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.”
"Very importantly, why didn't the Federal Elections [Commission] do anything? Federal Elections took a total pass on it. They said essentially nothing was done wrong or they would have done something about it. They're tough. ... Actually, if you read their letter, they couldn't even believe it. They were incredulous.”
This is false. The Federal Election Commission staff, in a December 2020 report by the general counsel, said it had found "reason to believe" violations of campaign finance law were made "knowingly and willfully" by the Trump campaign. The report said that Cohen's $130,000 payment to Daniels was far in excess of the legal limit for individual contributions of $2,700. "The available information indicates that Michael Cohen paid Stephanie Clifford [Daniels's real name] $130,000 at the direction of 2016 presidential candidate Donald J. Trump, with Trump's express promise of repayment, for the purpose of influencing the 2016 election,” the report said.
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?
Oh, my mistake. You seemed to imply that a current candidate shouldn't be prosecuted with this line : "What about prosecuting a current candidate for such a thing? Do you think the motive for that is to influence the election?"
I linked a fact check article from the Washington Post. The FEC voted, on party lines not to pursue the case. And as previously stated, Barr stopped other investigations.
Oh, my mistake. You seemed to imply that a current candidate shouldn't be prosecuted with this line : "What about prosecuting a current candidate for such a thing? Do you think the motive for that is to influence the election?"
I linked a fact check article from the Washington Post. The FEC voted, on party lines not to pursue the case. And as previously stated, Barr stopped other investigations.
Your mistake indeed.
I believe political motives are behind the prosecution of this case.
That's not the same as saying current candidates are immune from prosecution.
As previously stated, Barr has no longer has anything to do with this case.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Beerman said:
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?
Bold and italics mine.
I offered up a plausible (perhaps even credible) explanation as to why. Apparently you scrolled past the quotes and didn't read the linked material. It's normal then, to question the intention behind the question.
Earlier, you referred to this current trial as a "hush money" case. First you mischaracterized the case and then projected some ignorance of the case onto me when the mischaracterization was questioned. As you are aware, we're discussing Trump and his legal troubles here and Trump is especially good at spreading lies and misinformation. That means that it is entirely possible that you or any Trump voter might actually believe that this trial is about a hush money payment or another Trump sexual misbehavior.
Beerman said:
It's supposedly about misclassifying campaign expenditures to cover him committing election fraud.
I thought you understood that.
I don't think I've used any language which suggests that I don't know what this case is about. You, however...
I think this is part of the effect that Trump has on his voting base and people who are outside of that bubble. Trump's toxic communication style and tendency to misrepresent, deflect and project are now widely emulated by his voters. People outside of the bubble are sick of it.
I offered up a plausible (perhaps even credible) explanation as to why. Apparently you scrolled past the quotes and didn't read the linked material. It's normal then, to question the intention behind the question.
Earlier, you referred to this current trial as a "hush money" case. First you mischaracterized the case and then projected some ignorance of the case onto me when the mischaracterization was questioned. As you are aware, we're discussing Trump and his legal troubles here and Trump is especially good at spreading lies and misinformation. That means that it is entirely possible that you or any Trump voter might actually believe that this trial is about a hush money payment or another Trump sexual misbehavior.
I don't think I've used any language which suggests that I don't know what this case is about. You, however...
I think this is part of the effect that Trump has on his voting base and people who are outside of that bubble. Trump's toxic communication tendency to misrepresent, deflect and project are widely emulated by his voters. People outside of the bubble are sick of it.
I addressed your "plausible explanation", then asked someone else the question.
The case has been referred to the "hush money" case for quite sometime, and that's what most people know it as.
Now, care to add anything constructive to this discussion? Such as maybe a argument or a link to some kind of legal expert who can make the argument that this prosecution has any validity to it?
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Beerman said:
I addressed your "plausible explanation", then asked someone else the question.
The case has been referred to the "hush money" case for quite sometime, and that's what most people know it as.
Now, care to add anything constructive to this discussion? Such as maybe a argument or a link to some kind of legal expert who can make the argument that this prosecution has any validity to it?
Why should I offer links when you simply scroll past the content to reply. You said it was quite time consuming to scroll past, I'll save you the charade. That's another of the toxic Trump traits that is emulated by his fans, disingenuous engagement.
Besides, Trump's team already did all of that leg work for you. Didn't you see that large ream of articles printed out for Trump so that he could feel reassured that the charges are nothing but election interference? I bet they would share the links with you that fortify your opinion.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Beerman said:
Your mistake indeed.
I believe political motives are behind the prosecution of this case.
That's not the same as saying current candidates are immune from prosecution.
As previously stated, Barr has no longer has anything to do with this case.
Your beliefs are based upon what evidence? Upon Trump's insistence? Upon the history of Trump's overarching honesty and altruism? Is it based upon Trump's history of fidelity to oath or law?
Political motives appear to be behind the prosecution of Cohen and the squashing of the cases after Cohen was convicted. There's evidence to support those concepts. There also appears to be quite a bit of evidence that Trump was conspiring to and using fraud to hide keeping information out of the press about Trump while publishing criticism of his political opponents. Apparently that amounts to a crime.
But sure, it's all just a political witchhunt trying to disgrace a totally innocent and honest man.
Your beliefs are based upon what evidence? Upon Trump's insistence? Upon the history of Trump's overarching honesty and altruism? Is it based upon Trump's history of fidelity to oath or law?
Political motives appear to be behind the prosecution of Cohen and the squashing of the cases after Cohen was convicted. There's evidence to support those concepts. There also appears to be quite a bit of evidence that Trump was conspiring to and using fraud to hide keeping information out of the press about Trump while publishing criticism of his political opponents. Apparently that amounts to a crime.
But sure, it's all just a political witchhunt trying to disgrace a totally innocent and honest man.
Nope. Honestly, I haven't even paid attention to what Trump says in quite sometime. Just objectively looking at the facts of the matter. Funny how you're a lone wolf in here on this issue, isn't it?
I could offer links to oinions by former US attorney generals, and a law professor emeritus, but I know this would be scoffed at as partisan. There is no point in playing Lucy with the football.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Beerman said:
Nope. Honestly, I haven't even paid attention to what Trump says in quite sometime. Just objectively looking at the facts of the matter. Funny how you're a lone wolf in here on this issue, isn't it?
Maybe people don't pay attention to what Trump says because that's the easiest way to deal with his unacceptable and dangerous rhetoric. There's a specific skill set involved in maintaining a plausible ignorance of what Trump says while still supporting him. We saw that modeled by GOP politicians all through his presidency. You don't believe that the facts will demonstrate that Trump was involved in some "creative" but dishonest ways to influence public thinking that involved some fraudulent bookkeeping?
You would have to dismiss the participation of other members in this discussion to call me a lone wolf. Is that the funny part?
nursej22, MSN, RN
4,879 Posts
Fact checking statements about the trial made by Trump:
https://wapo.st/4aNu1Lx