I confess to back pedaling into Trump territory when I wanted to leave discussions about him in the garbage can. My thread on the read-only break room site has 9,600 replies so I thought I'd bring up a new one.
He's not going away.
Haberman's book is out based on interviews. I won't read it, but the excerpts are interesting. Especially what he says about McConnell, a description that's against the Terms of Service here, but I actually don't disagree with. LOL
Quote
“At one point, Trump made a candid admission that was as jarring as it was ultimately unsurprising. ‘The question I get asked more than any other question: “If you had it to do again, would you have done it?”’Trump said of running for president. ‘The answer is, yeah, I think so. Because here’s the way I look at it. I have so many rich friends and nobody knows who they are.’ … Reflecting on the meaning of having been president of the United States, his first impulse was not to mention public service, or what he felt he’d accomplished, only that it appeared to be a vehicle for fame, and that many experiences were only worth having if someone else envied them.”
Interesting take. I am surprised there is minimal mention of campaign finance violation(s). My understanding is that the payments made to Daniels and Cohen should have been reported as campaign donations because they were made to influence the outcome of the election. I think that was one of the charges that Cohen plead guilty to.
Perhaps because both the Federal Election Commission and the US Attorney investigated the alleged campaign finance violations and declined to take action.
For Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, the grand jury's indictment alleges something far more serious: an attempt to "corrupt" a presidential election, giving Trump an illegal edge in a razor-thin race.
"The core is not money for sex,” Bragg told a local NPR affiliate late last year. "We would say it's about conspiring to corrupt a presidential election and then lying in New York business records to cover it up.”
Quote
To win at trial, prosecutors do not need to prove that Trump actually had a tryst with Daniels, only that the former president broke the law in the methods used to cover up her account. Under the terms of the trial judge's order earlier this year, the jury will be able to hear three theories of the case from prosecutors: that Trump falsified the business records to commit a violation of federal election law, state election law, and New York tax law.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Beerman said:
Perhaps because both the Federal Election Commission and the US Attorney investigated the alleged campaign finance violations and declined to take action.
Maybe you didn't know about this. It's kind of old news but right wing media didn't really talk about it in real time. The Barr led DOJ obstructed further action in that matter.
After New York prosecutors brought charges against Michael Cohen, Trump's one-time fixer, and Chris Collins, a New York congressman, the powers-that-be purportedly advised Berman: "It's time for you guys to even things out.”
Quote
Practically, that meant launching an investigation at Trump's behest into John Kerry, for allegedly violating the Logan Act in talks with Iranian officials after retiring as secretary of state.
Briefly, the Logan Act, from 1798, bars non-government officials from negotiating with foreign powers. In the case of Greg Craig, Barack Obama's White House counsel, it meant charges under the Foreign Agents Registration Act. After Berman unsuccessfully argued that Craig should not have been prosecuted, Craig was acquitted by a federal jury. Kerry was never indicted.
Berman is a Republican. He volunteered on Trump's 2016 campaign and was once a law partner of Giuliani. He is also a former editor of the Stanford Law Review, happy to punch up. As with most Trump memoirs, Holding the Line is full of score-settling. Berman calls Barr a liar, a bully and a thug.
Quote
Writing about his dismissal, Berman says: "I would describe Barr's posture that morning as thuggish. He wanted to bludgeon me into submission.”
"If you do not resign from your position, you will be fired,” Barr purportedly warned. "That will not be good for your resume and future job prospects.”
Think of Berman as the honey badger – if the honey badger headed up a white-collar practice at a Wall Street law firm. He doesn't give a fig. He holds the receipts.
"Several hours after Barr and I met,” he writes, "on a Friday night, [Barr] issued a press release saying that I was stepping down. That was a lie.”
"A lie told by the nation's top law enforcement officer.”
It's just more evidence that Trump weaponized the DOJ to please himself while he projects those type efforts onto Biden.
Maybe you didn't know about this. It's kind of old news but right wing media didn't really talk about it in real time. The Barr led DOJ obstructed further action in that matter.
Let's just use some common sense here. Do you really think paying someone to keep quiet, (and let's not forget, it's not certain that the event to keep quiet even took place) rises to the level of corrupting a election?
What about prosecuting a current candidate for such a thing? Do you think the motive for that is to influence the election? Or, is Bragg simply keeping to his oath of office?
Do you really think paying someone to keep quiet, (and let's not forget, it's not certain that the event to keep quiet even took place) rises to the level of corrupting a election?
What about prosecuting a current candidate for such a thing? Do you think the motive for that is to influence the election? Or, is Bragg simply keeping to his oath of office?
Conspiring to quash several, salacious stories while trying to tamp down the Access Hollywood story is meddling with an election. Shouldn't the voters know what kind of person they are voting for?
Are you saying someone who is a current candidate for office should be immune from prosecution? Or is it just one candidate in particular? This trial could have happened a lot sooner without all the stalling techniques. if he's so innocent, then let him have his day in court, be acquitted, and then move on.
I would have to say that yes, Trump paying hush money was to influence the election. But whether it was a private affair or illegal, I'll have to let the courts decide. But he does have a good argument that he did nothing illegal.
The problem is, I wonder why he even bothered. He already said he could commit murder and his voters would vote for him. The weren't bothered that he was caught talking about grabbing women by the genitals, they certainly weren't going to care that he was an adulterer. They don't care now for that matter.
Conspiring to quash several, salacious stories while trying to tamp down the Access Hollywood story is meddling with an election. Shouldn't the voters know what kind of person they are voting for?
Do you not realize that political candidates and office holders of all persuasions, including our current and past president, don't have teams of people conspiring everyday to promote, quash, and spin stories to put them in the best possible light.
What would you say about a candidate who lies about their credentials and embellishes stories about their past? Is that meddling with an election?
Are you saying someone who is a current candidate for office should be immune from prosecution? Or is it just one candidate in particular? This trial could have happened a lot sooner without all the stalling techniques. if he's so innocent, then let him have his day in court, be acquitted, and then move on.
No, I never said any such thing.
It's naive to think that if one is innocent they should just go ahead and leave it in the hands of a judge and jury. Our system is not perfect, and mistakes happen .
Why do you suppose federal prosecutors didn't pursue this case?
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Beerman said:
Geez, that was a lot of scrolling to get past it all to the reply button.
Barr's been gone for awhile. Nothing stopping the DOJ since then, ehh?
Nice try. 👍
I'm not sure what you mean by nice try.
I took your comment about Trump not getting federally prosecuted as meaning that there was no evidence to support prosecution. I offered further discussion about an alternative explanation why no legal action was taken.
It can be time consuming to ignore all of the evidence of Trump's corruption and toxic effect upon our institutions.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Beerman said:
A "illegal edge". LOL...sure
Let's just use some common sense here. Do you really think paying someone to keep quiet, (and let's not forget, it's not certain that the event to keep quiet even took place) rises to the level of corrupting a election?
What about prosecuting a current candidate for such a thing? Do you think the motive for that is to influence the election? Or, is Bragg simply keeping to his oath of office?
That's what you think this is about? A hush money payment?
Beerman, BSN
4,428 Posts
Perhaps because both the Federal Election Commission and the US Attorney investigated the alleged campaign finance violations and declined to take action.