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

 

[Rigby5]

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

Sure they do.
There are candidates who take expensive vacations on campaign money, and the problem with that is if the contributor allows that, then it clearly was a bribe and not just a campaign contribution.
The difference is Trump did not get to spend the money that went to buy the hush article rights from Stormy Daniels.
That was money taken away from Trump, not given to him to spend as he wished.

 

[Shiftless2]

The difference is Trump did not get to spend the money that went to buy the hush article rights from Stormy Daniels.
That was money taken away from Trump, not given to him to spend as he wished.

You really haven't thought this thru have you. He may not have received a wad of banknotes but he got to protect his reputation (as if he had anything to protect).

As for candidates taking expensive vacations - they don't have to spend money - all they have to do is be someone's guest a multi-million dollar vacation property. The "host" doesn't have to spend a penny,

 

[Rigby5]

You really haven't thought this thru have you. He may not have received a wad of banknotes but he got to protect his reputation (as if he had anything to protect).

As for candidates taking expensive vacations - they don't have to spend money - all they have to do is be someone's guest a multi-million dollar vacation property. The "host" doesn't have to spend a penny,

Trump is probably proud of the fact he had sex with Stormy Daniels.
He got nothing out of hiding it by paying hush money.
He only did that in order to increase his chances of getting elected.
And that is exactly what campaign contributions are for.
But it was Trumps personal profits that reimbursed Cohen for the hush money, not campaign contributions.

 

[sear]

"Trump ... only did that in order to increase his chances of getting elected.
And that is exactly what campaign contributions are for." R5

I'm not an attorney.
But you seem to be entirely overlooking ethics here.

Voters may select the candidate for whom they cast their ballot by any criterion they wish:
- policy position on abortion
- policy position on deporting persons within our borders
- candidate's character.
After taking office the candidates we elect may be confronted with unusual, dangerous, unprecedented adversity.
Throughout the election campaign the candidate may never have an opportunity to address that future issue.

So some voters select their candidate on basis of character.
With that in mind you may more clearly see the problem with such candidate making substantial effort to conceal a character flaw which by your own description might cost him the election:

"He only did that in order to increase his chances of getting elected." R5

Thereby prioritizing Trump's own political ambitions ahead of ethical treatment of the electorate.
And if Trump is willing to do that during the campaign,
just how ethical do you imagine he'll be once in office?

Oh yeah, should I mention, not merely public office, the one office deemed the most powerful government official in the country,
and some other say, most powerful on Earth?

Is the cause for alarm any clearer now?

 

[Rigby5]

I'm not an attorney.
But you seem to be entirely overlooking ethics here.

Voters may select the candidate for whom they cast their ballot by any criterion they wish:
- policy position on abortion
- policy position on deporting persons within our borders
- candidate's character.
After taking office the candidates we elect may be confronted with unusual, dangerous, unprecedented adversity.
Throughout the election campaign the candidate may never have an opportunity to address that future issue.

So some voters select their candidate on basis of character.
With that in mind you may more clearly see the problem with such candidate making substantial effort to conceal a character flaw which by your own description might cost him the election:

Thereby prioritizing Trump's own political ambitions ahead of ethical treatment of the electorate.
And if Trump is willing to do that during the campaign,
just how ethical do you imagine he'll be once in office?

Oh yeah, should I mention, not merely public office, the one office deemed the most powerful government official in the country,
and some other say, most powerful on Earth?

Is the cause for alarm any clearer now?

Oh I agree completely that Trump is potentially very dangerous.
The problem is that ethical choices like this are supposed to be up to the voters, not Latisha the prosecutor.
Exposing ethical violations to the voters is one thing, but claiming a law was violated is a step too far.
And one could easily make the argument that humans are not historically monogamous, and in fact there are no monogamous primates at all.
So it is still subjective, and up to voters to decide.
Prosecuting was not the correct procedure.
And getting a conviction means the jury most likely was lied to.
I am not familiar with NY statutes, but it has to be perfectly legal for hush money to be labeled as "business expenses".
Attempting to win an elections means gaining the presidential salary, so is a business investment.

{...
The People of the State of New York v. Donald J. Trump was a criminal case against Donald Trump, a then-former president of the United States. Trump was charged with 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to conceal payments made to the pornographic film actress Stormy Daniels as hush money to buy her silence over a sexual encounter between them; with costs related to the transaction included, the payments totaled $420,000. The Manhattan District Attorney (DA), Alvin Bragg, accused Trump of falsifying these business records with the intent to commit other crimes.
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecution_of_Donald_Trump_in_New_York#cite_note-3"><span>[</span>a<span>]</span></a>
...}

The actual purpose of these laws was to stop people from making false bookkeeping entries with the intent of fraudulently making property seem worth more than it really was.
So it does not apply to an election instead of the sale of something intrinsic, like real estate or a business.

 

[sear]

"... ethical choices like this are supposed to be up to the voters, not Latisha the prosecutor." R5 #116

Ideally. BUT !
In this case the voters were deliberately deceived.

That leaves a binary choice.
a) Inflict no penalty, no consequence, thereby insuring such deception by candidates will proliferate throughout U.S. politics for the foreseeable future. - OR -
b) Let the punishment fit the crime.

How many has Trump murdered by blasting their boats out of the ocean?

"... claiming a law was violated is a step too far." R5 #116

I'd let the truth of the matter resolve that. No special leniency for the president, and no concentrated antagonism.
If Trump violated a law, enforce the law as usual.

"And one could easily make the argument that humans are not historically monogamous, and in fact there are no monogamous primates at all.
So it is still subjective, and up to voters to decide." R5

Provide the electorate, the People the information accurately.

For those that like computer metaphor: G.I.G.O.
Garbage in, garbage out.

To enable voters to select the best candidate we are obliged to maintain open integrity of candidate campaigns.
We don't want dangerous persons lying their way into public office.

Gary Hart, an American Democratic politician representing Colorado in the Senate from 1975 to 1987, ran a campaign for President of the United States in the 1988 presidential election. He had previously run for president in 1984, losing the Democratic nomination to Walter Mondale. In 1986, Hart declined to seek re-election for the Senate and began his presidential campaign. In May 1987, as he was the front-runner for the Democratic nomination, an extramarital affair of his with Donna Rice was publicized by the Miami Herald, and he dropped out of the campaign after The Washington Post threatened to reveal another affair. More from Wikipedia

The voters can decide whether a candidate's positions or personality deserve electoral support. BUT
the voters can't make an informed decision if they don't have the information.

 

[Rigby5]

Ideally. BUT !
In this case the voters were deliberately deceived.

That leaves a binary choice.
a) Inflict no penalty, no consequence, thereby insuring such deception by candidates will proliferate throughout U.S. politics for the foreseeable future. - OR -
b) Let the punishment fit the crime.

How many has Trump murdered by blasting their boats out of the ocean?


I'd let the truth of the matter resolve that. No special leniency for the president, and no concentrated antagonism.
If Trump violated a law, enforce the law as usual.


Provide the electorate, the People the information accurately.

For those that like computer metaphor: G.I.G.O.
Garbage in, garbage out.

To enable voters to select the best candidate we are obliged to maintain open integrity of candidate campaigns.
We don't want dangerous persons lying their way into public office.

The voters can decide whether a candidate's positions or personality deserve electoral support. BUT
the voters can't make an informed decision if they don't have the information.

Oh I agree with getting out the facts about Trump and Stormy Daniels, but they went further than that prosecuted with laws that were inappropriate.
And that was way more illegal than what Trump actually did.

 

[sear]

"And that was way more illegal than what Trump actually did." R5 #118

What determines which is "way more illegal"?
Punishment for conviction?
Severity of the consequence of the crime?

Post #117 this thread:
I initiated a search engine character string search: "trump hegseth drug boats destroyed" and got no page one hit more recent than December 3.

Has Trump's untrustworthiness filtered all the way down to this CV.us discussion? You tell me R5. How many humans have Trump / Hegseth extinguished without trial, without evidence, without reasonable attempt to capture?
Were they even given a chance to surrender? Or simply murdered? For convenience?

 

[Rigby5]

What determines which is "way more illegal"?
Punishment for conviction?
Severity of the consequence of the crime?

Post #117 this thread:
I initiated a search engine character string search: "trump hegseth drug boats destroyed" and got no page one hit more recent than December 3.

Has Trump's untrustworthiness filtered all the way down to this CV.us discussion? You tell me R5. How many humans have Trump / Hegseth extinguished without trial, without evidence, without reasonable attempt to capture?
Were they even given a chance to surrender? Or simply murdered? For convenience?

Oh I agree that now in Trump's second term he has violated a lot of laws.
What he has done with tariffs, ICE, and Venezuela are all completely illegal.

The point was just that the first term prosecutions for hush money and classified docs were not legal.