Could you elaborate? Actually, I don't think I wanna know...would be too awkward if you were @Trader_Jorge or @Commodore
I agree with Rapaport’s message in that tweet, but that man was spitting with every word that started with p gonna have somebody looking like if he talked in their face
I suspect Democrats like this from a 2024 race perspective. I think they want Trump to secure the Republican nomination because they think he will be easier to defeat then a less polarizing/more refined candidate. Trump will pull the far righters but struggle with the middling folks, while a different candidate is likely to secure the far right voters, who are super motivated voters and will vote anyway, and secure more middling voters if they can present as more stately and less inflammatory. I think the indictment help Trumps near term prospects and his desire to secure the GOP nomination.
Speaking for myself, I would say no and maybe. Trump might be easier to defeat, but I'm not willing to take that gamble. An indictment would probably help Trump "rebound" by reactivating the anger of the GOP base. However, if that's the case, he was always going to win the nomination.
I believe that Democrats want the rule of law followed. If that helps Trump win the nomination, oh well. If it helps Trump get defeated in the primaries, oh well. I don't see that it helps Trump in the general election at all.
Eric wants daddy's love so bad he"s defending his sorry excuse of a dad who was screwing around on his 3rd wife while she was pregnant with his 5th child. That Trump family is so screwed up.
When you believe and cherish the words of a pathological liar you have been brainwashed, or are probably in a cult. When everyone who calls out your criminal activity or investigates your criminal activity is called the enemy, or accused of a "witch hunt" by the criminal, and you believe them, you have been brainwashed, or are probably in a cult. If you call a man "God's chosen one" who commits adultery repetitively, lies repetitively, makes fun of people repetitively, and cons and steals from people repetitively then you are probably in a cult. If you know a guy is a pathological liar, know he can't be trusted, but support him because you want to shove gays back into their closets, let the poor fend for themselves, turn a blind eye to the uninsured, shove equality where the sun doesn't shine, strip women of their rights, or get rid of separation of church and state, then you might not be in a cult, but you sure as heck aren't voting for a better America. It's often greed or hate that separates good from evil, or right from wrong. In politics it often separates left from right.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-...daniels-bdb5942c?mod=hp_trending_now_opn_pos4 Trump Indictment Is a Perversion of Campaign-Finance Law If a candidate has to pay for his own clothes, surely hush money is likewise a personal expense. By Bradley A. Smith March 31, 2023 at 6:13 pm ET In choosing to convene a grand jury to pursue the Donald Trump-Stormy Daniels affair, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg faced two big problems—one political, one legal. The indictment of Mr. Trump will address the first, likely at the expense of the second. To recap how we got here: Ms. Daniels, a pornographic film performer, alleges she had a fling with Mr. Trump in 2006, nearly a decade before he entered the Republican primary for president. Once Mr. Trump became a candidate, Ms. Daniels began demanding money in exchange for her silence. Mr. Trump obliged, and his company, the Trump Organization, sent $130,000 to Ms. Daniels through Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer, Michael Cohen. The expense was apparently recorded on the company books as “legal fees,” which the indictment is expected to allege was a falsification of business records. Mr. Bragg’s political problem is that this charge is chump change, merely a misdemeanor under New York law. To ratchet it up to a felony indictment, the district attorney has to show, among other things, that the falsification was designed to conceal another crime. That crime is believed to be a campaign-finance violation—an illegal corporate contribution by the Trump Organization to the Trump presidential campaign—which the false business reporting was meant to conceal. Here’s where Mr. Bragg’s legal problem comes in: Was the hush money a campaign contribution? The governing statute, the Federal Election Campaign Act, provides that a contribution is any donation made “for the purpose of influencing any campaign for federal office.” The Trump Organization, says Mr. Bragg, paid Ms. Daniels to prevent revelations that would have hurt Mr. Trump’s presidential campaign. Thus the payments were “for the purpose of influencing” a federal election—and, since corporate contributions to a campaign for federal office are illegal, the case is closed. Not so fast. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that because campaign-finance laws infringe on core First Amendment activity, they can’t be dependent on vague, subjective interpretations. Accordingly, the clause “for the purpose of influencing any federal election” is an objective standard. As another section of the statute states, an obligation isn’t a campaign expenditure if it exists “irrespective” of the campaign. In other words, campaign funds pay for campaigning—the campaign manager’s salary, ads, campaign travel, venues for rallies, polling and so on. They don’t pay for personal expenses not created by the act of campaigning, even if the candidate intends for them to benefit the campaign. The statute’s objective nature is demonstrated by a noninclusive list of things that campaign funds may not be spent on no matter how much they might benefit—or be intended to benefit—a campaign. For example, if a candidate wants to look good in a debate and purchases a $4,000 suit he would never have bought if he weren’t running for office—that is to say, he buys it with the subjective intent to influence an election—it still can’t be purchased with campaign funds, because he would have to buy clothing anyway. A country-club membership can’t be purchased with campaign funds, no matter how much the candidate intends for it to benefit his campaign by giving him a place to schmooze donors. Candidates with substantial business interests, such as Mr. Trump, will frequently find themselves facing lawsuits—some merited, some not. If such a candidate were to instruct his company’s legal counsel to settle them, the settlement payments would, subjectively, be made “to influence an election.” Legally, however, such payments couldn’t be made with campaign funds and would have to be made by the company or the candidate personally, because the underlying obligation wasn’t created by the act of campaigning. These restrictions on converting campaign funds to “personal use” may be the one meritorious part of our complex, often destructive system of campaign-finance regulation. They define the difference between bribes—donations for the candidate’s personal benefit—and campaign contributions. Who really thinks that a candidate can—let alone must—use campaign funds to pay hush money for past affairs, and who knows what else? But that’s what Mr. Bragg’s theory would require. In other words, the “crime” that Mr. Bragg claims is being covered up isn’t a crime at all. Worse still, one is left with the distinct impression that if Mr. Trump had used campaign funds to pay Ms. Daniels, Mr. Bragg would be alleging that the underlying crime the business records were intended to cover up was the illegal conversion of campaign funds to personal use. This is a classic Catch-22 that undermines the rule of law. Mr. Trump has a remarkable ability to make both his ardent supporters and his ardent critics abandon long-held principles for short-term satisfaction. If Mr. Bragg is somehow able to make these charges stick, it will betray fundamental tenets of campaign-finance law and those who believe in the rule of law. Mr. Smith is chairman of the Institute for Free Speech and a law professor at Capital University in Columbus, Ohio. He served as chairman of the Federal Election Commission in 2004.
note to OT, the indictment has not been made public yet. no one outside of the DA office has read the indictment. this is an eg of willing ignorance, prejudging a court decision without reading about the evidence. you can lump Smith/Kevin McCarthy/DeSantis/Lindsay Graham and the likse as premature "ejockulators"
The funny thing is, 10-15 years ago, a candidate having an extramarital affair, let alone multiple, while being accused by countless others of sexual assault, was enough to doom a political career. Hell, 10-15 years ago, an awkward soundbyte could end a political career. Now these things, and legitimate crimes are what you need to rally the political base. What is this world coming to?
