How can TDS sufferers be persuaded Trump is a victim of lawfare?

[dneal]

Seems an appropriate juxtaposition to welch's thread.

Let's start with Hillary paying for the Steele Dossier (which she was fined by the FEC for doing), and the Obama administration spying on a Presidential candidate; leading to a 3-year and $30M witch-hunt by Robert Mueller.

[kazoolaw]

”Show me the man I’ll show you the crime.”

https://chrisbray.substack.com/p/mar...ed-the-madness
- a review of a book by a former special assistant district attorney brought in to investigate DST.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m50Uz9F8Y5k
-video of the book’s author,Mark Pomerantz, taking the 5th Amendment. Repeatedly. Including whether he had a desk at the office, and how often he went to the office. Concludes with the opening quote and its source.

[dneal]

Vivek Ramaswamy outside the courthouse.

I would like for anybody anybody here in the Press, anybody at home anybody in MSNBC or the media to clearly state: What exactly is the crime that Donald Trump committed?

We have not heard a good answer to that question. It has been vague until today. You heard Michael Cohen's testimony, after which I would say it is less clear than ever what that crime actually was. They'll say falsifying business records. Well let's look at who did we learn falsified business records. Today get two hours of Michael Cohen talking about how he falsified business records. Okay so you have a guy who has been a perjurer in the past, that is now saying he falsified business records. Now it appears to be what they might allege is some sort of bookkeeping error or whatever.

The real bookkeeping that we need accounting of is Judge Merchan's own family member collecting millions of dollars as a Democratic operative, using the existence of this trial as a fundraising ploy for Democrats. This is unconscionable.

The alleged crime here is supposedly that he did not actually use campaign funds, that he used personal funds.

Well let's get this straight. Suppose Donald Trump had used campaign funds to make a personal expense. They'd be going after him for that.

The best proof that this is a politicized sham - let's go through it piece by piece - if you tell somebody to go buy you a suit and you want to look good on television because that'll affect the way voters vote for you... you know what? they prosecute politicians if they use campaign funds to buy a suit. If you use campaign funds to get a haircut because you want to look good to the voters, they will actually prosecute you for using campaign funds for a personal expense.

Yet the entire legal theory of this case - the whole case that Alvin Bragg has brought - depends on one premise for them to charge this as a felony. That Donald Trump somehow should have
used campaign funds to make an allegedly personal payment. Yet if he had done that, their case against him would be even stronger than this garbage. That is the best proof that you have, that they're going to get him going or get him coming. It's damned if you do, damned if you don't.

This is a sham. This is not the United States of America. This is some third rate Banana Republic. If this were happening in another country, we would be laughing at them as a sham democracy

[dneal]

NYT, 21 May 24: Giuliani and Other Trump Allies Arraigned in Arizona Election Case

A total of 50 people, including former President Donald J. Trump, are now facing charges in four states related to efforts to keep Mr. Trump in power after he lost in 2020.

So they’re going to try to criminally prosecute lawyers for using the legal system.

Meanwhile, James Comey is saying Trump, if elected, will go after his political enemies.

[Chuck Naill]

This is how you get more Biden.

[dneal]

This is how you get more Biden.

Quite the opposite.

[kazoolaw]

Report that Biden’s DOJ authorized the use of deadly force in Mar-A-Lago raid.
Thermonuclear TDS.

[dneal]

Report that Biden’s DOJ authorized the use of deadly force in Mar-A-Lago raid.
Thermonuclear TDS.

I saw a bunch of the red-hat wearing twitter people wound up about this (and Julie Kelly's reporting/characterization).

The OPORD (operations order, or FBI equivalent of) said "engage with" Secret Service, not "engage".

The deadly force attachment looks like standard bureaucratic covering of all bases/asses. Every mission in Afghanistan or Iraq had Rules of Engagement and Deadly Force information included.

My verdict: hyperbole from team-red. I have a hard time believing the FBI intended to have a shoot-em-up with the Secret Service.

[kazoolaw]

[SIZE=4]This was a search for paperwork, not serving a warrant for threatening the President.
Not drugs, not weapons, not felony fugitives.
To equate this to wartime missions in Iraq and Afghanistan illustrates how over the top the one-size-fits-all policy is.
SIZE]

[dneal]

The unsealed documents are online.

I agree that everything about it is ridiculous. That's because the federal bureaucracy is ridiculous (even in a combat zone, hence the example).

I don't buy the claim that it was an assassination attempt. It does support the premise that Trump is a victim of lawfare.

[dneal]

Blank standardized FBI form:

Arrest Plan 1.jpeg

Arrest Plan 2.jpeg

[dneal]

AOC inadvertently admits it...