He’ll do far more damage to the republican cause if he runs.
He's still the front-runner by some distance. TBH his best strategy at this point is to continue his run, and try to delay the case by the usual means until deep into 2024, in the hope that prosecutors will have to back off rather than prosecute an actual presidential candidate during a campaign.
Hopefully it'll be just the first in a wave of 'minor' charges, showing no-one is above the law.
Maybe the same message will come over here - PPE, anyone?
Yes, I can see it’s illegal but I’m still not convinced its the right first play.
I am expecting a second, third, maybe fourth and more play next.
As above, I thought they were up against time on some of these.
I also was just listening to R4 and someone was suggesting we don't know the full sheet of accusations - and that there is probability of more than just paying off Stormy the wrong way.
Muller, set out the case for 11 indictments, 7 of which were strong, it’s a mystery to me why none of these have seen the light of day (well Bill Bar of course). Was Stormy Daniels one of them, I can’t remember?
He’ll do far more damage to the republican cause if he runs.
I'm not convinced of that. First, if he runs, there is a very real chance that he will be elected. He was an absolutely disastrous president, not just for America, but for worldwide democracy itself. Other Republicans like Desantis, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, etc. are unprincipled opportunists and I doubt that they would be very good presidents, but they are a class above Trump, they would just make lousy presidents, not extremely dangerous presidents. This is because they are all graduates of elite law schools and they do understand how the constitution and courts work, they have just realized that Trump controls the MAGA base and they need to parrot what the MAGA base wants to hear. I think they will be even less electable than Trump because they are such transparent opportunists, but even if they did win, they would be much, much less bad presidents than Trump.
He should get in touch with Paltrow's lawyers, they may offer him some scented candles.
Was Stormy Daniels one of them, I can’t remember?
I doubt it. I think this is a local case, not a federal one, but I'm not sure. He's facing some state level investigations (Georgia, for example), plus some federal ones (I assume the Traitorous Insurrection will be federal level). It's really hard to keep track of all the investigations and who exactly is doing the investigating and prosecuting.
going after Trump on pretty minor stuff like that, years after it happened, .... look a bit like a political witch-hunt
Even if he was charged with masterminding the Jan 6th riot, the MAGA lot will claim it's a witch hunt.
I'm looking forward to a police mugshot of him without the comb-over, similar to the one of Phil Spector with his straggly hair & bald bonce!
Unfortunately the MAGA lot are slightly unhinged and have access to military grade firearms. I could see this getting very ugly indeed. Fox 'News' have been whipping them up already. It all feels quite dangerous.
I also was just listening to R4 and someone was suggesting we don’t know the full sheet of accusations – and that there is probability of more than just paying off Stormy the wrong way.
We wont know until Tuesday when they are unsealed. However its being reported by US outlets there are about 30 separate charges and references to "business fraud".
Which suggests something more than just paying her off.
It’s really hard to keep track of all the investigations and who exactly is doing the investigating and prosecuting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lawsuits_involving_Donald_Trump
and
I could see this getting very ugly indeed.
Agreed.
I hope you are right Matt,and that this is a crack in his bullshit armour, just before the other cases flood into play 🤞
Even if he was charged with masterminding the Jan 6th riot, the MAGA lot will claim it’s a witch hunt.
Yes the 'MAGA lot' would, obviously there is little hope of changing their minds. But they aren't the issue.
The people whose opinions matter are those those who voted Trump in 2016, but didn't vote for him in 2020, and might vote for him, or a Trump backed candidate, in 2024.
Part of Trump's strong appeal is that he is perceived as being anti-establishment. The establishment, in this case the District Attorney, going through all his affairs with a fine tooth comb looking for what at least appears to be quite minor rule breaches which occurred years ago simply strengthens that claim.
It will be seen as a political witch-hunt by many undecided voters, especially when compared to the case of Bill Clinton who was charged with perjury and obstruction of justice and yet got away with it.
Organising a failed insurrection is an extraordinarily serious crime for a former president to be guilty of, even non-partisan voters would agree.
It is hard to believe that the US judicial system is so ****ed up that it has to rely on fairly minor false accountancy claims to go after those guilty of sedition, despite overwhelming evidence of the latter.
Someone earlier made the comparison with the imprisonment of Al Capone on a tax evasion conviction which is fair imo, however surely the evidence of Trump's involvement in the events of 6th of January is indisputable? Al Capone was a bit smarter than Donald Trump in covering his tracks.
"Unfortunately the MAGA lot are slightly unhinged and have access to military grade firearms. I could see this getting very ugly indeed. Fox ‘News’ have been whipping them up already. It all feels quite dangerous"
I wouldn't disagree. Though one has to ask the Republicans: "When you reversed the assault weapons ban in the mid 2000's, what did you expect / want to happen?."
I would suggest that if half the nation hadn't been armed to the teeth with military grade weaponry over the preceding decade then we wouldn't have seen the Jan 6th raid on the Capitol building.
As it stands, American democracy is being held to ransom by morons with machine guns. Something will have to give, there's currently more than one gun per person in the US, in a couple of years it'll be 2 guns per person, then 3, then....
It's got to end somewhere and the sooner the better. Let Fox News and their minions have their day, come out all guns blazing then get their arses handed too them like a bunch of Wagner ****ers. Let those 2nd amendment tossers who arm themselves against government tyranny put their theories to the test.
The government can then wrench those AR15's from their 'cold, dead hands...'
The only way the US will ever see any meaningful gun legislation is if their is an escalation of political violence.
It's all just a Stormy in a D-Cup
(Unashamedly stolen from Twitter).
This is the other thing to keep in mind - we don't know exactly what crimes he's been charged with yet.
https://twitter.com/davidfrum/status/1641774465758511105
Political pundits from the Guardian to the Telegraph are suggesting that Trump could benefit significantly from the criminal charges :
https://www.theweek.co.uk/news/world-news/960267/teflon-don-could-trump-benefit-from-indictment
The BBC midday news also suggested that Trump could see political advantages from any attempt to prosecute him.
Edit: That link might be behind a paywall so this one should work;
The BBC midday news also suggested that Trump could see political advantages from any attempt to prosecute him.
The polling suggests otherwise.
Democrats polled 88% that this should disqualify him from being allowed to run (and presumably the other 12 are split between "let him, it'll be a car crash" and "would say no regardless because it's still a democracy".
Republicans it's 23%. How many of those 23% would continue that thought to the point of not voting for him in an election is debatable, but US elections are won in a swing state by 49/51% seemingly every time. It doesn't take much to tip that.
Caveat, that's people who identify one way or the other. Could well be that the middle ground is somewhere in between, but that would mean he's done for (if 23%-88% of swing voters don't think he should be allowed to run, then they're certainly not voting for him).
'Could' is doing some heavy lifting in The Week article.
Just as easy to say and pontificate that '...trump is unlikely to see any advantage or benefit from criminal charges'.
I think it's likely that criminal charges will turn most undecideds against trump and 'soft republicans' will back any candidate other than him.
Trump lost the popular vote in both presidential elections. The last midterm was a disaster for the Republicans and candidates who went full MAGA underperformed the generic Republican vote. To win the presidency back, he has to persuade people who voted for Biden to switch their votes, or at least not vote. Trump being indicted might energize his base but it will also energize the Democrat base and it's not going to make anyone who voted against Trump suddenly decide to vote for him. Being indicted is never going to help him get elected.
https://twitter.com/amandacarpenter/status/1641765837257297925
some heavy lifting in The Week article.
What on earth are you talking about "heavy lifting" in The Week article?
They are simply quoting political commentators. Some of them, such as the Guardian’s Washington D.C. bureau chief, are fairly well qualified to express a credible appraisal of how the latest development might affect Trump's political ambitions.
Obviously I don't expect you to agree with them because presumably you believe that you are better informed.
But I don't think that quoting is variety of very different sources amounts to "heavy lifting" by the Week.
Is "heavy lifting" now the term to be used when you can't deny the premise of a point??
Trump being indicted might energize his base but it will also energize the Democrat base and it’s not going to make anyone who voted against Trump suddenly decide to vote for him.
Which presumably is why the Guardian's man talks about "at least in the short term", ie, securing the Republican nomination I imagine.
I guess it also largely depends on how things pan out - acquittal is likely to give him a boost. BBC News mentioned that legal issues surrounding political funds are historically very difficult to prove in the US.
BBC News mentioned that legal issues surrounding political funds are historically very difficult to prove in the US.
We don't know what the charges are. They may be tax violations rather than campaign fund violations.
https://twitter.com/davidfrum/status/1641774465758511105
He'll get away with this won't he?
As mentioned above though, he has all the votes he will ever get and is doing nothing to win over Dem votes. Probably the best we can hope for. Noisy but impotent outside of the True Believers he already has.
Well, whether s/he had/not an affair is really a non-issue where two consenting adults are concerned IMO and especially where money exchanged hand for the purpose. Not because of who she is btw. She has taken the money if that is true then she broke the agreement between them. i.e. one of the unspoken rules.
I think she has just put her life in danger by getting herself entangled in a highly polarised politics. If not careful the danger might come when she least expected.
Democrats that want to end Trump political career doesn't have a clue how to do it properly but this will backfire, even if Trump is guilty of having an affair or paying money to cover up.
Every one keeps going on about swing voters, but that really isn't how the last election played out, there were **** all republicans voters who swung to Biden, in fact Trump got better numbers than in 2016. However the anti Trump vote energised more traditionally disenfranchised voters to vote dems who increased their numbers even more.
IMO it is about keeping those voters engaged that is going to win the next election again or not, and I doubt this will be enough to keep them onside when they are continuing to suffer financially. The dems need to deliver more on the day job rather than relying on whatever the US version of "Westminster bubble politics" is.
He’ll get away with this won’t he?
I think Michael Cohen mentioned in his book that DT had expensed the payments so that he got the Trump corp to pay for them, so effectively avoided paying tax on a "benefit in kind".
The Trump corp has already been found guilty of exactly this with all of the free houses/schools/cars for various Trump executives.
I know that if I tried to expense paying off a porn star my employer would not approve my expenses claim - Concur doesn't even have a category for that. And if they *did* approve it I feel like HMRC would be very unimpressed.
If he doesn't get prosecuted it seems like one law for Trump and another one for the rest of us.
If he doesn’t get prosecuted it seems like one law for Trump and another one for the rest of us.
Couldn't agree more but I'm no longer naive enough to think we are all equal, power really does buy a near immunity for all but the most egregious of transgressions here and in the USA. Boris, Trump etc etc.
he has all the votes he will ever get and is doing nothing to win over Dem votes.
It depends how it goes. Plenty of people are likely to see this as purely politically motivated, which of course is what it is - the fact that the District Attorney is a Democrat isn't some sort of weird coincidence.
If he is seen to be the victim of a politically motivated trial, and he's very good at playing the victim, it could certainly win him votes from independents/undecided/swing voters.
At the 2020 presidential election Trump received over 10 million more votes than he received in the 2016 presidential election, so despite all the incompetence and blunders he has the ability to make people vote for him who previously hadn't.
No one knows exactly what these charges relate to but even if he is not acquited it looks possible that it might just result in a fine and not bar him from standing.
Pursuing him for insurrection and sedition would be a whole new ball game. For a start many Republican lawmakers, included the hard-right Republican vice President, were horrified by his behaviour.
It wouldn't be seen so much as a politically motivated trial but more one in defence of democracy and the constitution.
The maximum penalty for sedition is 20 years, a guilty verdict would bar him from standing next presidential election.
If the US judicial system can't pursue him on such a serious charge then he is above the law in a meaningful way.
It wouldn’t be seen so much as a politically motivated trial but more one in defence of democracy and the constitution.
But according to one particular loudmouth supporter, America isn’t a democracy anyway, it’s a Republic. Hence no need to defend it from anyone other than Far-Left Libtards.
What I’d love to see happen:
Loudmouth supporters aside I think it is fair to say that most Americans pride themselves in living in a democracy, and passionately believe in the supremacy of the US constitution.
"If he doesn’t get prosecuted it seems like one law for Trump and another one for the rest of us."
He's not being prosecuted by the government, he's being prosecuted by the State of New York. Technically the charge will probably be classed as money laundering.
New York is one of the Worlds leading financial centres, they don't look lightly on that sort of thing.
It's only political if you make it so, either as a pathetic defence or as an attempt to rationalise the best way to get Trump.
It's all about the rule of law and the need for it to be re-established in the US. Likely the other cases regarding election interference in Georgia and insurrection in Washington will drop on his doormat before this case has been resolved and he'll be facing a triple threat.
And as I mentioned earlier, let the cosplay militias go apes**t too If they want to. Lock him up, Lock them up too if they break the law. If they come out all guns blazing then shoot them.
If the 2nd amendment notion that citizens need to be armed with military grade weapons in order to protect themselves from government tyranny isn't challenged now then the US is doomed. There will come a point when the US will start to sink under the weight of guns, never mind rising sea levels.
The question is... Was a 5 minute wriggle with a porn star worth it?
What it’ll probably be like:
They are really terrified that he'll win another election aren't they. Still amazes me what the Bush family and the Clintons got up to and got away with. Its naïve in the extreme to believe that Trump is the first one to do something dodgy. The rest just got away with it. They're all cut from the same cloth.
The prosecution may boost support for his run for the Republican candidacy, but hurt his subsequent chance in the presidential election.
Which I quite like
^^ Ditto.
The problem is that he is consistently underestimated. Plenty of people dismissed the possibility of Trump ever becoming US president.
I guess much would depend who the Democrat candidate will be. Trump was significantly helped by the fact that the Democrats chose Clinton in 2016.
(Unashamedly stolen from Twitter).
If we are doing that. From the daily show.
"Hard to believe that Donald Trump having sex resulted in something worse for him than Don Jr."
^ bravo
Plenty of people are likely to see this as purely politically motivated, which of course is what it is – the fact that the District Attorney is a Democrat isn’t some sort of weird coincidence
Plenty of people are likely to see it that way but it was the grand jury that decided to charge, not the da.
Do you think that if the D.A. had been a Republican we would be in the same place? I believe that it is the D.A. who decides what a grand jury investigates.
