Obituary: ... there they go !

[Rigby5]

The political dynamics have caused me to flip flop back and forth.

I am normally very far let, even more so than Bernie Sanders.

However, I consider the charges against Trump in his first term to be totally illegal.
I think hush money is perfectly legal, and presidents can give themselves all the copies of classified docs they want.
I consider Jan 6 to be fake, with no real consequences and could easily have been stopped at any time.

Even more, I consider Biden's continues deficit, giving $150 billion each to the Ukraine and Israel, to be totally illegal.
Which caused me to actually vote for Trump.

But now Trump has made foolish tariffs on products the US does not even produce, turned ICE into a criminal syndicate, and violated international law by murdering drug suspects and stealing oil tankers.
Making Trump the single worst president in history, and making my vote for him extremely embarrassing.

I consider the past felony convicts of Trump to be fake, but now he went ahead and committed real felonies instead.
How utterly foolish?
Even if we steal all of Venezuela's oil, no one is going to be able to get away with it any more.

 

[Shiftless2]

I think hush money is perfectly legal, and presidents can give themselves all the copies of classified docs they want.

Thing is, he wasn't charged with paying hush money. He was charged and found guilty of falsifying business records to conceal it. And that's what the felony convictions were for.

I consider Jan 6 to be fake, with no real consequences and could easily have been stopped at any time.

Tell that to the families of the people who died.

 

[Rigby5]

Thing is, he wasn't charged with paying hush money. He was charged and found guilty of falsifying business records to conceal it. And that's what the felony convictions were for.



Tell that to the families of the people who died.

The hush money was labeled as business expenses, which is reasonable.
They were an investment for the election campaign, to make it more likely for him to get elected and collect that salary.
Concealing private personal matters is legal.
It would only be illegal if it were not a legitimate business expense.
But since it prevented him from being able to spend that money, it was legitimate I think.

I hardly remember the Jan 6 details any more, but I think a woman was trampled in a tunnel after police caused a stampede, there was a heart attack days later, and suicides later.
All of which struck me as being caused by the police?
Suicides strike me as implying guilt feelings?

 

[Shiftless2]

The hush money was labeled as business expenses, which is reasonable.

Obviously the courts didn't think so.

They were an investment for the election campaign, to make it more likely for him to get elected and collect that salary.

If that's the case he was violating campaign finance laws.

Re Jan 6: All of which struck me as being caused by the police?

Breaking into Congress and beating people to death was caused by the police.

 

[Rigby5]

Obviously the courts didn't think so.


If that's the case he was violating campaign finance laws.


Breaking into Congress and beating people to death was caused by the police.

That is the point, that the court ruling made no sense.
There can be no law dictating bookkeeping to expose personal activities.

It is a valid use of campaign contributions to pay hush money that helped the campaign.
The campaign contributors would not have been unhappy with the way their money was used.

I believe the only people beaten were by the police.
There was a cop caught in a door, but it was police who were trying to close the door.
The police were helmeted, gloved, armored, etc.
It was the demonstrators who were getting beaten.

 

[sear]

#103

#104

I'm not endorsing or excusing hush money.
But it seems to me there's a broader issue here.
The United States Constitution is "the supreme law of the land".

ARTICLE 6. SECTION 2
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land

Any / every U.S. president is bound by this "supreme law of the land".

ARTICLE 2. SECTION 3.
He [POTUS] shall ... take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed

Our Founders were not casual about that. They confirmed the importance of this by including it in the president's official oath of office:

ARTICLE 2. SECTION 1. 7
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

And particularly after the War of Northern Aggression, fidelity to the Constitution was primary.

Constitution of the United States of America
ARTICLE #14: Ratified July 9, 1868
SECTION 3. No person shall ... hold any office, civil or military, under the United States ... who, having previously taken an oath ... as an officer of the United States ... to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. ..."

According to the United States Constitution, Trump is simply ineligible to serve, and should never have been allowed on any primary or general election ballot after January 6, 2021. More from Wikipedia

You don't believe, we're on the eve of construction (of a white house ball room)? inspired by Barry McGuire

 

[Shiftless2]

That is the point, that the court ruling made no sense.
There can be no law dictating bookkeeping to expose personal activities.

When those entries are used to falsify business records the law applies.

It is a valid use of campaign contributions to pay hush money that helped the campaign.
The campaign contributors would not have been unhappy with the way their money was used.

Doesn't matter if they'd have been happy about it. The law is specific about what can be spent and by who

Federal campaign finance laws | USAGov

Know the limits of campaign contributions to presidential and congressional candidates. Get the facts about campaign financial reporting rules.

www.usa.gov

 

[Rigby5]

When those entries are used to falsify business records the law applies.


Doesn't matter if they'd have been happy about it. The law is specific about what can be spent and by who

Federal campaign finance laws | USAGov

Know the limits of campaign contributions to presidential and congressional candidates. Get the facts about campaign financial reporting rules.

www.usa.gov

There is nothing illegal about buying the rights to a potential story that would be detrimental to the campaign.

 

[Shiftless2]

There is nothing illegal about buying the rights to a potential story that would be detrimental to the campaign.

And that's okay under campaign finance laws because ....

 

[Rigby5]

And that's okay under campaign finance laws because ....

Because its money invested in making the campaign more successful.
But I believe it was private money and not campaign contributions.
{...
Michael Cohen made the $130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels in October 2016; prosecutors, Cohen’s guilty plea, and later reporting show Cohen was subsequently reimbursed for that payment, and the reimbursements were routed through or recorded by Trump-related entities and Trump’s personal accounts.
Claims that companies paid the settlement directly are part of a contested record: corporate payments to Cohen’s firm occurred in the same general period, but those payments are separate transactions and have been described differently by the payers, Cohen, and investigators.
This analysis compares the competing factual strands, court findings, and public statements through 2018–2025 reporting and legal filings to clarify who paid Daniels and how the money moved.
...}
https://factually.co/fact-checks/politics/who-paid-stormy-daniels-2018-settlement-368c26

 

[Shiftless2]

Because its money invested in making the campaign more successful.
But I believe it was private money and not campaign contributions.

By that logic virtually none of the campaign finance laws apply - ever