a "charitable" occasion and take it as a deduction as well.

 

 

 

 

 

[Goredho 17413]

50 minutes ago, NWBuck said:

Lose support? That's already a part of his campaign strategy:

If God sent Trump, it's not as the 2nd messiah.  It's as the second flood.

[Hookah Horns 3083]

1 hour ago, tx ind said:

Gotta give Rudy some credit, he owes money all over town but was able to pull off flying private to GA today.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2023/08/23/rudy-giuliani-plane-arrives-georgia-vpx.cnn

[Gatorubet 30275]

24 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

Except for the fact that the government already told her under seal about the conflict arising from the potential perjury before the DC grand jury. There’s no excuse for her falling victim to the Fox News “Doesn’t this seem improper?” trolling

Look, she’s just asking questions.

[Hookah Horns 3083]

43 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, the real place to bring up grand jury misconduct is a motion to quash/dismiss the indictment, where the burden will be on Trump/Nauta.  I'm not sure there's really anything she can do at this stage, legitimately, at least.

But, you gotta admit, when the government shows you grand jury testimony from another district right after filing a superseding indictment in your district, that' does raise some questions.  Questions really only the government can answer.

I don't see what's so suspicious about it, especially when everyone knows dotard is under investigation for various crimes across this great land. And in any event any question should be raised by defendants, not the judge. That still pisses me off.