Continuing outrages related to our 45th President

[GuitarStv]

We are dealing with an individual of limited intellectual capacity who is apparently unaware of the consequences of his blabbering.

You seem to not fully understand America's 'very stable genius'.

[Travis]

I'm getting a little concerned about so far not seeing an effort to shut DJT up.
There comes a point where failure to take him into custody, or otherwise silencing his public self-incrimination, might start to look deliberate.

We are dealing with an individual of limited intellectual capacity who is apparently unaware of the consequences of his blabbering.

Hard call to make given everything, but the judge has to consider that the defendant is actively working in favor of Jack Smith's prosecution and, by allowing the defendant's behavior to continue, the impartiality of the judge might be questioned down the line.

Interesting twist, but DJT might have to be taken into custody or muzzled in other ways with the judge acting on behalf of the defendant's own interest in having a fair trial.

https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1687580854275444736?s=20

Opening salvo from him. I thought it'd take him an hour to say something like this. He lasted almost a day.

[PeteD01]

We are dealing with an individual of limited intellectual capacity who is apparently unaware of the consequences of his blabbering.

You seem to not fully understand America's 'very stable genius'.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean, but from my point of view it looks like a defense relying on him not understanding that the election was lost etc. - so the logical future attack on the judiciary would be that they exploited his ignorance by not preventing his self-incrimination by not taking him into custody and thus biasing the trial.

It really is his last defense: I'm an idiot and you didn't stop me when you had the chance - so it's not my fault but yours.

And the "stable genius" thing is just that he thinks he's ahead of everybody else - just an example of the typical criminal mind, it's what they all think.

[Captain FIRE]

Interesting twist, but DJT might have to be taken into custody or muzzled in other ways with the judge acting on behalf of the defendant's own interest in having a fair trial.

Catch-22. If the judge did that, the GOP would be up in arms that he was targeted, even if it was for his own good.

People are allowed to make dumb choices, like take the stand when they clearly shouldn't. Chalk it up to that. If you're going to err on a side, I wouldn't be erring on "lock him up".

[Dancin'Dog]

I'm surprised that the GOP keeps paying his legal bills.  What good is he for them at this point?   I'm surprised they haven't realized he's a liability. 

[Captain FIRE]

I'm surprised that the GOP keeps paying his legal bills.  What good is he for them at this point?   I'm surprised they haven't realized he's a liability.

Also a catch-22. If they are the ones to dump him, they piss of a large part of the Republican electorate who seems to blindly adore him and believe in him.

[Dancin'Dog]

I'm surprised that the GOP keeps paying his legal bills.  What good is he for them at this point?   I'm surprised they haven't realized he's a liability.

Also a catch-22. If they are the ones to dump him, they piss of a large part of the Republican electorate who seems to blindly adore him and believe in him.

I'm sure they could come up with a creative way to discard him.  Maybe that's why so many of his "loyal" buddies are flipping on him.

[Travis]

I'm surprised that the GOP keeps paying his legal bills.  What good is he for them at this point?   I'm surprised they haven't realized he's a liability.

The second place contender is the low-energy "everything is Woke" candidate who is polling at least 20 points behind Trump, and third place seems like a four-way tie. Also, Trump basically siphoned a good chunk of the GOP's fundraising directly to himself over the last couple years to the point that several state-level GOPs don't have enough money in the bank to buy themselves a steak dinner.  If the national GOP told Trump "you're on your own" he could respond "so are you" and cause some damage. There are a lot of Republicans who would like to put Trump behind them, but he's still the big name in the party.

[PeteD01]

Interesting twist, but DJT might have to be taken into custody or muzzled in other ways with the judge acting on behalf of the defendant's own interest in having a fair trial.

...
If the judge did that, the GOP would be up in arms that he was targeted, even if it was for his own good.

That is a political consideration that should not be taken into account, particularly because there is a faction in the GOP that would very much appreciate seeing DJT being removed from public view.


People are allowed to make dumb choices, like take the stand when they clearly shouldn't.

DJT making threats on social media is not equivalent to somebody taking the stand and damaging their case. Now taking the stand and making violent threats against the court and witnesses would be comparable and that kind of thing goes down really well in criminal court.


Chalk it up to that. If you're going to err on a side, I wouldn't be erring on "lock him up".

It is not about "lock him up".
The prosecution has already moved to exploit DJT´s behavior and is seeking a protective order to limit disclosure in discovery.
It is in the interest of the prosecution to keep their sources secret in cases where the defendant has potentially violent followers, typical for the mob and political criminals.
If the judge does not stop DJT´s behavior, the prosecution will continue to exploit it.

[PeteD01]

Looks like things are moving along at a brisk pace.
Judge Tanya Chutkan has given the defense a deadline for Monday PM to respond to the request for a protective order limiting the scope of discovery.
It gave the defense a little more than 48 hours to prepare.
This was countered by the defense by requesting a further three days delay.
Within hours, the prosecution filed a motion to the effect to deny the request of the delay.
Quote from the prosecution motion to deny the delay:

The Government stands ready to press send on a discovery production. The defendant is standing in the way. The Court should deny the motion.

(The motion also clarifies satisfactorily that the defense is responsible for the apparent delay of a response from the prosecution to the malicious social media activities of the defendant, which raised a concern that prompted my initial post on this issue.)

[PeteD01]

That was quick:

[Travis]

Just today he Tweeted/Truthed insults towards Pence, and held a press conference talking shit about Smith.

Edit: This morning's contribution to staying on the judge's good side:

https://twitter.com/bradmossesq/status/1688185714691780613?s=46&t=v7PWVHrTzVbR-BWQDCoDWQ

[PeteD01]

We already know how Smith sees the defendant's behavior.
There are only so many ways to refer to obstruction without using the word "obstruction".
Here is the quote from the motion for denying the defendant's request for a delay again:

The Government stands ready to press send on a discovery production. The defendant is standing in the way. The Court should deny the motion.

Basically, the prosecution is making it known that they believe that the defendant is attempting to obstruct justice - another potential charge in the making.

Now it is up to the judge to stop this behavior.

[PeteD01]

Well, the defense rolled over pissing its belly like a "scared puppy".
And the prosecution got the opportunity to introduce DJT´s tweet on the record - way to go if one wants to document a pattern of intimidation aimed at obstruction:
 

Trump responds to Jack Smith's request for protective order
Gideon Rubin
August 7, 2023

Trump's response, filed on Monday, says that, "President Trump does not contest the government’s claimed interest in restricting some of the documents it must produce. ...However, the need to protect that information does not require a blanket gag order over all documents produced by the government.

"Rather, the Court can, and should, limit its protective order to genuinely sensitive materials – a less restrictive alternative that would satisfy any government interest in confidentiality while preserving the First Amendment rights of President Trump and the public.”

CNN’s Katelyn Polantz said that Trump's response isn't that different from what prosecutors sought.


https://www.rawstory.com/protective-order/

[Travis]

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23901780-trumporder Lauro's response to the proposed protective order

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.15.0_1.pdf Smith's response to Lauro's petition

Both are worth reading. Lauro first.

Judge read both and announced that both sides will "No later than 3pm on the 8th...file a joint notice of two dates on or before August 11 for a hearing." So she's saying they get to pick a date to discuss this, but its going to be resolved by Friday.

[PeteD01]

So Mr Trump feels threatened by Joe Biden's Mug-Shot picture and actually puts it into the document.
That is one historical troll right there.

Then he pretty much asks the judge to let him do all the things the judge has warned him not to do.

Does not look like he understands his situation and the prosecution got another opportunity to explain their pňsition in detail.

[GuitarStv]

After Trump is elected as the next president, will any of this legal stuff matter?  Can't he just pardon himself?

[PeteD01]

After Trump is elected as the next president, will any of this legal stuff matter?  Can't he just pardon himself?

Self pardon by a president is untested but could work - but only for federal convictions.

The upcoming state indictment in Georgia is a different story and, should he be convicted in state court, a pardon in Georgia is not straightforward at all.

[Captain FIRE]

After Trump is elected as the next president, will any of this legal stuff matter?  Can't he just pardon himself?

Self pardon by a president is untested but could work - but only for federal convictions.

The upcoming state indictment in Georgia is a different story and, should he be convicted in state court, a pardon in Georgia is not straightforward at all.

Why are we assuming he’ll be elected?

[PeteD01]

After Trump is elected as the next president, will any of this legal stuff matter?  Can't he just pardon himself?

Self pardon by a president is untested but could work - but only for federal convictions.

The upcoming state indictment in Georgia is a different story and, should he be convicted in state court, a pardon in Georgia is not straightforward at all.

Why are we assuming he’ll be elected?

He has neither been convicted nor elected so it´s hypothetical by implication .

[GuitarStv]

After Trump is elected as the next president, will any of this legal stuff matter?  Can't he just pardon himself?

Self pardon by a president is untested but could work - but only for federal convictions.

The upcoming state indictment in Georgia is a different story and, should he be convicted in state court, a pardon in Georgia is not straightforward at all.

Why are we assuming he’ll be elected?

He's polling the same numbers as Biden and has no Republican challenger.  Seems as likely as not.

[Captain FIRE]

After Trump is elected as the next president, will any of this legal stuff matter?  Can't he just pardon himself?

Self pardon by a president is untested but could work - but only for federal convictions.

The upcoming state indictment in Georgia is a different story and, should he be convicted in state court, a pardon in Georgia is not straightforward at all.

Why are we assuming he’ll be elected?

He's polling the same numbers as Biden and has no Republican challenger.  Seems as likely as not.

Likely as not would be:
After If Trump is elected as the next president, will any of this legal stuff matter?  Can't he just pardon himself?

[PeteD01]

Likely as not would be:
After If Trump is elected as the next president, will any of this legal stuff matter?  Can't he just pardon himself?

Alright I'm game:

After If Trump is were elected as the next president, will would any of this legal stuff matter?  Can't Couldn´t he just pardon himself?

[Captain FIRE]

After Trump is elected as the next president, will any of this legal stuff matter?  Can't he just pardon himself?

Self pardon by a president is untested but could work - but only for federal convictions.

The upcoming state indictment in Georgia is a different story and, should he be convicted in state court, a pardon in Georgia is not straightforward at all.

Why are we assuming he’ll be elected?

He has neither been convicted nor elected so it´s hypothetical by implication .

I disagree. The first part is a clear declarative statement that assumes he'll be elected, and then starts the hypothetical asking whether it even matters, as he could just pardon himself [if convicted]. If the whole thing were a hypothetical, it'd be something like "Assuming Trump were elected as the next President, would any of this legal stuff matter? Couldn't he just pardon himself?"

Anyways, not a big point to waste time debating, but it's a bit grating like fingers on a chalkboard because the election is far from decided. Primaries need to be decided, Trump could spend a lot of time on defending the legal cases and do poorly in his campaign. He could alternatively do fantastic bc people think he's being unfairly persecuted (despite the lawsuits being in multiple states, multiple jurisdictions, different topics, and with Republican appointed people in many cases, but I digress....). Either could die/have a medical event. Republicans could continue to die at a higher rate from COVID than Democrats, thus affecting outcomes in purple states. And so on.

[Captain FIRE]

Likely as not would be:
After If Trump is elected as the next president, will any of this legal stuff matter?  Can't he just pardon himself?

Alright I'm game:

After If Trump is elected as the next president, will would any of this legal stuff matter?  Can't Couldn´t he just pardon himself?

Ha I almost made those edits, but didn't want to tinker too much with the original language. FWIW I agree :)

[PeteD01]

Likely as not would be:
After If Trump is elected as the next president, will any of this legal stuff matter?  Can't he just pardon himself?

Alright I'm game:

After If Trump is elected as the next president, will would any of this legal stuff matter?  Can't Couldn´t he just pardon himself?

Ha I almost made those edits, but didn't want to tinker too much with the original language. FWIW I agree :)

I actually missed one: is has to be were.

Edit: Had to walk the dog, so I´m going to expand on this now:

The corrections certainly fulfill the rules of formal grammar, however, the original intent is partially lost.

The use of "After" instead of "If" effectively locates the conversation to a point in time when the event (DJT re-election) has already happened. It makes the conversation itself taking place in the imaginary space.
From that perspective, the use of present indicative is perfectly appropriate.
But this exchange is only possible because the fact, that the election hasn't even taken place yet, is known to the parties of the exchange.
That is what makes the exchange imaginary without having to rely on formal grammar to establish imaginary status.

So, after the corrections, the perspective has changed, and not in a subtle way: it is one thing to discuss something from a distance, imagining things vs discussing it from a perspective that includes the participants in the discussion themselves inhabiting the imaginary space.

This is fascinating stuff because it points towards an inevitable truth about language: language does not transmit a whole lot of information, bandwidth is insufficient for that, but relies on eliciting resonance between mind states (for a lack of better words), in this case knowledge where things stand in respect to the former president´s travails.

I´d suggest to think about this like a kind of "semantic grammar" that is crucially dependent on a host of factors from the environment, non-verbal behavior, previous knowledge about the other party etc.

None of this is trivial; philosophical schools have foundered on these cliffs, and generative large language model "AI" is about to run into them.

[GuitarStv]

After Trump is elected as the next president, will any of this legal stuff matter?  Can't he just pardon himself?

Self pardon by a president is untested but could work - but only for federal convictions.

The upcoming state indictment in Georgia is a different story and, should he be convicted in state court, a pardon in Georgia is not straightforward at all.

Why are we assuming he’ll be elected?

He's polling the same numbers as Biden and has no Republican challenger.  Seems as likely as not.

Likely as not would be:
After If Trump is elected as the next president, will any of this legal stuff matter?  Can't he just pardon himself?

No.  My experience is that the worst possible outcome in politics is overwhelmingly more likely, regardless of the odds.  So the assumption has to be another Trump presidency.

[charis]

After Trump is elected as the next president, will any of this legal stuff matter?  Can't he just pardon himself?

Self pardon by a president is untested but could work - but only for federal convictions.

The upcoming state indictment in Georgia is a different story and, should he be convicted in state court, a pardon in Georgia is not straightforward at all.

Why are we assuming he’ll be elected?

He's polling the same numbers as Biden and has no Republican challenger.  Seems as likely as not.

Likely as not would be:
After If Trump is elected as the next president, will any of this legal stuff matter?  Can't he just pardon himself?

No.  My experience is that the worst possible outcome in politics is overwhelmingly more likely, regardless of the odds.  So the assumption has to be another Trump presidency.

If that were the case, he would have either won the last election or succeeded in overthrowing the government.

[Just Joe]

Kind of almost sort of want Trump to win and really make a mess of our country if only so the biggest possible impression is made on our country so we'll never go down this path again.

Then again the consequences are too serious for anything but a passing thought.

[GuitarStv]

After Trump is elected as the next president, will any of this legal stuff matter?  Can't he just pardon himself?

Self pardon by a president is untested but could work - but only for federal convictions.

The upcoming state indictment in Georgia is a different story and, should he be convicted in state court, a pardon in Georgia is not straightforward at all.

Why are we assuming he’ll be elected?

He's polling the same numbers as Biden and has no Republican challenger.  Seems as likely as not.

Likely as not would be:
After If Trump is elected as the next president, will any of this legal stuff matter?  Can't he just pardon himself?

No.  My experience is that the worst possible outcome in politics is overwhelmingly more likely, regardless of the odds.  So the assumption has to be another Trump presidency.

If that were the case, he would have either won the last election or succeeded in overthrowing the government.

Is it worse to sloppily overthrow the government and then fight against all the checks and balances in place to prevent just that . . . or to attempt a coup, fail, and then be elected back to power after four years of figuring out how to fix the mistakes made last time?  :P

[jrhampt]

Kind of almost sort of want Trump to win and really make a mess of our country if only so the biggest possible impression is made on our country so we'll never go down this path again.

Then again the consequences are too serious for anything but a passing thought.

I think we already learned that Trump can make a mess of our country and a good chunk of people will *still* be willing to re-elect him. 

[PeteD01]

Christian Nationalists are openly renouncing the Christian faith, telling their pastors to get lost with their weak Jesus-sauce.

I hesitate calling them apostates, because it is rather doubtful that they ever were more than pretend-Christians.

In any case, the Imperial Cult of Trump is ever more openly dismissive of that pesky Jew Jesus Christ who would never ever fit in with them:

Pastor alarmed after Trump-loving congregants deride Jesus' teachings as 'weak'

Brad Reed
August 9, 2023

Evangelical Christian leader Russell Moore revealed this week that many evangelical pastors have become alarmed that their Trump-loving congregants have become so militant that they are even rejecting the teachings of Jesus Christ.

In an interview with NPR, Moore said that multiple pastors had told him disturbing stories about their congregants being upset when they read from the famous "Sermon on the Mount" in which Christ espoused the principles of forgiveness and mercy as central to Christian doctrine.

"Multiple pastors tell me, essentially, the same story about quoting the Sermon on the Mount, parenthetically, in their preaching — 'turn the other cheek' — [and] to have someone come up after to say, 'Where did you get those liberal talking points?'" Moore revealed. "And what was alarming to me is that in most of these scenarios, when the pastor would say, 'I'm literally quoting Jesus Christ,' the response would not be, 'I apologize.' The response would be, 'Yes, but that doesn't work anymore. That's weak.'"

https://www.rawstory.com/trump-evangelicals-2663078391/


The entire interview at NPR:

https://www.npr.org/2023/08/08/1192663920/southern-baptist-convention-donald-trump-christianity

[GuitarStv]

Jesus' message was never particularly closely followed by evangelicals or baptists.  He was always a radical socialist who valued community wellness and harmony over individual enrichment.  I'm glad they're being more up-front in their denunciation now. 

[Kris]

Kind of almost sort of want Trump to win and really make a mess of our country if only so the biggest possible impression is made on our country so we'll never go down this path again.

Then again the consequences are too serious for anything but a passing thought.

Last time wasn’t enough, so that ain’t gonna happen.

I thought after GWB, people had finally realized that having a shitty president had consequences. Then Trump came along and taught me that there was no bottom.

[charis]

No.  My experience is that the worst possible outcome in politics is overwhelmingly more likely, regardless of the odds.  So the assumption has to be another Trump presidency.

If that were the case, he would have either won the last election or succeeded in overthrowing the government.

Is it worse to sloppily overthrow the government and then fight against all the checks and balances in place to prevent just that . . . or to attempt a coup, fail, and then be elected back to power after four years of figuring out how to fix the mistakes made last time?  :P

I think a second consecutive Trump presidency or successfully overthrowing the government would have been worse than what we are dealing with now, with several indictments pending, but what do I know? (not being sarcastic)

[GuitarStv]

No.  My experience is that the worst possible outcome in politics is overwhelmingly more likely, regardless of the odds.  So the assumption has to be another Trump presidency.

If that were the case, he would have either won the last election or succeeded in overthrowing the government.

Is it worse to sloppily overthrow the government and then fight against all the checks and balances in place to prevent just that . . . or to attempt a coup, fail, and then be elected back to power after four years of figuring out how to fix the mistakes made last time?  :P

I think a second consecutive Trump presidency or successfully overthrowing the government would have been worse than what we are dealing with now, with several indictments pending, but what do I know? (not being sarcastic)

We'll have to see when he wins next year.

[Just Joe]

Don't really want Trump to win b/c we have too many family and friends would risk genuinely being physically hurt if things get too ugly.

But, you're all correct - our Trump supporting family and friends - the other ones - still seem to support him. Perhaps a little less vocal about it these days. Maybe the thrill of him running his big mouth has worn off a little.

Too many far right folks would take his re-election as permission to be really ugly and perhaps even violent. The national recovery from that might take a generation.

[jinga nation]

Kind of almost sort of want Trump to win and really make a mess of our country if only so the biggest possible impression is made on our country so we'll never go down this path again.

Then again the consequences are too serious for anything but a passing thought.

If we didn't learn the first time from the mess he made, we won't ever learn again. Because the GOP knows a huge chunk of this country is fucken stoopid herds and they love to mind control their sheep.

[Sandi_k]

How about this? NBC and domestic media outlets have been careful around this - they clearly don't want to be caught in an accusation that they repeated false remarks...

"Trump says ‘young racist’ Georgia DA had an affair with a gang member – days before she’s due to indict him..."

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/what-did-trump-say-about-fani-willis-b2390628.html

https://news.yahoo.com/trump-peddles-unfounded-lie-georgia-144113511.html

[PeteD01]

Mr Trump appears to be headed for Jack Smith's rocket docket - he's already going ballistic and the prosecution is feeding his turmoil:

DOJ proposes 6 week 'speedy' trial starting Jan. 2 in Trump's election case

David Edwards
August 10, 2023

In a motion filed on Thursday, the Department of Justice said it expected the trial to take four to six weeks.

"The Government proposes that trial begins on January 2, 2024, and estimates that its case in chief will take no longer than four to six weeks," the filing said.

https://www.rawstory.com/trump-trial-date-2663224124/



At the defendant’s initial appearance, and in several television interviews, defense counsel has suggested that the Speedy Trial Act is intended only to protect the defendant’s rights. See, e.g., 8/3/23 Hr’g Tr. at 17 (“Of course, the Speedy Trial Act protects a defendant’s rights”); 8/3/23 Fox News, Ingraham Angle (“Speedy trials rights are a defendant’s speedy trial rights. A citizen’s speedy trial rights. Not the government.” 2 ).

Not so. Under both the Sixth Amendment’s Speedy Trial Clause and the Speedy Trial Act, the right to a timely trial is vested in the public, not just in the defendant. See Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 519 (1972) (“The right to a speedy trial is generically different from any of the other rights enshrined in the Constitution for the protection of the accused,” since “there is a societal interest in providing a speedy trial which exists separate from, and at times in opposition to, the interests of the accused.”); Zedner v. United States, 547 U.S. 489, 501 (2006) (“[T]he [Speedy Trial] Act was designed not just to benefit defendants but also to serve the public interest by, among other things, reducing defendants’ opportunity to commit crimes while on pretrial release and preventing extended pretrial delay from impairing the deterrent effect of punishment.”); United States v. Gambino, 59 F.3d 353, 360 (2d Cir. 1995) (“[T]he public has as great an i nterest in a prompt criminal trial as has the defendant.Certainly, the public is the loser when a criminal trial is not prosecuted expeditiously, as suggested by the aphorism, ‘justice delayed is justice denied.’”).

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.23.0_5.pdf

[Glenstache]

Indicted again, but at state level in Georgia this time. No self pardon for that one. I'd say a speedy trial us on the public's interest for all of the above.

[Travis]

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23909543-23sc188947-criminal-indictment

Link to the indictment.



TL:DR summation attached

[nereo]

Behind Trump, Giuliani has the second most charges filed.

I keep wondering “what is this going to cost the GOP to defend numerous people in four different courts concurrently?!”   Having high-profile people like Giuliani and Mark Meadows on this indictment seems certain to add to the complexity.

[GuitarStv]

So when Trump becomes the next president and then is found guilty . . . can he actually be removed from office to serve his prison term?  How would that even work?  Would he continue to serve from jail?

[Just Joe]

Behind Trump, Giuliani has the second most charges filed.

I keep wondering “what is this going to cost the GOP to defend numerous people in four different courts concurrently?!”   Having high-profile people like Giuliani and Mark Meadows on this indictment seems certain to add to the complexity.

They are already whining about not having much money in their coffers lately. Time for their supporters to send more - more than some of them can afford - again.

[Omy]

So when Trump becomes the next president and then is found guilty . . . can he actually be removed from office to serve his prison term?  How would that even work?  Would he continue to serve from jail?

If that happens, you're going to need to build a wall...

[nereo]

So when Trump becomes the next president and then is found guilty . . . can he actually be removed from office to serve his prison term?  How would that even work?  Would he continue to serve from jail?

To clarify, are you saying Trump will perform better in the 2024 election than he did in 2020?

There is nothing to my knowledge which prevents a sitting president from holding office while in prison. 
The president could be removed under the 25th amendment with support from the VP and his cabinet (seems unlikely) or via conviction after an impeachment trial (requires 67 senators - also an incredibly high bar).

[Dancin'Dog]

I can't wait for all of this to be in our rearview, and watching History Channel documentaries about it as new evidence is uncovered for the next 50 years.

[nereo]

I can't wait for all of this to be in our rearview, and watching History Channel documentaries about it as new evidence is uncovered for the next 50 years.

With multiple trials and the discovery that comes with it, I suspect most of the evidence will come out over the next 2 years, followed by a rush of "tell all" accounts shortly thereafter.  I'm not sure how much we will learn 30+ years from now that we won't know before 2030.

[Travis]

Behind Trump, Giuliani has the second most charges filed.

I keep wondering “what is this going to cost the GOP to defend numerous people in four different courts concurrently?!”   Having high-profile people like Giuliani and Mark Meadows on this indictment seems certain to add to the complexity.

Big assumption that the RNC is going to send anybody other than Trump a check to pay for lawyers. As it is, he appears to be bleeding cash on his present legal issues.