The Trump Investigation(s) Thread

[LawBeefaroni]

Gotta love how some rumors about Hillary's email server was enough to torpedo her "sure thing" election victory at this point in the election in 2016, but exposure of Trump's numerous crimes in trying to overthrow democracy won't budge the polls at all.

Polls aren't great predictors anymore.

Was it really a sure thing in 2016? Is Trump really not losing any support in 2024? The vote count is what matters, not the polls.

[El Guapo]

Gotta love how some rumors about Hillary's email server was enough to torpedo her "sure thing" election victory at this point in the election in 2016, but exposure of Trump's numerous crimes in trying to overthrow democracy won't budge the polls at all.

Polls aren't great predictors anymore.

Was it really a sure thing in 2016? Is Trump really not losing any support in 2024? The vote count is what matters, not the polls.

Polls are still useful predictors, it's just that people need to understand how they work better. Polls are inherently a projection based upon a sample size, so the odds that the election result is going to be precisely on the average is low. But generally the result will be within a fairly standard range of the average.

So to take 2016 as an example, around the time of the election Clinton was up by ~ 3% in polling averages. She "won" (the popular vote) by ~ 1% or so, within a normal polling error. But of course our wise Electoral College System then turned that win into a loss. And she really wasn't ever a "sure thing" - she was mainly treated as such by those who couldn't imagine that the electorate would consider voting for Trump, and by those who couldn't or wouldn't understand what the polling was saying.

[Unagi]

It's not just the sample 'size', it's the samples themselves that are also squewed.


It's not just "1000 Potential Voters" who were polled. It's 1000 Potential Voters who will, (for example), pick up their land-line and participate in a survey

[YellowKing]

Pollsters such as the Huffington Post were giving Hillary a 98% chance of winning. Nate Silver's estimates of a 70%-ish chance was among the lowest. So the public perception was very much that she had it in the bag. Of course after the fact we found out pollsters had vastly underestimated low education voters.

That's largely been corrected for these days, but we still see issues such as polls inaccurately predicting a red wave that never materialized in 2022.

I suspect this election cycle that polls are accurately portraying a Harris lead, but inaccurately portraying the size of it. I think turnout is going to make her lead much higher than it appears right now. Polls have an extremely hard time predicting turnout.

[Unagi]

But also, as said by El Guapo - - sometimes the misleading is on us. They will tell us that Harris is leading in national polls, but it's not a 'national' contest, so it's almost irrelevant. Clearly, that's not the same with polls that are specific to swing state polling or electoral college projections. But we can sometime put too much (i.e.: any) weight into polls that show Harris leading general polls.

[EvilHomer3k]

Pollsters such as the Huffington Post were giving Hillary a 98% chance of winning. Nate Silver's estimates of a 70%-ish chance was among the lowest. So the public perception was very much that she had it in the bag. Of course after the fact we found out pollsters had vastly underestimated low education voters.

That's largely been corrected for these days, but we still see issues such as polls inaccurately predicting a red wave that never materialized in 2022.

I suspect this election cycle that polls are accurately portraying a Harris lead, but inaccurately portraying the size of it. I think turnout is going to make her lead much higher than it appears right now. Polls have an extremely hard time predicting turnout.

I don't know that these polls have been corrected. Sure, they will poll you in other ways, text, cell phone, etc. but it still requires you to answer. It also doesn't really get the casual voter. Prior to checking my voter registration I got 0 requests to complete a poll. Soon after I checked I got them daily. I didn't fill any of them out. The most likely people to fill out a voter poll are the ones staunchly on the left or right. I think they still miss a vast majority of voters who are less extreme.

[Pyperkub]

Gotta love how some rumors about Hillary's email server was enough to torpedo her "sure thing" election victory at this point in the election in 2016, but exposure of Trump's numerous crimes in trying to overthrow democracy won't budge the polls at all.

Polls aren't great predictors anymore.

Was it really a sure thing in 2016? Is Trump really not losing any support in 2024? The vote count is what matters, not the polls.

Polls are still useful predictors, it's just that people need to understand how they work better. Polls are inherently a projection based upon a sample size, so the odds that the election result is going to be precisely on the average is low. But generally the result will be within a fairly standard range of the average.

So to take 2016 as an example, around the time of the election Clinton was up by ~ 3% in polling averages. She "won" (the popular vote) by ~ 1% or so, within a normal polling error. But of course our wise Electoral College System then turned that win into a loss. And she really wasn't ever a "sure thing" - she was mainly treated as such by those who couldn't imagine that the electorate would consider voting for Trump, and by those who couldn't or wouldn't understand what the polling was saying.

Sampling methods have also become highly questionable. Not only have we seen the migration away from landline phones, but also, I'd wager that a lot of people just hang up or don't even answer, and internet polls are inherently garbage.

There are also those polls which introduce bias via their questions and question orders. One also needs to look at who they think they are polling - is 'registered voter' method well defined in this day of voter purges? How are they defining and getting responses from "likely voter"?, etc.

Determining how to get a sample which will be an accurate cross section and good predictor and then actually getting responses from that sample is really, really tricky.

[El Guapo]

Gotta love how some rumors about Hillary's email server was enough to torpedo her "sure thing" election victory at this point in the election in 2016, but exposure of Trump's numerous crimes in trying to overthrow democracy won't budge the polls at all.

Polls aren't great predictors anymore.

Was it really a sure thing in 2016? Is Trump really not losing any support in 2024? The vote count is what matters, not the polls.

Polls are still useful predictors, it's just that people need to understand how they work better. Polls are inherently a projection based upon a sample size, so the odds that the election result is going to be precisely on the average is low. But generally the result will be within a fairly standard range of the average.

So to take 2016 as an example, around the time of the election Clinton was up by ~ 3% in polling averages. She "won" (the popular vote) by ~ 1% or so, within a normal polling error. But of course our wise Electoral College System then turned that win into a loss. And she really wasn't ever a "sure thing" - she was mainly treated as such by those who couldn't imagine that the electorate would consider voting for Trump, and by those who couldn't or wouldn't understand what the polling was saying.

Sampling methods have also become highly questionable. Not only have we seen the migration away from landline phones, but also, I'd wager that a lot of people just hang up or don't even answer, and internet polls are inherently garbage.

There are also those polls which introduce bias via their questions and question orders. One also needs to look at who they think they are polling - is 'registered voter' method well defined in this day of voter purges? How are they defining and getting responses from "likely voter"?, etc.

Determining how to get a sample which will be an accurate cross section and good predictor and then actually getting responses from that sample is really, really tricky.

Yeah, it's hard. And the good pollsters are constantly trying new ways to improve their accuracy and get a better sample size (a pollster posted semi-recently about how they were now dividing Wisconsin into I think 90 regions instead of I think 3 or 4 before). But people go too far when they go from "there are challenges" to "polls are useless as predictors". If polls were useless you'd regularly see things like a result of Trump +8 when the polling average was Clinton +3, or vice versa. But electoral results, especially for highly polled things like the presidential race, are regularly within a standard polling error range.

It is worth noting that Trump beat polling averages in both 2016 and 2020, of course. So it's possible that Trump voters are particularly hard to reach and that he may beat his polling again. Although pollsters are also learning (I know one has switched from treating someone saying "I'M VOTING FOR TRUMP FUCK YOU!" and then hanging up immediately as a Trump vote rather than "incomplete response), so possible that that effect may not happen this year or may be smaller.

[Pyperkub]

It's also worth noting that some polling indicated a non-existent red-wave in 2022.

The Red Wave Is Real—Here are Eight Polls That Prove It



538 says the 2022 polls were the most accurate ever.

Despite a loud chorus of naysayers claiming that the polls were either underestimating Democratic support or biased yet again against Republicans, the polls were more accurate in 2022 than in any cycle since at least 1998, with almost no bias toward either party.

Of course, some pollsters were more accurate than others.

But...

And, of course, there are other issues:

“Republican pollsters made a real effort to influence the polling averages by releasing lots and lots of polls that showed an overly rosy picture for Republicans," said Jensen. "And that really ended up being the majority of polls that were out in public in the closing stretch of the campaign."

Jensen said good poll numbers tend to energize base voters.

“It's also something that helps with fundraising,” said Jensen. “People like to be part of a winning team. So maybe if you put out polls with a positive picture, that will make people want to give you money.”

[El Guapo]

Yeah, there's also a big difference between polls (and their accuracy) and media coverage of the polls.

[LawBeefaroni]

But people go too far when they go from "there are challenges" to "polls are useless as predictors". If polls were useless you'd regularly see things like a result of Trump +8 when the polling average was Clinton +3, or vice versa. But electoral results, especially for highly polled things like the presidential race, are regularly within a standard polling error range.

I said they "aren't great predictors", not "useless." They indicate current sentiment among whoever is polled.

[El Guapo]

But people go too far when they go from "there are challenges" to "polls are useless as predictors". If polls were useless you'd regularly see things like a result of Trump +8 when the polling average was Clinton +3, or vice versa. But electoral results, especially for highly polled things like the presidential race, are regularly within a standard polling error range.

I said they "aren't great predictors", not "useless." They indicate current sentiment among whoever is polled.

Gotcha, although I would say that polls that aren't great predictors of election outcomes are pretty useless, since that's their whole purpose. I would say at least that polls are the best predictors that we have.

[LawBeefaroni]

But people go too far when they go from "there are challenges" to "polls are useless as predictors". If polls were useless you'd regularly see things like a result of Trump +8 when the polling average was Clinton +3, or vice versa. But electoral results, especially for highly polled things like the presidential race, are regularly within a standard polling error range.

I said they "aren't great predictors", not "useless." They indicate current sentiment among whoever is polled.

Gotcha, although I would say that polls that aren't great predictors of election outcomes are pretty useless, since that's their whole purpose. I would say at least that polls are the best predictors that we have.

I don't disagree but I would also say that a poll's usefulness isn't necessarily in its ability to predict election results. Their value can be in their ability to drive hundreds of millions (are we at $1B yet?) of dollars in ad spend and campaign resources to various media outlets and consultants.

[Isgrimnur]

More Trump sealed files released in Jack Smith Jan. 6 election case

A federal judge on Friday ordered the release of more than 1,800 pages of documents filed by special counsel Jack Smith in the criminal election interference case against former President Donald Trump.

The records were made public after U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan denied a request by Trump’s lawyers to keep them sealed until after the Nov. 5 presidential election.

Many of the individual files remain redacted, however.

Trump preemptively complained about the release of the records Friday morning, claiming it was “election interference” and calling Chutkan “evil.”
...
On Oct. 10, the judge allowed Smith to submit, with redactions, the reams of records backing up that filing. But that appendix was not initially made public on the case docket, in order to give Trump’s team time to consider its legal options.

The defense lawyers ultimately asked Chutkan to extend the pause on sharing that appendix until Nov. 14, nine days after the presidential election between Trump and Democratic nominee Kamala Harris.

As part of their request, the lawyers argued that releasing the records while early voting is underway in many states “creates a concerning appearance of election interference.”

Chutkan on Thursday rejected that argument, writing that it was actually Trump’s request for a delay that posed the bigger risk of impacting the election.

[LordMortis]

Maybe he should have let them be unsealed months before the election?

[Hyena]

At the risk of stating the obvious, this is more of an attempt for me to get my own thoughts on paper, so to speak. Consider this me trying to explain it to myself.

I think this has a double (possibly triple) effect. By giving the defense plenty of time to evaluate and look through them, it blocks any further attempts of the defense to delay/appeal the process any further. It also puts reminders back in the news cycle right before the election, but even that is the rump team's fault for delaying so long to begin with. And finally, it puts the rump team in their own heads and behind the 8-ball because now they have to scramble and spin anything that does come out. If they can't, they have GOT to know that they either aren't getting paid or they will be tossed under the bus by the petulant manchild. That one is a bit more of a stretch, but any little bit of extra pressure on them is a bonus as far as I'm concerend.

On a side note, I've just now really started paying attention to politics because for years I've just decided never to vote for the "lesser evil", and the first and only time I've ever voted was for Obama's first term because I thought he had the potential to enact real change. (I'm 50 for reference...) However, for this election I'm going to make a change and vote for Harris for multiple reasons. First, I want to be a part of history and vote in our first woman president. Secondly, I truly want to believe that their campaign of joy has shifted the landscape of politics in a way I've not seen in my life. Finally, I just really, REALLY hate the right's worship of the Ochre Ogre, and I want to be a part of his final defeat.

Please feel free to correct or adjust my perspective, I'm always willing to learn.

[Zarathud]

The only way to make change is to be change.

[Grifman]

If Trump loses the election, I bet within 6 months to a year he claims diminished intellectual capacity and is unable to assist in his defense.

[Hyena]

We can probably just shut this thread down...

[Grifman]

We can probably just shut this thread down...

My thread, was just coming to say the same thing

[Hyena]

We can probably just shut this thread down...

My thread, was just coming to say the same thing

Sorry if jumped the gun...just kinda in a haze right now.

[paulbaxter]

A short fiction:

Just because they rose to local MAGA prominence didn't mean they were smart. Key people in all the swing states execute plan 1A, noting only the execution date and not the words further down the page, "if we don't win." To be fair, Trump wrote that plan himself, so one or more of those words may have been misspelled. A full investigation is launched into possible voter fraud in every swing state. Fraud, surprisingly, is uncovered, and it was large enough to actually tip the electoral college to Harris.

[Grifman]

We can probably just shut this thread down...

My thread, was just coming to say the same thing

Sorry if jumped the gun...just kinda in a haze right now.

Oh, no, wasn’t implying that at all. Just saying I was thinking the same

[Holman]

Doesn't he have a sentencing coming up this month?

[Exodor]

Doesn't he have a sentencing coming up this month?

Yes he's due to be sentenced in his New York case the week of Thanksgiving. That's a state case so him winning the presidency doesn't impact it.

I suspect he'll get probation because I don't think New York wants to deal with incarcerating the POTUS.

[Pyperkub]

Thread locked.

[Alefroth]

Doesn't he have a sentencing coming up this month?

Can't he just completely ignore whatever the results of that are? Who would do anything about it?

[hepcat]

At this point, I'm pretty sure he can do whatever he wants. Not joking. He has (most likely) both the senate and the house, the supreme court and a DOJ he's beaten into submission. He will give himself a clean slate and there's nothing anyone can do about it.

Jared should be popping back up soon too. There's more money to be made in Saudi Arabia.

[Carpet_pissr]

At this point, I'm pretty sure he can do whatever he wants. Not joking. He has (most likely) both the senate and the house, the supreme court and a DOJ he's beaten into submission. He will give himself a clean slate and there's nothing anyone can do about it.

Jared should be popping back up soon too. There's more money to be made in Saudi Arabia.

If he wins the House, this is a useless thread, since the subpoena power would be in his grimy little hands.

[Blackhawk]

Doesn't he have a sentencing coming up this month?

Can't he just completely ignore whatever the results of that are? Who would do anything about it?

From what I've read, the chances are very high that the sentencing will be postponed until he's out of office.

[Alefroth]

Doesn't he have a sentencing coming up this month?

Can't he just completely ignore whatever the results of that are? Who would do anything about it?

From what I've read, the chances are very high that the sentencing will be postponed until he's out of office.

Wow, so basically dropping it.

[Alefroth]

Well, there it is-

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... inal-cases

Special counsel prosecutors will shut down their criminal cases against Donald Trump before he takes office, according to two people with direct knowledge of the matter, after his stunning victory against Kamala Harris meant they would not proceed to trial.

The move reflects the reality that the cases will not be completed before inauguration day. Once the former president returns to the White House, the special counsel’s office would be prohibited from pursuing further criminal actions under justice department policy.

[Holman]

Well, there it is-

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... inal-cases

Special counsel prosecutors will shut down their criminal cases against Donald Trump before he takes office, according to two people with direct knowledge of the matter, after his stunning victory against Kamala Harris meant they would not proceed to trial.

The move reflects the reality that the cases will not be completed before inauguration day. Once the former president returns to the White House, the special counsel’s office would be prohibited from pursuing further criminal actions under justice department policy.

There are two competing theories here:

1) Jack Smith and the DOJ are obeying an authoritarian in advance, hoping to (I guess) preserve something of their autonomy thereby. This is bad. Trump should be forced to shut them down himself and create a Constitutional crisis around a POTUS pardoning his own crimes.

on the other hand,

2) Smith and other prosecutors being shut down by POTUS Trump means the investigations end in silence. If they close down before the Inauguration, they can produce open reports that include evidence, theories, and recommendations for prosecution, even if those are never acted upon by a Trump DOJ.

I guess I'll wait for Popehat to explain and clarify it more fully.

[Alefroth]

2) Smith and other prosecutors being shut down by POTUS Trump means the investigations end in silence. If they close down before the Inauguration, they can produce open reports that include evidence, theories, and recommendations for prosecution, even if those are never acted upon by a Trump DOJ.

I thought we were well past that point in these investigations, since they are already being prosecuted.

[Blackhawk]

Trump's strategy, across the board, has been to delay. It was blatant, and it was a gamble. It paid off.

[Punisher]

Well, there it is-

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... inal-cases

Special counsel prosecutors will shut down their criminal cases against Donald Trump before he takes office, according to two people with direct knowledge of the matter, after his stunning victory against Kamala Harris meant they would not proceed to trial.

The move reflects the reality that the cases will not be completed before inauguration day. Once the former president returns to the White House, the special counsel’s office would be prohibited from pursuing further criminal actions under justice department policy.

There are two competing theories here:

1) Jack Smith and the DOJ are obeying an authoritarian in advance, hoping to (I guess) preserve something of their autonomy thereby. This is bad. Trump should be forced to shut them down himself and create a Constitutional crisis around a POTUS pardoning his own crimes.

on the other hand,

2) Smith and other prosecutors being shut down by POTUS Trump means the investigations end in silence. If they close down before the Inauguration, they can produce open reports that include evidence, theories, and recommendations for prosecution, even if those are never acted upon by a Trump DOJ.

I guess I'll wait for Popehat to explain and clarify it more fully.

I would assume that 1 is not even a remote possibility. Trump has been on the revenge ticket since day 1. No way he's going to let any of them keep their jobs.
If they're going down anyway they should go down in a blaze of glory.

[Alefroth]

I'm going to guess Trump won't even bother paying E. Jean Carroll and no one will do anything about it.

[hepcat]

I honestly think he’ll just ignore it all and claim he’s immune now. Abusing his power is SOP at this point.

[El Guapo]

Well, there it is-

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... inal-cases

Special counsel prosecutors will shut down their criminal cases against Donald Trump before he takes office, according to two people with direct knowledge of the matter, after his stunning victory against Kamala Harris meant they would not proceed to trial.

The move reflects the reality that the cases will not be completed before inauguration day. Once the former president returns to the White House, the special counsel’s office would be prohibited from pursuing further criminal actions under justice department policy.

There are two competing theories here:

1) Jack Smith and the DOJ are obeying an authoritarian in advance, hoping to (I guess) preserve something of their autonomy thereby. This is bad. Trump should be forced to shut them down himself and create a Constitutional crisis around a POTUS pardoning his own crimes.

on the other hand,

2) Smith and other prosecutors being shut down by POTUS Trump means the investigations end in silence. If they close down before the Inauguration, they can produce open reports that include evidence, theories, and recommendations for prosecution, even if those are never acted upon by a Trump DOJ.

I guess I'll wait for Popehat to explain and clarify it more fully.

I would assume that 1 is not even a remote possibility. Trump has been on the revenge ticket since day 1. No way he's going to let any of them keep their jobs.
If they're going down anyway they should go down in a blaze of glory.

It's infuriating. I think #1 as is (that they are intentionally currying favor with Trump) is almost certainly not the case. As for #2, *maybe*. But my best guess is that (like so many of the non-Trumpists in U.S. institutions these past few years) they just feel genuinely constrained by current policy and precedent to an aggravating degree.

[Unagi]

I'm probably wrong, but I assumed he was moth-balling it, so that it could be brought back out when the environment wouldn't just kill it dead.