I dunno. “What can I do to reduce the heat?” is just… weird. It almost seems like an offer to cooperate (not that I would ever take such a remark from Trump at face value). Wouldn’t “What can you do to reduce the heat?” make more sense, and be more threatening?
I always knew Linux was a sudo OS.
Yeah, I don’t really see it as a threat. Just stupid and poorly worded. So it did come from Trump.
I think it’s the opener in a negotiation.
“I could do that… but what could you do for me to make that happen?”
Kinda like
“I would like you to do us a favor though…”
as a point of reference.
Huh. Yeah, I suppose so.
That’s how I read it - Trump attempting to sound reasonable (I assume someone is forcing him).
I would if Garland came back with “A confession and guilty plea would working wonders!”?
Problem is, when you negotiate with Trump there’s only one possible outcome (from his POV): he gets everything, you get nothing. I trust Garland not to fall into that trap.
Not to derail too much, but technically “sudo” is short for “super user do”, as in “I am doing this as a super user so just do it you stupid computer and don’t sass me”. So I believe the official pronunciation is “soo-doo”.
But I pronounce it just like “pseudo”, as I expect most people do, and I appreciate your jab, well done. 
Trump is going to make Garland an offer he can’t refuse??
Yes, I should have called it “the opener in an offer of negotiations.”
Garland doesn’t have to negotiate anything if he’s got the goods.
This, exactly.
Like Mark Twain’s immortal, It is wonderful to observe the calm confidence of a Christian with four aces.
Heh.
I should note, though, that I think Donald Trump thinks he’s the one holding an ace in the hole.
Ever since his entry into the 2016 presidential race, Trump has talked about how he has support of the violence-prone element of society - whether the police, “Bikers for Trump”, the Proud Boys, whoever - and he expects his followers to do his bidding if he calls for violence.
Hence January 6.
But I don’t think he wants to try to actually use this in the way that he did on the 6th - too much risk and faces the possibility of a backlash. So he’d rather allude to the possibility of political violence than come out and threaten it, in hopes of intimidating people with poor resolve or wanting to avoid such an outcome.
I don’t think he’s taken the measure of Merrick Garland if he thinks that will work.
More like, Trump is going to make Garland an offer he can’t understand.
The newest one: It’s all Mark Meadows’s fault.
I think Giuliani is next under the bus.
From Yahoo! news.
So, Tan the Conman “warns” that “terrible things will happen” if people do not calm down. He then immediately riles them up by attacking the Department of Justice and a Florida judge.
How is this not incitement to violence? Why hasn’t be been arrested for it; at long last, why hasn’t be been arrested for it?
See Hess v. Indiana. The incitement has to be “more than advocacy of illegal action at some indefinite future time”. That’s why January 6 was such a big deal; Trump had a mob in front of him, many of whom he knew were armed, said they had to go to this specific place to make war against specific targets, and gave them a timetable.
What you’re asking about in this most recent case is far too ambiguous to be considered incitement to violence from a legal perspective. It is protected by the First Amendment.
(IANAL but the precedent seems pretty clear to me.)
This ties in with a less-than-half-baked (since I have no idea what’s going on behind the scenes) theory I have to explain CFSGs’ floundering during the last ten days or so: that the lack of bluster and obvious partisanship at DOJ has led him to believe that Garland is “weak” and afraid to confront His Orangeness. Thus the search warrant caught him completely off guard and gobsmacked; in addition, if he knows anything at all about the documents, he must know that Garland does indeed “have the goods” on him and he has few or no avenues out of the mess. Hence the thrashing about with pronouncements that range from the ridiculous (“The documents were planted [but I want them back]”) to the asinine (“Everything I took out of the Oval Office was automatically declassified [including documents that shouldn’t have been there in the first place]”).
I doubt it’s deliberate, but Garland seems to be pulling a pretty good rope-a-dope on Trump.