I'd be interested to hear views from people who are closer to this story, and maybe lay down some predictions for what everyone thinks is going to happen.
I think the probability landscape looks like this.
The possible situations by election day, 5 November 2024, are:
Trump has been convicted on [none, some or all] of the charges on which he has now been indicted.
For those charges if any on which he has not been convicted, this is because [he was acquitted, the charges were dropped, the case has not yet come to trial, the trial is still going on]
If convicted, he is in the process of an appeal against [none, some or all] of the convictions
He will have been sentenced on [none, some or all] of the convictions (presumably possible that on election day a verdict could have been delivered but no sentence passed yet? how long a gap should one expect?)
The sentences will be [fines, prison sentences, other]
Am I missing any possibilities?
I have none of those guesses, but I do think it's close to 100% that he'll be the nominee.
Trump's defense is that he believed his claims. I suspect that his lawyers will have to argue that Trump still believes his own bullshit. It seems nonviable to argue that something has changed his mind. After all, what new information has he received?
2: oh, yes, agreed.
I'm finding it difficult because I have no clear understanding of how fast the US court system works and how much it can be slowed down by a very rich defendant playing for time. If I had to make a forecast I would go for some convictions, all immediately appealed, and some trials either still going on or not started yet.
I am not looking forward to election day next year.
Per this the case has been assigned to Judge Tanya S. Chutkan, one of the harsher judges when it comes to sentencing Jan. 6 defendants. who apparently is not one to suffer bullshit. But nonetheless it looks like being a long one. The same piece specualtes DoJ didn't charge incitement to violence or insurrection to avoid First Amendment attrition and charged Trump deparately from the co-conspirators to save time.
the case has been assigned to Judge Tanya S. Chutkan, one of the harsher judges when it comes to sentencing Jan. 6 defendants
s/b a blockquote
Annoyingly, while I'm a US litigator, I don't have good answers on timing. Criminal cases are an entirely different world, and I think it's possible depending on judicial fiat that will either get unusually more flexibility on timing (because he and the case are so important) or unusually less (same reason).
I would bet the NY case goes to trial and if conviction then sentencing before the election, but that's the weakest and lowest-stakes case.
I do think there's a solid chance he's not the nominee. Depending on how the cases are going, there's got to be some way for the Republican Party to disqualify him, even if there's no one who could beat him with their demented electorate.
I don't know what the mechanism would be, but there's always some way.
I'm just thinking "what are the chances of a jury without any trumpers in it?" and since that seems like a very small chance, what are the dynamics of the jury room and the trial? ISTM a single bull-headed trumper could preclude a conviction in any of these cases. I don't know much about jury selection, though. Or, despite what my wife says about that one guy I got off, what goes on in jury rooms. Anybody have any useful insights about the odds here?
There are/have been hundreds of Jan 6 cases in DC. Any jury problems to date? (FA etc obviously different).
9: I don't know. Barring some major health issue, I don't see any way they can stop him without completely changing the primary rules, which would cause his broketooth cultists to go absolutely apeshit.
9: The Republican Party finding a way to throw this guy over because he's more trouble than he's worth is a pretty bad bet at this point. Easier to just nominate a felon awaiting sentencing.
I have no clear understanding of how fast the US court system works and how much it can be slowed down by a very rich defendant playing for time.
Consider that its taken 2.5 years to bring charges. I had already given up on the idea that it was even going to happen.
What they need is a primary candidate willing to go full, shameless "I like people who weren't captured" on him. All this pussyfooting around about how he's great but maybe he's bit soft on China isn't working. Nobody in the field has the political talent to pull it off but the only winning message is, "This guy is a pathetic loser and I'm done pretending."
12, 13: Yeah, this is one of those situations where all the possibilities seem implausible to me. But nominating a felon awaiting sentencing seems really implausible as well, so I give the possibility of the party shutting him out as having a reasonable chance of happening, even if it's hard to figure out how they could pull it off.
Also, if the Republicans try to dump him they know he will likely run as a third party spoiler. And I think it would be wrong for them to try to dump him. After all these years, its clear that he is the one candidate who truly represents the heart and soul of Republican voters.
I just can't still can't quite believe that there isn't anyone with the political talent to take a swing at the nomination.
There is apparently a thing called the 60-day rule where the DOJ doesn't do stuff within 60 days of an election that could affect the results. Could that mean that anything that isn't a trial actually under way gets put on hold on 5 September until after the election?
10, 11: different cases. Loyalty is only owed to Trump. Serfs can be discarded at will.
19: They wouldn't bring charges in that window, but by the same token they wouldn't stop a trial they started before the window (and the judge might not allow it if they tried with that justification). Maybe it would bar abrupt changes of strategy or new dramatic witnesses, I don't know.
Nor do I think they would put on hold work toward a trial in the 60-day window, all the motions and whatnot.
It's still possible that Trump will flee the country. Likely? No.
Venue is DC? Jury will be drawn from DC residents? That's got to be better odds than some places?
I suspect that his lawyers will have to argue that Trump still believes his own bullshit.
They will, but the understanding I'm getting (from Ken White's podcast this morning) is that that's not an airtight defense regardless of theory of mind. They're putting together evidence from statements he had a reckless disregard for the truth, bulling past it, like him saying to Pence "You're too honest." And this next wasn't in the indictment I think, but an aide testified to the 1/6 Commission that he told Meadows in her presence "I don't want people to know we lost; it's embarrassing." That can add up. And of course all the different people in his orbit saying "please don't say this, it's false".
Not that reckless disregard is the standard, that's shorthand from elsewhere, but I think it's possible they can get a jury to agree "Yeah, he just always bullshits, but we can't imagine he honestly believed what he was saying."
The example used on the podcast was if you sell someone a rock for $1,000 claiming it's gold, even if you didn't test it or look into the matter closely, a jury is not going to take very seriously you saying you believed it was gold, no matter what your lawyer presents about how wacky you are.
Totally here for Trump's campaign from behind bars. Sneaking notes out for lawyers to post on Truth Social. Text MACKEREL to 80208 to send the Donald a tin of fish.
24: Yes. I asked on Bluesky who the juror pool would be, thinking there's an outside chance it might include the whole metro area since federal court, but a rando said DC proper.
The chance of picking 12 random individuals from the population of the District of Columbia and not getting a single Trump voter is 47.6%.
(assuming nonvoters are as likely as voters to be Trump supporters, that is)
28: There was an interesting speculation that Jack White is putting focus on Republicans who did the right thing in the indictment, which is a preview of his story at trial, as a way of giving Republican jurors an ego escape valve, imagining themselves as the principled Republicans. (And DC resident GOP might have a greater share of never Trumpers than the rest of the country.)
30: And also there's a jury selection phase which hopefully will weed out the more rabid election-deniers. So I think the odds of something like 10 are low. 53% chance of a Republican on the jury by random selection, so the chance of a hardcore Trumper getting on to a DC jury and blocking a verdict should be more like 10%, because a Republican's got to be picked AND he's got to be hardcore rather than a never-Trumper AND he's got to be missed by the jury selection process.
18: It's not that surprising. They've spent their whole careers training to the obsolete Nixonian sublimate-misdirect-dog-whistle standard. Trump cuts the chord while they're still locuting the circumference.
Yes I know it's a fucking arc not a circumference. Don't take my puns away.
12 hours and still no reputable outlet has an idea who "co-conspirator 6" is! The Daily Beast says "There are a few good guesses for the sixth co-conspirator, but without the ability to sufficiently narrow it down to just one person, we won't be speculating, much to the relief of our lawyers." Wild speculations elsewhere include Ginni Thomas and Boris Epshteyn.
36 Brannon or Stone would be my guess
I lean toward Epshteyn over the others that have been speculated (Thomas, Bannon, Stone, Miller, even Lindell) because the indictment describes #6 actually implementing a plan and doing some work rather than making infinite incriminating phone calls.
Law schools really need to have a class on how not to record your own crime for posterity.
Or maybe there is one. All these people are years out of school. They need a CLE.
What if your cause is righteous and you want all posterity to know the details of your extraordinary pursuit of justice? Is it a crime to plot to overthrow an elected government to put yourself in power so that you can declare what you did not to be a crime?
If it really gets to state of mind, is there a chance he'd testify, presumably against the advice of his lawyers?
43: He's kept his mouth shut in trials to date. And presumably his lawyers can try to make a case on state of mind based on absence of evidence, without needing Trump on the stand.
A TPM reporter things the identity of CC6 will be reportable later today.
Mark Meadows's absence from the list of CCs but frequent presence in the narrative suggest he's flipped.
Josh Marshall has an interesting post on the timing. Apparently several aspects of the indictment suggest Smith is trying to speed things up and avoid getting bogged down in side issues.
I don't think there's any realistic way the GOP can keep him from being the nominee. This is one of those weird results of American parties as institutions being very weak. The main lever would be ballot access, which varies from state to state but is usually controlled by the state government rather than the party. The exceptions would be states with party-run presidential primaries (and caucuses if there are any left; maybe just Iowa?) but there are only a few of those and even there the decision would be in the hands of the state party, not the national one.
I think it's entirely likely to get a jury without hard core Trumpers in DC. Non-voters skew against, in my not all that well informed opinion.
Yes, it's only DC residents.
I won the case I had with Judge Chutkan, so naturally I think highly of her. OK, there are judges I think highly of even if they did get it wrong in my case.
I can't imagine the Republican party disqualifying Trump. Political parties are made of chicken wire and chewing gum. Hardly anyone thinks it's worth their while to go out on a limb and oppose this guy -- Mitt Romney is a pretty conspicuous example, and if he didn't have a solid base in Utah, he'd have shrunk from it as well. The insignificant functionaries that staff parties could never do anything. McCarthy and McConnell? No way. The former would be deposed as speaker if he even started feeling people out on the subject. It's no surprise that no one thinks they can take Trump down and survive: who would support them in the next election? Even if Trumpers were only half the Republican voters, engaging in what they consider treason lets a Democrat win even a fairly safe seat.
Trump can still win from behind bars -- or, as ajay points out, while waiting for a ruling on his appeal. The only way to prevent that is for everyone outside the cult to vote for Biden or, if he's no longer available, Harris.
Debs famously ran from prison in 1920 so there's even precedent for that. There's just no way they can get rid of him.
The "man in the street" (my work shuttle's previous driver, an MSNBC-watching older Black man) is baffled that a conviction would not disqualify Trump from running for president - presumably because it disqualifies regular people from so much in daily life.
Oo: the Fulton County Sheriff says if indicted there, Trump will not be given special consideration compared to any other arrestee, meaning mugshot and processing through county jail facilities.
The thing about everything in 49 about how impossible it is to get him off the Republican ticket is that it's all true so long as his popularity with his cult is unassailable. If trial and conviction shakes that, though, and while I'm not sure that it will, it might, there's more room for other Republican leaders to speak out. I am far from sure that this will happen, but I think it could.
CC6 is Epshteyn. They found an email matching the description in the indictment between him and CC1 (Rudy).
An email from December 2020 from Boris Epshteyn, a strategic adviser to the Trump campaign in 2020, to Mr. Giuliani matches a description in the indictment of an interaction between co-conspirator 6 and Mr. Giuliani, whose lawyer has confirmed that he is co-conspirator 1.
The email, sent on Dec. 7, 2020, and reviewed by The New York Times, was from Mr. Epshteyn to Mr. Giuliani and Mr. Giuliani's son, Andrew, and had the subject line, "Attorneys for Electors Memo." It says, "Dear Mayor, As discussed, below are the attorneys I would recommend for the memo on choosing electors," and it goes on to identify lawyers in seven states.
Paragraph 57 of the indictment says that co-conspirator 1, Mr. Giuliani, "spoke with co-conspirator 6 regarding attorneys who could assist in the fraudulent elector effort in the targeted states" and received an email from co-conspirator 6 "identifying attorneys in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin."
Those are the seven states in the email that Mr. Epshteyn sent to Mr. Giuliani and that was reviewed by The Times. The existence of the email from Mr. Epshteyn does not eliminate the possibility that someone else sent Mr. Giuliani a similar note.
A concerted effort in conservative media, which seems to be pretty effective at propaganda, might damage Trump's chances. In the short run, it would damage the media orgs enough that they're unlikely to try.
Yeah, I don't see anything significantly damaging Trump's standing with his core cultists at this point.
54/55: Thanks!
There was an article the other day that assessed that Trump's hardcore cultists are not a majority of Republican primary voters, but they're enough of a plurality, maybe 40%, that combined with the diversity among everyone else (many are lean-Trump, maybe 10% are never-Trump, etc.), it's implausible for any other primary candidate to oust him. The challengers would have to rally around one of their number, which they won't, and even if they did, no one candidate could capture the whole non-cultist bloc.
Nobody in the field has the political talent to pull it off but the only winning message is, "This guy is a pathetic loser"
Maybe it's better if no Republicans will say it, because Biden will.
Chris Christie is basically saying it, even if indeed he isn't the one to pull it off.
There is no "one to pull it off." Spike got it right in 17.last. Trump is the Republican Party.
Maybe Trump really is different, but here's two possible counterpoints:
1) The Republican base totally forgot about Tucker Carlson and O'Reilly shockingly quickly after Fox dropped them.
2) Trump hasn't been able to convince his base that his vaccines were awesome, so they're willing to disagree with him sometimes.
I can't see him not getting nominated but I also can't see him not getting convicted. The Jan 6 trials have almost all led to convictions so far, and the case against him seems so strong . For the same reason I can't see them dropping charges before trial. So either he delays for the next 16 months, or he'll be running for election as a convicted criminal.
Also he'll have trials ongoing for three serious crimes - Jan. 6, Mar-a-Lago, and interference in Fulton County - plus a more marginal fourth in New York, which may end up turned into misdemeanors. He needs to roll a lot of twenties to get out without at least one felony conviction.
Cheap fuck won't even bribe with a fifty?
65: You've seen the man in public for almost seven years now, and you still ask this question?
Biden is going to have to be really careful how he talks about Trump's legal trouble to avoid creating grounds for a mistrial.
67: He's been doing that pretty consistently.
I'm picturing more like in the general election debates, when the trial is scheduled after November. "Vote for me, I'm not a crook" could arguably prejudice a jury.
69: Again, what makes you think he can't hold to the strategy he's been using so far? Do you think he's that out of it? I don't.
"This illegal prosecution is an attack on patriotic Americans by Sleepy Joe Biden's corrupt justice department, Democrat-appointed judges, and the deep state. Vote for me and I'll make sure we all get a pardon."
Tomorrow 4 pm Eastern will be the first shot at seeing what the schedule might look like. Smith will want to go fast, Trump wants the 5th of Never.
I suppose Trump will try to change the venue, but there's nowhere that there isn't just a shit ton of pre-trial publicity about this guy. I'd expect that to be denied in short order.
70: I guess I don't believe he's going to be able to get away with "no comment" all the way through the general election. I suppose with sufficient discipline, he could, and it would actually be a very convey a very strong contrast without ever actually saying "my opponent is a crook." I.e., "I'm not going to comment on that, because responsible presidents don't interfere with the Justice Dept or the courts."
Biden's not known for his message discipline, but I think he can pull this one off.
Yeah, I don't think he'll keep avoiding comment altogether, but I think he'll have the discipline to say whatever terse/licit/meaningful sentence has been worked out collectively, then move on.
62: Counterpoint: The Republican base forced Fox to adopt Trump against the network's preferences, and Trump spent very little energy promoting vaccines because he listens to his base. (And they know it and love him for it.)
It's no surprise that no one thinks they can take Trump down and survive: who would support them in the next election?
"Survive" could mean "literally continue to live" here as well, remember. Senators and congressmen don't get Secret Service protection; neither do their families. If you pull strings to deny Trump the nomination, he's going to have you killed (or at least he's going to try).
And there was an active shooter alert just the other day in Congress.
No women's world cup thread? Germany, Brazil, and Italy out in the group stages. The US barely limping through...
Sorry, sorry! We're in Wichita Falls, 3rd day on the road. And you can always send in a guest post! (How's that for a reverse guilt trip flex?)
What would the mechanism for denying that he could be on the ballot in at least some states under section 3 of the 14th amendment? Would one of the felonies need to be something about insurrection, which I understand is not in the indictments. Some process must have been followed after the civil war.
80: Here's an article with some analysis. After the Civil War it looks like there wasn't much of a process because ex-Confederates understood themselves as automatically disqualified: rather, thousands petitioned to be requalified, and there was a mass amnesty in 1872.
But of the eight people individually disqualified, there was no requirement for a criminal conviction, or to have personally engaged in violence, and it seems to have been implemented in a wide assortment of ways.
It doesn't matter legally or even morally, I would think, if the process resembles a bill of attainder, because it's a disqualification for office rather than a criminal penalty.
Striking that there's already been someone removed from office for taking part in 6 January!
Going way back to ajay's 1, my strong impression is that, between Smith and Chutkan--the one arranging his case to minimize distraction/sidetreks, the other uninterested in defense bullshit*--this case will absolutely go to trial and result in a conviction before 11/24. However, I don't think there's anything that can exhaust appeals before then. I firmly believe that SCOTUS will reject any appeals that come their way**, but I don't think it would get to them in time.
So, literally behind bars is IMO incredibly unlikely. That said, I think that "convicted criminal" will be a bridge too far for some number of Trump voters who are outside the cult. Between that, Dobbs, and what looks like a soft landing, I think Biden's margin will be bigger than in '20. Worth remembering that Biden did better vs Trump than Obama did vs Romney in PV. Not that it wasn't closer than we'd like, but I think our desire to see a blowout colored our impression of a 52-48 [2-party vote] outcome. 48-state wins aren't possible in the current environment, but a percent or two towards Biden is enough to make the 306 EVs he got last time rock solid and even put the first tier of Trump states on tribe edge.
* important to remember here that Trump's legal team is extremely bad: a really good example is that their request for a late court date A. suggested that they should have as much time to prepare a defense as Smith did to prepare an indictment, counting from 01/06 (a laughable notion in the actually-existing legal system), and B. miscounted the time from 01/21 to 07/23 by a year. In an actual filing, not a tweet.
** Alito and Thomas would 100% vote for any conceivable premise Trump presents, but I don't think he has any other reliable votes: the other justices already have their lifetime appointments, and even if they have some vague sense of loyalty to Trump (which Roberts doesn't, even a little), they don't have any particular interest in looking craven. It's not as if any such appeal would be legally sound, nor would it generally benefit the R project, which is their goal.
It strikes me that I missed out one possibility in 1. I should have said:
"For those charges if any on which he has not been convicted, this is because [he was acquitted, the charges were dropped, the case has not yet come to trial, the trial is still going on, the trial has been put on hold because he has fled the country]
I don't think that he's likely to flee. He'd be completely at his host's mercy.
Following up on the last part of 84:
NC is the only plausible flip unless something surprising happens* (it was a 1.35% margin in '20, similar to PA). FL was next-closest, at a 3.36% margin, but FL was also the only remotely close red state that moved towards Trump--next closest was freaking Utah, which had a 20% margin.
Point being, Trump already lost ground in his marginal states. Is there more ground to be lost? He was +8 in TX in '16, +5.5 in '20. As we all know, TX is forever a cycle away from becoming purple, but in a secular environment that's 2 points closer to Biden, it would be more of a battleground than PA.
*actually, if Trump were literally behind bars, possible but IMO unlikely, that would qualify
All of 84 strikes me as sound and 84.3 as utterly hilarious
As delightful as a fugitive flight would be--on some level more gratifying than actual prison*--I don't think he can conceive of a world in which he doesn't come out on top, so I don't think he'd ever take that step, even if he were literally booked to be jailed the very next day, all appeals exhausted.
*mostly because I think the psychic blow to his supporters would be bigger than prison. I think they'd have no problem with "he's a martyr for us, I love him just as much as ever", but "he fled the country and will never return" is hard to put a good spin on, when their ultimate need/belief is that he will "save" the country. "He ran away like a coward" is awfully hard to rebut. As is "he abandoned you."
I hope the US Marshal service is providing Chutkan with excellent protection, if he's convicted and sentenced she'll need it for life.
Looking at the table here, I noticed an oddity: the Greens got essentially no votes in any of the states that flipped in '20... except in Michigan, where they got 0.25%. Still a small number, but in GA, AZ, WI, and PA, they got 0.05% or less. What the hell, Michiganders?
If Trump fled to Russia, that would be the best outcome. But it's not going to happen. I can't think where else he could go.
Maybe Azerbaijan, doesn't he have a hotel there?
It wouldn't be Russia, it'd be Azerbaijan, or maybe Saudi Arabia.
Ouch, so pwned.
I think Saudi Arabia wants our weapons more than that.
That said, I think that "convicted criminal" will be a bridge too far for some number of Trump voters who are outside the cult.
Relatively few, I'd guess. What are they going to do, vote for a Democrat?
*mostly because I think the psychic blow to his supporters would be bigger than prison. I think they'd have no problem with "he's a martyr for us, I love him just as much as ever", but "he fled the country and will never return" is hard to put a good spin on, when their ultimate need/belief is that he will "save" the country. "He ran away like a coward" is awfully hard to rebut. As is "he abandoned you."
I agree that Trump fleeing the country is highly unlikely, but I disagree with this. Trump supporters will have no trouble explaining him leaving the country. They will say he's forming a government-in-exile and/or that he's planning an invasion.
I don't think he'll flee, but I also don't think his followers would be upset with him if he did. All the better to lead the resistance to Biden's declining state.
It's a long way from here to election, and a whole lot can happen. At this point 4 years ago, the pandemic was way in the future, unimagined by all but the most dedicated public health nerds. At this point 8 years ago, the nascent Trump campaign was a joke, and Hilary's nomination and victory pretty close to a sure thing. So certain, everyone felt constrained to take their shots at her, the NYT with Clinton Cash leading the way.
98 Exactly. They'll just say 'Hunter Biden was worse, and Biden would be in jail too if the system was fair,'
Trump wouldn't be your regular fugitive. Massive pressure would be brought to bear: Russia or broke. No one else would even consider facing the consequences. Except maybe Bibi, but that'd be a total crapshoot for all concerned.
Except maybe Bibi, but that'd be a total crapshoot for all concerned.
That's a truly hilarious and terrifying prospect. I guess the question then would be if they can find a donkey big enough for Trump to ride on into Jerusalem.
Why? Him being in exile seems a perfectly fine outcome for everyone involved. I don't see why it would cause big problems with Azerbaijan.
The traditional abode of banana dictators in exile is South Florida. So logically Trump would set up in Havana.
If you've only typed it, please say it aloud.
I could certainly see Trump fleeing to London with some of the most FABULOUS and AMAZING bits and pieces he had stolen from the White House, and dining each evening in splendour in the basement of the Exiles' Club. (Dunsany; fantastic story, read it if you can)
"Of course," I muttered, "members may not take guests upstairs."
"Members!" he said to me. "We are not the members!"
There was such reproof in his voice that I said no more, I looked at him questioningly, perhaps my lips moved, I may have said "What are you?" A great surprise had come on me at their attitude.
"We are the waiters," he said.
That I could not have known, here at last was honest ignorance that I had no need to be ashamed of, the very opulence of their table denied it.
"Then who are the members?" I asked.
Such a hush fell at that question, such a hush of genuine awe, that all of a sudden a wild thought entered my head, a thought strange and fantastic and terrible. I gripped my host by the wrist and hushed my voice.
"Are they too exiles?" I asked.
Twice as he looked in my face he gravely nodded his head.
I left that club very swiftly indeed, never to see it again, scarcely pausing to say farewell to those menial kings, and as I left the door a great window opened far up at the top of the house and a flash of lightning streamed from it and killed a dog.
He's not gonna make it to Saudi ahead of the warrant because the Trump plane, a 757-200, doesn't have the legs for that. In that scenario he ends up being arrested on the tarmac somewhere in South-Eastern Europe, or else permanently stuck in Hungary:
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=KJFK-ULLI,+KJFK-OERK&R=3915nm%40KJFK&DU=mi&EV=389&EU=kts&E=60
I can't find any mention of whether it's an ETOPS jet. The map is drawn for the case where it's not and has to be no more than 60 minutes from an alternate airfield overwater. With careful ETOPS planning and good weather he might be able to make St Petersburg direct though.
I know, dammit - he's going to tell his own aircrew to TAKE ME TO CUBA!
Him being in exile seems a perfectly fine outcome for everyone involved.
I don't think Uncle Sam is ok with a hypothetically convicted Trump out on the lam. Azerbaijan, in particular, is one of those "crappy little countries" that the United States throws against the wall from time to time. (I say this from the perspective of someone who has walked a few feet across the unguarded, and indeed unmarked, border of Azerbaijan. Definitely makes me an expert.) Pretty much anywhere he might go apart from Russia is going to hand him over toot-sweet if the US wants him. And I think the US will want him.
They could strip the plane down, take out all the seats but one, and fill the passenger compartment with jerrycans of key fuel.
Most hilarious outcome would be Trump fleeing to Iran: "I told you I didn't want to bomb them. Milley did. I have the documents in the bathroom of my safe house."
I can't believe no one has suggested North Korea yet.
What I'd find really amusing would be him getting stranded somewhere completely random by screwing up the escape plan. Stuck in Belgium or something.
114: Someone still believes in romance!
116: dammit, he might get stuck in GREENLAND, it's even on the way to Russia. Somewhere like here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narsarsuaq_Airport
What are they going to do, vote for a Democrat?
Staying home is free.
The thing that '18 and '22 showed is that, without Trump on the ballot, D enthusiasm far outstrips R (at the moment). So these marginal Trump voters aren't massively committed in general, they just like voting for him. And I think the shine comes off the apple for a few of them. Again, I'm not talking about winning Ohio, just about shifting the battlegrounds from Trump/Biden states to Trump/Trump states.
Also, a large chunk of Rs actually do believe he lost. Many of them probably won't find his campaign message ("I won") very compelling. He's not going to talk about anything else.
Does North Korea or Azerbaijan have a McDonald's?
119 last "They stole it from you" rings with a whole lot of people. "Just like they are stealing America (and giving it to the shithole people)."
The constituency for tax cuts is dwarfed by the constituency for hate-the-libs-and-all-their-works. What Trump can't repeat in 2024, though, is the other side of the horseshoe that got him just over the hump in 2016. He'd have been smart to triangulate out McConnell just enough for plausible deniability from the misfit Left,* but he's (a) not smart and (b) not committed enough to actually winning, rather than being a living God to his cultists.
* His 2016 campaign was full of this stuff re infrastructure and health care, and even some of the military stuff, but he doesn't have either discipline or convictions about this.
What I'd find really amusing would be him getting stranded somewhere completely random by screwing up the escape plan.
Maybe take a southern route, refuel on St. Helena.
important to remember here that Trump's legal team is extremely bad
You know what they say, you get the legal representation you notoriously refuse to pay for.
It's the margins that matter, not the base. It's horrifying that Trump's floor is in the 40s and not in the 10s or 20s, but the indicted felon/wounded narcissist act just absolutely does not play with any kind of swing constituency. His only paths are (a) the economy craters, (b) a significant third-party candidate or (c) Biden dies.
I've always suspected that my rural cousins vote Trump, but I was surprised to learn that my (very well off) ones in the nice subdivisions do to. I think 125 is probably right. I pray for Biden's health daily.
Vote Republican, nor for Trump. I think they would vote for Trump against a different Democrat.
There's an opinion poll showing a near-majority think Trump should suspend his campaign. The idea that Trump would do that is as unrealistic as many things Trump supporters believe. Being a candidate is a core part of his defense.
Yeah, if Biden dies and the candidate is a black female former prosecutor from California, I think that alters the odds somewhat.
I don't think picking a white guy does it either. Biden is a white guy who served under Obama. He's not easily replaced.
No one can really emerge as a credible post-Biden candidate while he's still alive, so if he dies it's going to have to be a quick unity process, always a challenge on the D side. So it probably does end up being Harris.
I think even in 2020, there wasn't anyone running on the Democratic side who could have beat Trump if they had beat Biden.
132: Yeah, I was under the mistaken belief that a number of Dems could have won, but, alas, no. I never believed that he would be significantly harmed by COVID (as with wars and natural disasters, leaders were almost universally helped by COVID), but I thought it might knock him down a point or two. Of course the free money didn''t hurt him with voters.
Anyway, if we really do avoid recession, then election day will see us 18 months past significant inflation and 3+ years into full employment. I have to believe that this will benefit the incumbent.
I do believe there are Dems now who could beat Trump--eg Whitmer*, maybe the MN gov--but there'd be no way to get them on the ballot cleanly.
*seriously, what she's done in MI can't be overstated. Just diametrically opposite from Ohio's trajectory, and it's hard not to credit her.
132, 133 -- I don't know what would have happened if Buttigieg had really caught fire in the first contests. And had spent a cumulative time in the summer and fall of 2019 amounting to two months at least at Dem county dinners/picnics all over the South listening to and learning from the most reliable voters in the coalition.
A smaller field might really have made a difference for him.
122: Maybe he can acquire a bunch of convictions over the course of 2023-24.d
123: Mind the arsenic in the wallpaper.
Protective order! Trump has been told he can't talk to witnesses, and I assume there's something about threatening tweets too. Will he get hit with contempt of court before the trial?
On Friday, DOJ moved for a protective order to cover stuff produced in discovery, and asked that it be immediately entered. Saturday morning, Judge Chutkan order Trump to respond by COB Monday, giving a redline of whatever he objects to. Later Saturday, Trump filed a motion asking for an extension til Thursday, so they can think deeply. Later than that on Saturday, DOJ filed its reply: we're ready to hit 'send' on some discovery, and will do it if you enter the order. If it needs to be changed later, we can do that.
No order yet, but this'll get resolved shortly. And will show whether whining about a few days here and a few days there is going to work.
A trial date will be set on Aug 28, both sides having presented their proposals in advance.
He was totally threatening someone else.
Any chance this protection stuff could basically silence him through the campaign? Or at least limit him to robo-reading off the pre-lawyered teleprompter?
Trump: Makes mafioso-worthy veiled threat against witnesses.
DOJ: Hey judge WTF?
Trump team: No, he totally meant his primary opponents not any specific witness!
Trump: Specifically threatens a key witness (Pence).
I imagine we'll go through this cycle a few dozen times this year.
139 How could Trump's lawyers possibly meet that deadline when they've got to go on all the Sunday talk shows.
Or attacking her specifically. Not threatening per se.
He's saying she won't give him a fair trial. That's why I corrected with 147.
He's right, but only because to Trump the only fair trial is one he wins.
The one where the jury instructions tell jurors that it doesn't matter whether Trump could find whackos to tell him he'd won -- definitely 'no fair.'
Another little scheduling thing.
On the protective order, Trump's team filed a red-line, as ordered, on Monday, and then the government filed a response saying that Trump wants to try the case in the media. The judge ordered the parties to tell her by 3 pm today when this week both sides are available for a hearing on this. The government's response is 'any day.' Trump's is 'well, one lawyer could make Thursday, but the other is in Florida on the other case that day, so how about next week.'
The one who can't make it hasn't actually appeared -- his phv is pending -- but on this one, I'd guess that she'll go with Monday morning. We should see an order shortly, and I wouldn't be shocked if she said 'the one lawyer is enough, lets do Thursday.'
I'm amazed I remembered what "phv" means in this case.
One of Trump's recent filings included some whining about how the judge wasn't giving him the full 14 days usually allowed to respond to motions. To no apparent effect.
These things are not particularly important in and of themselves, but if anyone on the Trump teams was dreaming about ways they might string this out, they're on notice that they'll have to work pretty hard at that.
Is this in fact significantly faster than pretrial motions usually go?
I don't know. My guess is that in most cases, the government makes a motion, and the defendant responds when it's due. So maybe yes.
Maybe Trump could just respond with a poop emoji. That'll stick it to the libs.
And the judge ordered Friday at 10:00 a.m.! A good sign. The lawyers had said they weren't available Friday but had not given any reason whatsoever.
Four-day work weeks are the future.