Yeah that’s my point. Being available to be bought is probably his single most defining characteristic.
1 Like
Narcissism is his defining trait.
Everything else follows from that.
I’d say only.
Orange
Fat
Morally bankrupt
Childish
Vindictive
Lacking hubris
…
is 90% enough to answer? What about 75%? Where should I draw the line in order not to offend.
“Is hush money the same as a non-disclosure agreement?”
Maybe try and at least understand it a little bit before taking such a strong position?
Also important to remember the backstory to these current charges.
The cohen charges from the Feds included reference to “individual 1” who was part of the scheme and in whose interest the scheme was carried out. Everyone knew that was Trump, so there was confusion that it just kind of died thereafter.
Jeff Berman was the DA in charge of that case for the SDNY who was subject to a bizarre attempt by Barr to force him out of his position. Barr went public with the news that Berman had resigned and announced his replacement (neither is Barr’s place to do), only for Berman to respond publicly that it was not true. Upon eventually leaving his role he confirmed that the Cohen charges mentioned Trump by name as a coconspirator and that Barr’s office had interfered with his charging documents to scrub Trump from them and then inserted people into the SDNY to ensure that no follow up charges could be brought. That is why this is now happening in the Manhattan office (state) rather than the SDNY office who initially had the case and charged Cohen in it.
Yet again, if we are looking at evidence of political motivation over his criminal charges, it is evidenced in how much Trump has been protected, both by allies in the DOJ messing up cases (see massive FBI obstruction from Trump allies in the launching of the Jan6th investigation as well) and the care those not allied with him have taken to make sure their cases are water tight.
1 Like
The ? is called a question mark, look it up. You just being silly right now. The reason I asked is that some media outlets describe him as having a non disclosure agreement, yet others keep on mentioning hush money. I will leave it alone now as it seems you have an issues with me asking questions.
It’s an irrelevant question. He paid her off to keep quiet, an act typically referred to as “hush money”, and the mechanism to enforce that is with an NDA. They are one and the same thing. There is no issue with paying someone off, but doing so to prevent them spilling dirt about before an election is complicated and Trump tripped himself up by trying to break the rules and finding out he wasn’t as clever as he thought he was.
The crime being alleged is that he cooked his books to hide the payment. That is a crime in NYC, albeit only a misdemeanor, but still one they tend to take seriously and put effort into pursuing. If it was a one off then they probably wouldnt put resources into pursuing it, but these sorts of crimes rarely are, and when the fraud is conducted in furtherance of another crime it becomes a felony offence and pretty cut and dry.
In this instance, the related crime was a campaign finance violation. Cohen actually paid her out of his own money, which was an in kind campaign contribution (so subject to the same campaign finance laws as if Trump would have paid) that was both not declared (illegal) and massively over the legal limit for such contributions (illegal). Cohen went to jail for this and so the criminality is really not in question.
Trump’s present case is based on the claim that he reimbursed Cohen from the business and committed fraud in covering up that payment. As Cohen’s action, the thing the fraud was conducted to hide, was itself a crime, Trump committed a felony. Those who refer to it as a novel legal theory to suggest Bragg is pulling something out of his arse to charge him, are doing so only because the connecting crime has never before been a campaign finance violation touching a presidential campaign. But the basic structure of the case is very familiar to NY prosecutors and one they pursue all the time (because most cases of fraudulent book keeping are to help cover up other crimes)
2 Likes
Thanks. I remember reading an article a while back, maybe over 2 years, where it stated that Bragg (or maybe someone else) was not going to press charges, however they were later forced?encouraged? to continue with the prosecution.
I actually think this is it:
It’s a case, Bragg noted, that federal prosecutors chose not to pursue against Trump.
So once the federal chose not to pursue, he took it up. So not quite the same as what I remembered.
Bragg’s office did not pick up the Feds’ case. They were simultaneously running separate investigations - the Feds focused on the campaign finance issues and the State office in Manhattan into the financial fuckery of the Trump org. The Feds closing their case had no bearing on what the Manhattan office was pursuing.
As for Bragg’s actions, he inherited his office’s case from his predecessor and upon taking office had been reported to have redirected efforts away from Trump as an individual and solely onto the Trump Org as an entity. There were lots of criticisms over his seeming inaction and these were supported by
the high profile resignations of 2 of most senior prosecutors under protest. This is where the political aspect of the case comes in, it’s just the opposite of what you argue. He knew he had a good case, but was originally disinterested in pursuing it over his skepticism of anyone being able to get a jury conviction over him in any case. That he eventually moved is fascinating and we’re not sure what prompted it (Michael Cohen is suggesting that its simply an issue of additional evidence that makes the case a cannot lose), but anyone else would have been charged 18 months sooner and already been convicted. As always, the politicization where it exists is in treating Trump with kid gloves
2 Likes
You refreshed my memory, that’s what it was.
The PA primaries were held yesterday and despite both primaries being meaningless in terms of outcome, we do continue to see evidence of significant drop off in Trump’s support.
- More votes cast in the Dem primary than the GOP primary, by a margin bigger than Trump won the state by in 16 (indicating a “likely voter” advantage)
- The existence of a significant sustained protest vote on the GOP side - 17% for Haley, almost certainly representing a demo who wont vote for Trump in the general
- Even bigger Haley turn out in key Trump counties where he is going to need to run up the numbers to take the state.
3 Likes
The Haley numbers are interesting. Are these primary locations where a registered Democrat can vote for a Republican candidate?
PA is a closed primary and so only accessible to registered party members.
2 Likes
I think old Donny boy is in trouble.
Finally, enough people seem to be indicating that they’ve had enough of his shit.
If he makes it to November as a free man, I hope he receives a massively chastening defeat at the election, such that it at least causes the GOP to think about the direction it wants to take in future.
Reagan’s GOP was not my cup of tea, but it was a legitimate party, making its case, and winning over voters during its time accordingly.
Trump’s GOP needs to be banished to the history books and lessons must be learned. It is toxic and dangerous. There is a technical discussion to be had as to whether or not it qualifies as fascism, but at the least, it is authoritarian and leaning in the direction of fascism.
4 Likes
There goes his prospective VP pick then.
https://twitter.com/ProjectLincoln/status/1783956717891473559
1 Like
2 Likes
Ouch. They could have done a better job in that video, had no idea what they were on about. The abortion stance in South Dakota was also going to make her a troublesome pick. I originally thought she was going to be the pick, now I think it’s more likely to be Scott.