What!!! My ex used to wear outfits like that while taking care of both kids. She wore that exact outfit leaving the maternity ward. Well truthfully, I don’t think she wore anything but baggy sweat pants and sweatshirts, also gave me the finger lots
. We lived in a cabin that we could only get to by snowmachine for the oldest girl ……fun times!
which one? there were three, weren't there?
the part I found especially especial was the thing about Biden wishing to avoid the trials dominating the headlines. Projection, perhaps.Do you know what's not mentioned in todays article from the NYT that provides details about Trump's forthcoming indictment for violating campaign finance rules and the coverup? Almost everything @Homegrownoob and @xtsho have said.
Indictment Week?
If Trump is indicted, this week will be unlike any other in American politics.www.nytimes.com
Why charge him?
There are two main arguments for doing so: the evidence and the larger context of Trump’s behavior.
Why not charge him?
- The evidence that Trump broke the law seems substantial: It includes testimony from Cohen and others, as well as Trump’s personal checks to Cohen. The hush money and the cover-up of it, in the final weeks of a close presidential race, seem to have been a brazen violation of campaign finance rules. To overlook the violation could encourage future candidates to ignore the law, too.
- It’s true that prosecutors have typically treated presidents with deference, but Trump is not like any other former president. He has repeatedly shown disdain for laws and traditions that predecessors from both parties followed: He told thousands of lies while in office; refused to participate in a peaceful transfer of power; used the power of the presidency to benefit his company; pressured a foreign leader to smear a political rival; and much more. At a certain point, the rule of law becomes meaningless if anybody can repeatedly ignore it.
There are also two main arguments for not charging Trump in the New York case:
- This case would rely on combining two charges — falsifying business records to cover up a campaign finance violation — that New York prosecutors have never before combined in this way. “The case is not a slam dunk, to be sure,” said our colleague Ben Protess, who has been covering the case. (But Ben added that the charges could resonate with a Manhattan jury.) Some legal experts believe that the first criminal charges filed against a former president should not depend on a novel prosecutorial approach.
- The federal government has a process — honed over decades, by both Democratic and Republican lawyers — for investigating presidents and candidates. (Trump, of course, is also a 2024 presidential candidate.) Local prosecutors have spent far less time thinking about the legal and political impact of doing so. In today’s polarized political environment, it’s not hard to imagine that an indictment in this case could lower the bar for partisan local prosecutors to bring future cases against national politicians.
The false confidence some people have is amazing.
Those are opinions. I can post those too. Here's one from MSNBC. I'm posting a site that you don't have to pay to read the article. But I'll still cherry pick specific pieces to make my point like you did.Do you know what's not mentioned in todays article from the NYT that provides details about Trump's forthcoming indictment for violating campaign finance rules and the coverup? Almost everything @Homegrownoob and @xtsho have said.
Indictment Week?
If Trump is indicted, this week will be unlike any other in American politics.
Why charge him?
There are two main arguments for doing so: the evidence and the larger context of Trump’s behavior.
Why not charge him?
- The evidence that Trump broke the law seems substantial: It includes testimony from Cohen and others, as well as Trump’s personal checks to Cohen. The hush money and the cover-up of it, in the final weeks of a close presidential race, seem to have been a brazen violation of campaign finance rules. To overlook the violation could encourage future candidates to ignore the law, too.
- It’s true that prosecutors have typically treated presidents with deference, but Trump is not like any other former president. He has repeatedly shown disdain for laws and traditions that predecessors from both parties followed: He told thousands of lies while in office; refused to participate in a peaceful transfer of power; used the power of the presidency to benefit his company; pressured a foreign leader to smear a political rival; and much more. At a certain point, the rule of law becomes meaningless if anybody can repeatedly ignore it.
There are also two main arguments for not charging Trump in the New York case:
- This case would rely on combining two charges — falsifying business records to cover up a campaign finance violation — that New York prosecutors have never before combined in this way. “The case is not a slam dunk, to be sure,” said our colleague Ben Protess, who has been covering the case. (But Ben added that the charges could resonate with a Manhattan jury.) Some legal experts believe that the first criminal charges filed against a former president should not depend on a novel prosecutorial approach.
- The federal government has a process — honed over decades, by both Democratic and Republican lawyers — for investigating presidents and candidates. (Trump, of course, is also a 2024 presidential candidate.) Local prosecutors have spent far less time thinking about the legal and political impact of doing so. In today’s polarized political environment, it’s not hard to imagine that an indictment in this case could lower the bar for partisan local prosecutors to bring future cases against national politicians.
The false confidence some people have is amazing.
You mean when XT said this?
Ikr!?
He’s right, they all need to be locked up.
He knows his business and reflects the opinion of much of the legal community and the people in the DOJ, he also teaches law in his retirement and is a talking head on TV. If he was talking out of his ass, he would need to defend himself from other lawyers on TV and the debate would be on.
You forgot to mention the statute of limitations. lulz.
Wow.
He can sell his mugshot as an NFT to his suckers, even though it will be all over the internet and TV. Once Donald's mystic of invincibility has been pierced, the illusion will burst like a bubble. That's what made him so appealing to the base, that illusion of invulnerability the Teflon Don projected to the weak minded.
If I thought it made any difference, I would have an array of small crude effigies of certain legislators with sharp things driven into their guts.
To me it is like watching a sporting event, or a kind of war between good and evil, but I also have skin in the game, or at the very least would get some shit on me and my country if shit exploded in America. So, it's entertaining like a high stake's poker game where ya chipped in on the pot and the other side is cheating and already caught dealing from the bottom of the deck. I can't do anything but watch, like most Americans.If I thought it made any difference, I would have an array of small crude effigies of certain legislators with sharp things driven into their guts.
decrypt.co
