Trump is asked why he didn't jail Hillary Clinton:
— Citizen Free Press (@CitizenFreePres) April 26, 2024
"I thought it would be a terrible thing. There were opportunists but I didn't want to. They have to be careful because it comes back to bite. That would've been a horrible thing to do." pic.twitter.com/lDTadW8WtR
2024
210,139 Views |
4702 Replies |
Last: 4 hrs ago by Redbrickbear
Trump lawyer argues for presidential immunity.
— Citizen Free Press (@CitizenFreePres) April 25, 2024
He brings up these three examples.
1. Bush lied to congress to induce war with Iraq.
2. Obama ordered drone strikes to kill U.S. citizens abroad.
3. Biden induced foreigners to enter the U.S. illegally.pic.twitter.com/aPN1uowOcX
yep. as I was saying a year ago......boognish_bear said:Trump's nearing a huge win in his strategy of delaying legal troubles past the election as the high court seems reluctant to fully resolve the question of presidential immunity, increasing the odds that the Jan 6 case does not conclude before November.https://t.co/8FtyAVvqED
— Axios (@axios) April 26, 2024
If they don't get him in NYC, they'll have nothing. And a worst-case outcome in the NYC trial will likely have little impact. I.E. if the trial has helped him so far (as it clearly has) how can a conviction torpedo him?
Here's the problem: they're going to get him in NYC. And then we will see how much his popularity takes a hit.whiterock said:yep. as I was saying a year ago......boognish_bear said:Trump's nearing a huge win in his strategy of delaying legal troubles past the election as the high court seems reluctant to fully resolve the question of presidential immunity, increasing the odds that the Jan 6 case does not conclude before November.https://t.co/8FtyAVvqED
— Axios (@axios) April 26, 2024
If they don't get him in NYC, they'll have nothing. And a worst-case outcome in the NYC trial will likely have little impact. I.E. if the trial has helped him so far (as it clearly has) how can a conviction torpedo him?
Anyone keeping up with the trial thus far knows it's not going well for Trump.
It's also interesting that polls have shown him fading as of late. It makes one wonder whether the trial and being in the spotlight again is doing damage.
Mothra: "polls have shown him fading as of late."
Looks a lot like where we were in October 2023, if RCP is accurate.
Looks a lot like where we were in October 2023, if RCP is accurate.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
boognish_bear said:Trump lawyer argues for presidential immunity.
— Citizen Free Press (@CitizenFreePres) April 25, 2024
He brings up these three examples.
1. Bush lied to congress to induce war with Iraq.
2. Obama ordered drone strikes to kill U.S. citizens abroad.
3. Biden induced foreigners to enter the U.S. illegally.pic.twitter.com/aPN1uowOcX
Man lol...you just know those comparisons had some DC folks in the audience internally squirming
On what basis? Certainly not the evidence.Mothra said:Here's the problem: they're going to get him in NYC. And then we will see how much his popularity takes a hit.whiterock said:yep. as I was saying a year ago......boognish_bear said:Trump's nearing a huge win in his strategy of delaying legal troubles past the election as the high court seems reluctant to fully resolve the question of presidential immunity, increasing the odds that the Jan 6 case does not conclude before November.https://t.co/8FtyAVvqED
— Axios (@axios) April 26, 2024
If they don't get him in NYC, they'll have nothing. And a worst-case outcome in the NYC trial will likely have little impact. I.E. if the trial has helped him so far (as it clearly has) how can a conviction torpedo him?
Anyone keeping up with the trial thus far knows it's not going well for Trump.
It's also interesting that polls have shown him fading as of late. It makes one wonder whether the trial and being in the spotlight again is doing damage.
The DA's goal is to paint a picture of a conspiracy to illegally influence the election involving Trump, and the salacious testimony of Pecker repeatedly covering up Trump stories, as well as the decision to stop paying the individuals to be quiet immediately after the election, certainly does suggest that this was done for purposed of influencing the election.Malbec said:On what basis? Certainly not the evidence.Mothra said:Here's the problem: they're going to get him in NYC. And then we will see how much his popularity takes a hit.whiterock said:yep. as I was saying a year ago......boognish_bear said:Trump's nearing a huge win in his strategy of delaying legal troubles past the election as the high court seems reluctant to fully resolve the question of presidential immunity, increasing the odds that the Jan 6 case does not conclude before November.https://t.co/8FtyAVvqED
— Axios (@axios) April 26, 2024
If they don't get him in NYC, they'll have nothing. And a worst-case outcome in the NYC trial will likely have little impact. I.E. if the trial has helped him so far (as it clearly has) how can a conviction torpedo him?
Anyone keeping up with the trial thus far knows it's not going well for Trump.
It's also interesting that polls have shown him fading as of late. It makes one wonder whether the trial and being in the spotlight again is doing damage.
It's the timing that is bad. The decision to stop paying these people as soon as the election ended was a huge mistake if you're a Trump protector. That is very bad for Trump.
may be a little bit in some of the national poll, but still solid in the swingsMothra said:Here's the problem: they're going to get him in NYC. And then we will see how much his popularity takes a hit.whiterock said:yep. as I was saying a year ago......boognish_bear said:Trump's nearing a huge win in his strategy of delaying legal troubles past the election as the high court seems reluctant to fully resolve the question of presidential immunity, increasing the odds that the Jan 6 case does not conclude before November.https://t.co/8FtyAVvqED
— Axios (@axios) April 26, 2024
If they don't get him in NYC, they'll have nothing. And a worst-case outcome in the NYC trial will likely have little impact. I.E. if the trial has helped him so far (as it clearly has) how can a conviction torpedo him?
Anyone keeping up with the trial thus far knows it's not going well for Trump.
It's also interesting that polls have shown him fading as of late. It makes one wonder whether the trial and being in the spotlight again is doing damage.
“Mix a little foolishness with your serious plans. It is lovely to be silly at the right moment.”
–Horace
“Insomnia sharpens your math skills because you spend all night calculating how much sleep you’ll get if you’re able to ‘fall asleep right now.’ “
–Horace
“Insomnia sharpens your math skills because you spend all night calculating how much sleep you’ll get if you’re able to ‘fall asleep right now.’ “
Paying a person under an NDA is not an illegal act. Pecker even admitted doing the same for Rahm Emanuel and many others. Placing signs and running ads are intentional acts to influence an election, however like signing an NDA, they are not illegal. Add to that, the state's star witness testified that he used the "catch and kill" approach of his own volition and not under orders by Trump. This is a case that no reasonable prosecutor would have brought, and that is being underscored by the testimony. It's all utter nonsense.Mothra said:The DA's goal is to paint a picture of a conspiracy to illegally influence the election involving Trump, and the salacious testimony of Pecker repeatedly covering up Trump stories, as well as the decision to stop paying the individuals to be quiet immediately after the election, certainly does suggest that this was done for purposed of influencing the election.Malbec said:On what basis? Certainly not the evidence.Mothra said:Here's the problem: they're going to get him in NYC. And then we will see how much his popularity takes a hit.whiterock said:yep. as I was saying a year ago......boognish_bear said:Trump's nearing a huge win in his strategy of delaying legal troubles past the election as the high court seems reluctant to fully resolve the question of presidential immunity, increasing the odds that the Jan 6 case does not conclude before November.https://t.co/8FtyAVvqED
— Axios (@axios) April 26, 2024
If they don't get him in NYC, they'll have nothing. And a worst-case outcome in the NYC trial will likely have little impact. I.E. if the trial has helped him so far (as it clearly has) how can a conviction torpedo him?
Anyone keeping up with the trial thus far knows it's not going well for Trump.
It's also interesting that polls have shown him fading as of late. It makes one wonder whether the trial and being in the spotlight again is doing damage.
It's the timing that is bad. The decision to stop paying these people as soon as the election ended was a huge mistake if you're a Trump protector. That is very bad for Trump.
We don't disagree that payment under an NDA isn't illegal. But that's not what they're going after him for. Their charges are much more nuanced. They claim he falsified business records in an attempt to interfere with the election. So the NY crime is premised on a federal crime being committed.Malbec said:Paying a person under an NDA is not an illegal act. Pecker even admitted doing the same for Rahm Emanuel and many others. Placing signs and running ads are intentional acts to influence an election, however like signing an NDA, they are not illegal. Add to that, the state's star witness testified that he used the "catch and kill" approach of his own volition and not under orders by Trump. This is a case that no reasonable prosecutor would have brought, and that is being underscored by the testimony. It's all utter nonsense.Mothra said:The DA's goal is to paint a picture of a conspiracy to illegally influence the election involving Trump, and the salacious testimony of Pecker repeatedly covering up Trump stories, as well as the decision to stop paying the individuals to be quiet immediately after the election, certainly does suggest that this was done for purposed of influencing the election.Malbec said:On what basis? Certainly not the evidence.Mothra said:Here's the problem: they're going to get him in NYC. And then we will see how much his popularity takes a hit.whiterock said:yep. as I was saying a year ago......boognish_bear said:Trump's nearing a huge win in his strategy of delaying legal troubles past the election as the high court seems reluctant to fully resolve the question of presidential immunity, increasing the odds that the Jan 6 case does not conclude before November.https://t.co/8FtyAVvqED
— Axios (@axios) April 26, 2024
If they don't get him in NYC, they'll have nothing. And a worst-case outcome in the NYC trial will likely have little impact. I.E. if the trial has helped him so far (as it clearly has) how can a conviction torpedo him?
Anyone keeping up with the trial thus far knows it's not going well for Trump.
It's also interesting that polls have shown him fading as of late. It makes one wonder whether the trial and being in the spotlight again is doing damage.
It's the timing that is bad. The decision to stop paying these people as soon as the election ended was a huge mistake if you're a Trump protector. That is very bad for Trump.
We don't disagree that this is a political prosecution, and that it's on flimsy legal footing. But because the NY judge didn't dismiss it and allowed it to go forward, quite frankly it won't be difficult to prove he falsified business records. He undoubtedly did. The question is, did he also commit election interference? And the way to try and prove that is prove he paid the hush money only to shield such info from the American people prior to the election. And as I said above, given the timing of the NDA, that likewise may not be difficult to prove to a jury.
The legal questions are the real issue, but because the judge has apparently decided those in NY's favor, I suspect a conviction is highly likely. Now, I suspect it will be in real danger of being overturned on appeal, especially if Trump can appeal it to a federal court, but the damage will have been done, if any.
"They claim he falsified business records in an attempt to interfere with the election."
Sure, on actions taken after he won the election and took office.
"So the NY crime is premised on a federal crime being committed."
With less credibility that a MacGyver DIY airplane made out of twine and glue. To get this thing into court the DA had to get the statute of limitations waived, make up a story to conflate a misdemeanor into a felony, repeat the same accusation 34 times to make it seem like a series of actions, find a judge willing to ignore all previous testimony from the involved parties, including a defendant still trying to avoid her own judgment and a lawyer who admitted perjury for his "star" witness.
Sure, on actions taken after he won the election and took office.
"So the NY crime is premised on a federal crime being committed."
With less credibility that a MacGyver DIY airplane made out of twine and glue. To get this thing into court the DA had to get the statute of limitations waived, make up a story to conflate a misdemeanor into a felony, repeat the same accusation 34 times to make it seem like a series of actions, find a judge willing to ignore all previous testimony from the involved parties, including a defendant still trying to avoid her own judgment and a lawyer who admitted perjury for his "star" witness.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
It will depend on whether it can be appealed to a Federal Court. On the law of New York, there will be no procedural reason to overturn. Not liking that the DA brought charges and prosecuted will not get it overturned. The Prosecutor needs to make sure they do not make a procedural mistake. Many of these NY laws were intended to get Organized Crime much more slippery than Donald and Sons.Mothra said:We don't disagree that payment under an NDA isn't illegal. But that's not what they're going after him for. Their charges are much more nuanced. They claim he falsified business records in an attempt to interfere with the election. So the NY crime is premised on a federal crime being committed.Malbec said:Paying a person under an NDA is not an illegal act. Pecker even admitted doing the same for Rahm Emanuel and many others. Placing signs and running ads are intentional acts to influence an election, however like signing an NDA, they are not illegal. Add to that, the state's star witness testified that he used the "catch and kill" approach of his own volition and not under orders by Trump. This is a case that no reasonable prosecutor would have brought, and that is being underscored by the testimony. It's all utter nonsense.Mothra said:The DA's goal is to paint a picture of a conspiracy to illegally influence the election involving Trump, and the salacious testimony of Pecker repeatedly covering up Trump stories, as well as the decision to stop paying the individuals to be quiet immediately after the election, certainly does suggest that this was done for purposed of influencing the election.Malbec said:On what basis? Certainly not the evidence.Mothra said:Here's the problem: they're going to get him in NYC. And then we will see how much his popularity takes a hit.whiterock said:yep. as I was saying a year ago......boognish_bear said:Trump's nearing a huge win in his strategy of delaying legal troubles past the election as the high court seems reluctant to fully resolve the question of presidential immunity, increasing the odds that the Jan 6 case does not conclude before November.https://t.co/8FtyAVvqED
— Axios (@axios) April 26, 2024
If they don't get him in NYC, they'll have nothing. And a worst-case outcome in the NYC trial will likely have little impact. I.E. if the trial has helped him so far (as it clearly has) how can a conviction torpedo him?
Anyone keeping up with the trial thus far knows it's not going well for Trump.
It's also interesting that polls have shown him fading as of late. It makes one wonder whether the trial and being in the spotlight again is doing damage.
It's the timing that is bad. The decision to stop paying these people as soon as the election ended was a huge mistake if you're a Trump protector. That is very bad for Trump.
We don't disagree that this is a political prosecution, and that it's on flimsy legal footing. But because the NY judge didn't dismiss it and allowed it to go forward, quite frankly it won't be difficult to prove he falsified business records. He undoubtedly did. The question is, did he also commit election interference? And the way to try and prove that is prove he paid the hush money only to shield such info from the American people prior to the election. And as I said above, given the timing of the NDA, that likewise may not be difficult to prove to a jury.
The legal questions are the real issue, but because the judge has apparently decided those in NY's favor, I suspect a conviction is highly likely. Now, I suspect it will be in real danger of being overturned on appeal, especially if Trump can appeal it to a federal court, but the damage will have been done, if any.
The unadjudicated bookkeeping issue was a misdemeanor on which the statute of limitations had expired. It was resurrected as a felony when tied to an underlying felony, which doesn't exist. Not telling a secret is not election interference, neither is asking someone else not to tell a secret, nor is compensating them for such. Also, paying someone to disclose a secret is not election interference either. Election interference is not about convincing people how to vote, it's about the voting process itself. It's about preventing eligible voters from voting, altering the vote or allowing ineligible persons to vote, among other things.Mothra said:We don't disagree that payment under an NDA isn't illegal. But that's not what they're going after him for. Their charges are much more nuanced. They claim he falsified business records in an attempt to interfere with the election. So the NY crime is premised on a federal crime being committed.Malbec said:Paying a person under an NDA is not an illegal act. Pecker even admitted doing the same for Rahm Emanuel and many others. Placing signs and running ads are intentional acts to influence an election, however like signing an NDA, they are not illegal. Add to that, the state's star witness testified that he used the "catch and kill" approach of his own volition and not under orders by Trump. This is a case that no reasonable prosecutor would have brought, and that is being underscored by the testimony. It's all utter nonsense.Mothra said:The DA's goal is to paint a picture of a conspiracy to illegally influence the election involving Trump, and the salacious testimony of Pecker repeatedly covering up Trump stories, as well as the decision to stop paying the individuals to be quiet immediately after the election, certainly does suggest that this was done for purposed of influencing the election.Malbec said:On what basis? Certainly not the evidence.Mothra said:Here's the problem: they're going to get him in NYC. And then we will see how much his popularity takes a hit.whiterock said:yep. as I was saying a year ago......boognish_bear said:Trump's nearing a huge win in his strategy of delaying legal troubles past the election as the high court seems reluctant to fully resolve the question of presidential immunity, increasing the odds that the Jan 6 case does not conclude before November.https://t.co/8FtyAVvqED
— Axios (@axios) April 26, 2024
If they don't get him in NYC, they'll have nothing. And a worst-case outcome in the NYC trial will likely have little impact. I.E. if the trial has helped him so far (as it clearly has) how can a conviction torpedo him?
Anyone keeping up with the trial thus far knows it's not going well for Trump.
It's also interesting that polls have shown him fading as of late. It makes one wonder whether the trial and being in the spotlight again is doing damage.
It's the timing that is bad. The decision to stop paying these people as soon as the election ended was a huge mistake if you're a Trump protector. That is very bad for Trump.
We don't disagree that this is a political prosecution, and that it's on flimsy legal footing. But because the NY judge didn't dismiss it and allowed it to go forward, quite frankly it won't be difficult to prove he falsified business records. He undoubtedly did. The question is, did he also commit election interference? And the way to try and prove that is prove he paid the hush money only to shield such info from the American people prior to the election. And as I said above, given the timing of the NDA, that likewise may not be difficult to prove to a jury.
The legal questions are the real issue, but because the judge has apparently decided those in NY's favor, I suspect a conviction is highly likely. Now, I suspect it will be in real danger of being overturned on appeal, especially if Trump can appeal it to a federal court, but the damage will have been done, if any.
What Bragg is attempting to do is to tie the accounting entries to campaign finance law, but since campaign funds were not used for the transactions, he is done as far as the law is concerned. Now can you get a guilty jury verdict against a divisive, unlikeable defendant with no laws broken? Happens plenty. Bragg is simply trying to make something look sleazy, and then convince jurors that sleazy means illegal. It might work for those 12, but it will eventually be corrected.
Was nonsense in the beginning, its still nonsense.
Abuse of power and political prosecution
Abuse of power and political prosecution
“Mix a little foolishness with your serious plans. It is lovely to be silly at the right moment.”
–Horace
“Insomnia sharpens your math skills because you spend all night calculating how much sleep you’ll get if you’re able to ‘fall asleep right now.’ “
–Horace
“Insomnia sharpens your math skills because you spend all night calculating how much sleep you’ll get if you’re able to ‘fall asleep right now.’ “
Sigh..
“Mix a little foolishness with your serious plans. It is lovely to be silly at the right moment.”
–Horace
“Insomnia sharpens your math skills because you spend all night calculating how much sleep you’ll get if you’re able to ‘fall asleep right now.’ “
–Horace
“Insomnia sharpens your math skills because you spend all night calculating how much sleep you’ll get if you’re able to ‘fall asleep right now.’ “
The advantage of the Hulk is that he is willing to tear off his shirt and smash things.
The disadvantage of the Hulk is that you don't necessarily know when he is going to tear off his shirt and smash things, or if they're going to be the right things.
The disadvantage of the Hulk is that you don't necessarily know when he is going to tear off his shirt and smash things, or if they're going to be the right things.
A little poll snapshot.
At this time, the RCP average has Trump at 44.8% support to 44.5% for Biden. Trump ranges from 37% (Ipsos) to 49% (Rasmussen) support, while Biden ranges from 41% (Ipsos and Rasmussen) to 51% (Marist) support.
For comparison, at this time in 2016 Clinton led Trump 48.1% to 40.0%. Clinton ranged from 40% (Survey USA) support to 50% (ABC/Wapo) support, while Trump ranged from 35% (TIPP) support to 45% (survey USA and USA Today/Suffolk) support. At this time in 2020, Biden led Trump 47.8% to 42.4%. Biden ranged from 42% (FOX) support to 53% (CNN and Harvard-Harris) support, while Trump ranged from 39% (CNBC) support to 47% (ABC/Wapo and Harvard-Harris) support.
So in average terms, Trump's 44.8% is 4.8 points higher than he had this time in 2016, and 2.4 points higher than he had this time in 2020. Biden's 44.5% is 4.3 points lower than Clinton held this time in 2016, and 5.4 points lower than Biden held this time in 2020.
At this time, the RCP average has Trump at 44.8% support to 44.5% for Biden. Trump ranges from 37% (Ipsos) to 49% (Rasmussen) support, while Biden ranges from 41% (Ipsos and Rasmussen) to 51% (Marist) support.
For comparison, at this time in 2016 Clinton led Trump 48.1% to 40.0%. Clinton ranged from 40% (Survey USA) support to 50% (ABC/Wapo) support, while Trump ranged from 35% (TIPP) support to 45% (survey USA and USA Today/Suffolk) support. At this time in 2020, Biden led Trump 47.8% to 42.4%. Biden ranged from 42% (FOX) support to 53% (CNN and Harvard-Harris) support, while Trump ranged from 39% (CNBC) support to 47% (ABC/Wapo and Harvard-Harris) support.
So in average terms, Trump's 44.8% is 4.8 points higher than he had this time in 2016, and 2.4 points higher than he had this time in 2020. Biden's 44.5% is 4.3 points lower than Clinton held this time in 2016, and 5.4 points lower than Biden held this time in 2020.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Malbec said:The unadjudicated bookkeeping issue was a misdemeanor on which the statute of limitations had expired. It was resurrected as a felony when tied to an underlying felony, which doesn't exist. Not telling a secret is not election interference, neither is asking someone else not to tell a secret, nor is compensating them for such. Also, paying someone to disclose a secret is not election interference either. Election interference is not about convincing people how to vote, it's about the voting process itself. It's about preventing eligible voters from voting, altering the vote or allowing ineligible persons to vote, among other things.Mothra said:We don't disagree that payment under an NDA isn't illegal. But that's not what they're going after him for. Their charges are much more nuanced. They claim he falsified business records in an attempt to interfere with the election. So the NY crime is premised on a federal crime being committed.Malbec said:Paying a person under an NDA is not an illegal act. Pecker even admitted doing the same for Rahm Emanuel and many others. Placing signs and running ads are intentional acts to influence an election, however like signing an NDA, they are not illegal. Add to that, the state's star witness testified that he used the "catch and kill" approach of his own volition and not under orders by Trump. This is a case that no reasonable prosecutor would have brought, and that is being underscored by the testimony. It's all utter nonsense.Mothra said:The DA's goal is to paint a picture of a conspiracy to illegally influence the election involving Trump, and the salacious testimony of Pecker repeatedly covering up Trump stories, as well as the decision to stop paying the individuals to be quiet immediately after the election, certainly does suggest that this was done for purposed of influencing the election.Malbec said:On what basis? Certainly not the evidence.Mothra said:Here's the problem: they're going to get him in NYC. And then we will see how much his popularity takes a hit.whiterock said:yep. as I was saying a year ago......boognish_bear said:Trump's nearing a huge win in his strategy of delaying legal troubles past the election as the high court seems reluctant to fully resolve the question of presidential immunity, increasing the odds that the Jan 6 case does not conclude before November.https://t.co/8FtyAVvqED
— Axios (@axios) April 26, 2024
If they don't get him in NYC, they'll have nothing. And a worst-case outcome in the NYC trial will likely have little impact. I.E. if the trial has helped him so far (as it clearly has) how can a conviction torpedo him?
Anyone keeping up with the trial thus far knows it's not going well for Trump.
It's also interesting that polls have shown him fading as of late. It makes one wonder whether the trial and being in the spotlight again is doing damage.
It's the timing that is bad. The decision to stop paying these people as soon as the election ended was a huge mistake if you're a Trump protector. That is very bad for Trump.
We don't disagree that this is a political prosecution, and that it's on flimsy legal footing. But because the NY judge didn't dismiss it and allowed it to go forward, quite frankly it won't be difficult to prove he falsified business records. He undoubtedly did. The question is, did he also commit election interference? And the way to try and prove that is prove he paid the hush money only to shield such info from the American people prior to the election. And as I said above, given the timing of the NDA, that likewise may not be difficult to prove to a jury.
The legal questions are the real issue, but because the judge has apparently decided those in NY's favor, I suspect a conviction is highly likely. Now, I suspect it will be in real danger of being overturned on appeal, especially if Trump can appeal it to a federal court, but the damage will have been done, if any.
What Bragg is attempting to do is to tie the accounting entries to campaign finance law, but since campaign funds were not used for the transactions, he is done as far as the law is concerned. Now can you get a guilty jury verdict against a divisive, unlikeable defendant with no laws broken? Happens plenty. Bragg is simply trying to make something look sleazy, and then convince jurors that sleazy means illegal. It might work for those 12, but it will eventually be corrected.
Don't disagree. But Bragg has already essentially made the legal ruling that the case has merit when he denied the motions to dismiss - which is why as I said, I think he will get convicted and it will be up to a court of appeals to overturn.
At this point - whether the case has legal footing is irrelevant.
Mothra said:Here's the problem: they're going to get him in NYC. And then we will see how much his popularity takes a hit.whiterock said:yep. as I was saying a year ago......boognish_bear said:Trump's nearing a huge win in his strategy of delaying legal troubles past the election as the high court seems reluctant to fully resolve the question of presidential immunity, increasing the odds that the Jan 6 case does not conclude before November.https://t.co/8FtyAVvqED
— Axios (@axios) April 26, 2024
If they don't get him in NYC, they'll have nothing. And a worst-case outcome in the NYC trial will likely have little impact. I.E. if the trial has helped him so far (as it clearly has) how can a conviction torpedo him?
Anyone keeping up with the trial thus far knows it's not going well for Trump.
It's also interesting that polls have shown him fading as of late. It makes one wonder whether the trial and being in the spotlight again is doing damage.
I agree conviction seems likely in NYC. But how can a conviction hurt him, if the prospect of one has helped him? Not saying a conviction won't hurt him, just noting that there is a disconnect in the logic of the conventional wisdom that any conviction is fatal to his campaign. Yes, yes....the conviction question has been polled, but generically, not specific to any particular trial. Most use the words...."if convicted of a serious felony, would you/..." But that begs a question of what is serious and what is not. Trump has, thus far, done a very good job of portraying all of the prosecutions as political witch hunts, election interference, etc.....aided in no small part by the fact that they actually are. So he's already significantly abated the "serious" aspect.
I supsect that an NYC conviction will tighten the polls until other news recaptures the news cycle, then will fade away into relative obscurity and give way to broader trends, which are increasingly hostile to the incumbent..
you need to broaden your reading list on polling. He's at high-marks with several polls this week.
New CNN national poll: Trump over Biden 49-43 in 2-way race, 42-33 in 5-way race. 55% say Trump's presidency was a success, while 44% say it was a failure. 61% say Biden's presidency has been a failure, 39% a success. https://t.co/Vr8mVZ1xEY pic.twitter.com/32R8aOXnrJ
— Byron York (@ByronYork) April 28, 2024
I am not sure it hurts him in the election.
The upside is that Trump will have a lot of room to make improvements both Domestically and Internationally if he wins. Early success and strong messaging to our adversaries would go a long way in all this being a non-issue.
Nice thing about following Biden, there are opportunities. IF he does not get bogged down in the retribution tour. If he goes after gutting Civil Servants in DC and trying to set up loyalty oaths (which I have a hard time believing anyone would be that stupid to require. Sounds like propaganda, but it is out there) he will have a hard time.
The upside is that Trump will have a lot of room to make improvements both Domestically and Internationally if he wins. Early success and strong messaging to our adversaries would go a long way in all this being a non-issue.
Nice thing about following Biden, there are opportunities. IF he does not get bogged down in the retribution tour. If he goes after gutting Civil Servants in DC and trying to set up loyalty oaths (which I have a hard time believing anyone would be that stupid to require. Sounds like propaganda, but it is out there) he will have a hard time.
The USA is/has been becoming an administrative state. A state where unelected bureaucrats issue rules or regulations that are then treated like law. Rules and regulations that haven't been introduced as bills or debated on or voted on by our elected leaders.FLBear5630 said:
I am not sure it hurts him in the election.
The upside is that Trump will have a lot of room to make improvements both Domestically and Internationally if he wins. Early success and strong messaging to our adversaries would go a long way in all this being a non-issue.
Nice thing about following Biden, there are opportunities. IF he does not get bogged down in the retribution tour. If he goes after gutting Civil Servants in DC and trying to set up loyalty oaths (which I have a hard time believing anyone would be that stupid to require. Sounds like propaganda, but it is out there) he will have a hard time.
This needs to stop. The alphabet agencies should not have the power to regulate squat. Their sole role should be as an advisory. Then let our elected "leaders" take it up, introduce it as a bill, debate it, then vote on it.
Trump/DeSantis/Haley/WhoTheHellEver needs to root it out, dismantle it and send it on its way. There are way too many Washington bureaucrats, UNELECTED bureaucrats that have gained too much power over too many decades in DC.
If Trump decides (he really needs to) take on this administrative ideology, it will be labeled as the "Revenge Tour". Let's face it, gov't has grown too big for its britches, these Civil "Servants", many of them are only serving their own needs or the needs of who they can benefit from the most.
There are a lot of "rules, regulations and standards" that are necessary, if you want to have a safe, reliable and efficient Nation. Just in the transportation arena - FAA, NITSA, FRA, FTA, not even getting into Maritime.Whiskey Pete said:The USA is/has been becoming an administrative state. A state where unelected bureaucrats issue rules or regulations that are then treated like law. Rules and regulations that haven't been introduced as bills or debated on or voted on by our elected leaders.FLBear5630 said:
I am not sure it hurts him in the election.
The upside is that Trump will have a lot of room to make improvements both Domestically and Internationally if he wins. Early success and strong messaging to our adversaries would go a long way in all this being a non-issue.
Nice thing about following Biden, there are opportunities. IF he does not get bogged down in the retribution tour. If he goes after gutting Civil Servants in DC and trying to set up loyalty oaths (which I have a hard time believing anyone would be that stupid to require. Sounds like propaganda, but it is out there) he will have a hard time.
This needs to stop. The alphabet agencies should not have the power to regulate squat. Their sole role should be as an advisory. Then let our elected "leaders" take it up, introduce it as a bill, debate it, then vote on it.
Trump/DeSantis/Haley/WhoTheHellEver needs to root it out, dismantle it and send it on its way. There are way too many Washington bureaucrats, UNELECTED bureaucrats that have gained too much power over too many decades in DC.
If Trump decides (he really needs to) take on this administrative ideology, it will be labeled as the "Revenge Tour". Let's face it, gov't has grown too big for its britches, these Civil "Servants", many of them are only serving their own needs or the needs of who they can benefit from the most.
So, I have mixed feelings about what you say. You guys seem to think that everyone that works for the Government is a loser that is incompetent. Alot of what you take for granted is managed by those incompetents. We take drinking water, solid waste, airline travel, railroad shipping, maritime, pipelines, and non-sexy things you never think about asphalt conditions, bridge maintenance, hell even debris and trash pick-up along limited access roads. All those things don't just happen and many times the standard has to be MORE than just the cheapest way to do it. Those bureaucrats are the ones managing that. I only deal with Highway Patrol, but just start looking into the complexity of law enforcement and security.
I pray Trump doesn't start messing with that stuff because it would be more profitable to not require maintenance standards on planes and bridges...
Convicting Trump in any of these obviously bogus prosecutions probably won't hurt him much. They are making home more & more popular, even among Democrat voters and their traditional constituencies. The people see through the fraud and corruption. It's obvious.
The prosecutors & judges are clearly partisan hacks and it is they, not Trump, who deserve to be in jail.
The prosecutors & judges are clearly partisan hacks and it is they, not Trump, who deserve to be in jail.
“Incline my heart to your testimonies, and not to selfish gain!”
Psalm 119:36
Psalm 119:36
He should have been ruthless.boognish_bear said:Trump is asked why he didn't jail Hillary Clinton:
— Citizen Free Press (@CitizenFreePres) April 26, 2024
"I thought it would be a terrible thing. There were opportunists but I didn't want to. They have to be careful because it comes back to bite. That would've been a horrible thing to do." pic.twitter.com/lDTadW8WtR
Yeah, he messed up. If he had the goods on her, he should have prosecuted. Don't get me wrong, not make something up. If the evidence was there, he should have prosecuted. Now, it will look like retribution and that will not play well.Doc Holliday said:He should have been ruthless.boognish_bear said:Trump is asked why he didn't jail Hillary Clinton:
— Citizen Free Press (@CitizenFreePres) April 26, 2024
"I thought it would be a terrible thing. There were opportunists but I didn't want to. They have to be careful because it comes back to bite. That would've been a horrible thing to do." pic.twitter.com/lDTadW8WtR
“Mix a little foolishness with your serious plans. It is lovely to be silly at the right moment.”
–Horace
“Insomnia sharpens your math skills because you spend all night calculating how much sleep you’ll get if you’re able to ‘fall asleep right now.’ “
–Horace
“Insomnia sharpens your math skills because you spend all night calculating how much sleep you’ll get if you’re able to ‘fall asleep right now.’ “
Yeah they had the goods. They're going after Trump on total bs classified documents but wouldn't touch HRC over a private server with thousands of classified documents that she later destroyed.FLBear5630 said:Yeah, he messed up. If he had the goods on her, he should have prosecuted. Don't get me wrong, not make something up. If the evidence was there, he should have prosecuted. Now, it will look like retribution and that will not play well.Doc Holliday said:He should have been ruthless.boognish_bear said:Trump is asked why he didn't jail Hillary Clinton:
— Citizen Free Press (@CitizenFreePres) April 26, 2024
"I thought it would be a terrible thing. There were opportunists but I didn't want to. They have to be careful because it comes back to bite. That would've been a horrible thing to do." pic.twitter.com/lDTadW8WtR
Trump has always believed in the system without realizing the system is politically screwed up. It's not blind.
If they get Trump, it will open the flood gates on being able to charge everyone. Using him as case law to charge others will be easy if the bar is that low.
Where did I say they weren't necessary? Please point to where I alluded to that. My argument is and always has been any rule or regulation should put into place by people we elect to office. That is, unless you like rule by fiat from unelected bureaucrats.FLBear5630 said:There are a lot of "rules, regulations and standards" that are necessary, if you want to have a safe, reliable and efficient Nation. Just in the transportation arena - FAA, NITSA, FRA, FTA, not even getting into Maritime.Whiskey Pete said:The USA is/has been becoming an administrative state. A state where unelected bureaucrats issue rules or regulations that are then treated like law. Rules and regulations that haven't been introduced as bills or debated on or voted on by our elected leaders.FLBear5630 said:
I am not sure it hurts him in the election.
The upside is that Trump will have a lot of room to make improvements both Domestically and Internationally if he wins. Early success and strong messaging to our adversaries would go a long way in all this being a non-issue.
Nice thing about following Biden, there are opportunities. IF he does not get bogged down in the retribution tour. If he goes after gutting Civil Servants in DC and trying to set up loyalty oaths (which I have a hard time believing anyone would be that stupid to require. Sounds like propaganda, but it is out there) he will have a hard time.
This needs to stop. The alphabet agencies should not have the power to regulate squat. Their sole role should be as an advisory. Then let our elected "leaders" take it up, introduce it as a bill, debate it, then vote on it.
Trump/DeSantis/Haley/WhoTheHellEver needs to root it out, dismantle it and send it on its way. There are way too many Washington bureaucrats, UNELECTED bureaucrats that have gained too much power over too many decades in DC.
If Trump decides (he really needs to) take on this administrative ideology, it will be labeled as the "Revenge Tour". Let's face it, gov't has grown too big for its britches, these Civil "Servants", many of them are only serving their own needs or the needs of who they can benefit from the most.
So, I have mixed feelings about what you say. You guys seem to think that everyone that works for the Government is a loser that is incompetent. Alot of what you take for granted is managed by those incompetents. We take drinking water, solid waste, airline travel, railroad shipping, maritime, pipelines, and non-sexy things you never think about asphalt conditions, bridge maintenance, hell even debris and trash pick-up along limited access roads. All those things don't just happen and many times the standard has to be MORE than just the cheapest way to do it. Those bureaucrats are the ones managing that. I only deal with Highway Patrol, but just start looking into the complexity of law enforcement and security.
I pray Trump doesn't start messing with that stuff because it would be more profitable to not require maintenance standards on planes and bridges...
And where did I say bureaucrats were losers or incompetent in that post? We should NOT delegate so much power to people that weren't elected.
I swear, your level of comprehension is seriously below average.
Ignorance & extreme arrogance
“Incline my heart to your testimonies, and not to selfish gain!”
Psalm 119:36
Psalm 119:36
Whiskey Pete said:Where did I say they weren't necessary? Please point to where I alluded to that. My argument is and always has been any rule or regulation should put into place by people we elect to office. That is, unless you like rule by fiat from unelected bureaucrats.FLBear5630 said:There are a lot of "rules, regulations and standards" that are necessary, if you want to have a safe, reliable and efficient Nation. Just in the transportation arena - FAA, NITSA, FRA, FTA, not even getting into Maritime.Whiskey Pete said:The USA is/has been becoming an administrative state. A state where unelected bureaucrats issue rules or regulations that are then treated like law. Rules and regulations that haven't been introduced as bills or debated on or voted on by our elected leaders.FLBear5630 said:
I am not sure it hurts him in the election.
The upside is that Trump will have a lot of room to make improvements both Domestically and Internationally if he wins. Early success and strong messaging to our adversaries would go a long way in all this being a non-issue.
Nice thing about following Biden, there are opportunities. IF he does not get bogged down in the retribution tour. If he goes after gutting Civil Servants in DC and trying to set up loyalty oaths (which I have a hard time believing anyone would be that stupid to require. Sounds like propaganda, but it is out there) he will have a hard time.
This needs to stop. The alphabet agencies should not have the power to regulate squat. Their sole role should be as an advisory. Then let our elected "leaders" take it up, introduce it as a bill, debate it, then vote on it.
Trump/DeSantis/Haley/WhoTheHellEver needs to root it out, dismantle it and send it on its way. There are way too many Washington bureaucrats, UNELECTED bureaucrats that have gained too much power over too many decades in DC.
If Trump decides (he really needs to) take on this administrative ideology, it will be labeled as the "Revenge Tour". Let's face it, gov't has grown too big for its britches, these Civil "Servants", many of them are only serving their own needs or the needs of who they can benefit from the most.
So, I have mixed feelings about what you say. You guys seem to think that everyone that works for the Government is a loser that is incompetent. Alot of what you take for granted is managed by those incompetents. We take drinking water, solid waste, airline travel, railroad shipping, maritime, pipelines, and non-sexy things you never think about asphalt conditions, bridge maintenance, hell even debris and trash pick-up along limited access roads. All those things don't just happen and many times the standard has to be MORE than just the cheapest way to do it. Those bureaucrats are the ones managing that. I only deal with Highway Patrol, but just start looking into the complexity of law enforcement and security.
I pray Trump doesn't start messing with that stuff because it would be more profitable to not require maintenance standards on planes and bridges...
And where did I say bureaucrats were losers or incompetent in that post? We should NOT delegate so much power to people that weren't elected.
I swear, your level of comprehension is seriously below average.
You are going to leave Airline safety to electeds? Have you ever met one? There is absolutely no way that electeds can do what needs to be done on an annual, monthly and daily basis. Nevermind continuity, you can't change things every 4 years. Sorry, most of the bureaucracy is needed and serves a real purpose. No way elected officials can handle that.