DAMN!! How will HISTORY look back on Trump, Fox News & all his supporters during Coronavirus & AFTER he leaves office? UPDATE: Trump WON
- Thread starter playahaitian
- Start date
Marjorie Taylor Greene Brags About Cursing at Military Officials During Chinese Spy Balloon Briefing
The MAGA congresswoman claimed she personally chewed out the military for its “bullshit” (or “boar shit”—it’s hard to tell) handling of the spy balloon incident.
Bill Maher slams Greene, Republicans over State of the Union behavior
Television host Bill Maher slammed Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) and other Republicans on Friday for their heckling of President Biden at the annual State of the Union address earlier this we…
thehill.com
Messages: Officer often fed information to Proud Boys leader
A police officer frequently provided Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio with internal information about law enforcement operations in the weeks before other members of his far-right extremist group stormed the U.S. Capitol, according to messages shown Wednesday at the trial of Tarrio and four...
McCarthy Gave Tucker the Jan. 6 Tapes. Trump Allies Are Threatening to Sue
MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell says he’s filing a lawsuit against McCarthy within the “next few days”
www.rollingstone.com
Fox News, Tucker Carlson's Jan. 6 tapes made worse by Dominion
Kevin McCarthy’s recent actions are looking more irresponsible and destructive by the day.
Jeffries: ‘No indication’ Capitol Police vetted Jan. 6 footage Tucker Carlson plans to air
Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) on Sunday said he has “no indication” that Capitol Police vetted the footage from the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection at the U.S. Capitol that Fox News host Tucker Carlson …
thehill.com
'I hate him passionately’: Tucker Carlson was fed up with Trump after the 2020 election
The private comments were a far cry from what Tucker Carlson's viewers were used to hearing from the right-wing Fox News host on his prime-time show every night.
www.aol.com
Seth Meyers Gloats Over Tucker Carlson’s Deep Scorn for Donald Trump
The “Late Night” host thought the only thing Tucker Carlson was capable of hating with a fiery passion were M&M’s who weren’t hot enough. He was wrong.
Black Twitter Ripped Apart Bethany Mandel's definition of "Woke."
The anti-woke movement has been pioneered by conservative Republicans, most famously Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and now this.
www.theroot.com
I Asked “the Woman Who Couldn’t Define Woke” the Same Question Last Year. Her Other Answers Were More Revealing.
“I just think it's important for every kid in America to know who someone like Rush Limbaugh was.”
Marjorie Taylor Greene's 'Bomb' Was Actually a Bag of Sand
Marjorie Taylor Greene claimed that Mexican drug cartels were “planting bombs” on the U.S. side of the border, but officials say it was just sand
www.rollingstone.com
21% of Fox News Viewers Trust Network Less After Texts Revealed in Dominion Lawsuit: Survey
More than one-fifth of Fox News viewers are less trusting of the cable network in the wake of the Dominion lawsuit.
variety.com
21% of Fox News Viewers Trust Network Less After Texts Revealed in Dominion Lawsuit: Survey
VIP+ Analysis: Exclusive data reveals how private messages from Carlson, Murdoch impacted audience opinions about election fraud.
By
Andrew Wallenstein, Gavin Bridge
Illustration: VIP+; Adobe Stock
More than a fifth of Fox News Channel viewers are less trusting of the cable network in the wake of publicly disclosed text messages and emails from Fox executives and on-air personalities, according to a new survey.
But only 9% of Fox News viewers say they aren’t watching the network as much as they used to, per research provided exclusively to Variety Intelligence Platform by consumer insights specialists Maru Group. (Click to an expanded subscriber version for full results.)
A representative for Fox News told VIP+, “There has been no impact to advertising, with no advertisers dropping or pausing,” and confirmed that viewership levels had not been impacted.
Related Stories
VIP+
Survey: Views of Fox News Skewed by Awareness of Defamation Claim
David Letterman Calls Out Tom Cruise for Skipping the Oscars, Jimmy Kimmel Agrees He ‘Should’ve Been There’: ‘Yeah, Of Course!’
In addition, 13% of Fox News viewers no longer believe the 2020 presidential election was stolen after reading communications in which the network’s stars, including Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity, were making allegations on TV regarding voter fraud that was inconsistent with what they were saying privately.
The survey was fielded online March 10-12, 2023, to 1,524 respondents just days after the latest batch of texts, emails and depositions were released in connection with a $1.6 billion defamation lawsuit filed against Fox News by Dominion Voting Systems.
The communications in question reveal what the network’s stars, as well as top execs including Fox Corp. chairman Rupert Murdoch and Fox News CEO Suzanne Scott, were saying behind the scenes after Election Night in 2020. In one deposition excerpt, Murdoch said he “seriously doubted” election-fraud allegations made by Donald Trump.
In a previous disclosure, Carlson expressed disbelief in fraud claims being made by a top Trump adviser. “The whole thing seems insane to me, and Sidney Powell won’t release the evidence,” he wrote in a text to another Fox News anchor, Laura Ingraham. Carlson had also expressed on air that Powell never responded to requests for evidence around voter fraud.
Half of Fox News viewers surveyed after the disclosures say they still believe the election was stolen — almost double the national average (28%) among the respondents who said the same.
Moreover, more than half of Fox News viewers who said they were aware of the deposition and texts said they continue to trust Fox News — nearly double the percentage of the group that said they trust the network less.
Just over half of Fox News viewers (52%) remain favorable toward the network’s primetime hosts, while 16% say their opinion has become less favorable.
More data from this exclusive survey is available at Variety Intelligence Platform (subscription only), including:
• What percentage of Fox News viewers heard of the lawsuit, the Murdoch deposition and the texts?
• What percentage of U.S. adults, as well as CNN and MSNBC viewers, knew of the lawsuit?
• What percentage of viewers aware of the lawsuit believe the 2020 election was stolen?
Methodology note: This Maru Public Opinion survey conducted on behalf of Variety Intelligence Platform was undertaken by the sample and data collection experts at Maru/Blue. 1,524 randomly selected American adults who are Maru Springboard America online panelists were surveyed March 10-12, 2023. For comparison purposes, a probability sample of this size has an estimated margin of error (which measures sampling variability) of +/- 3.0%, 19 times out of 20. The results have been weighted by age, gender, race and region to match the population according to census data, which ensures the sample is representative of the entire adult population. Discrepancies in or between totals when compared with the data tables are due to rounding.
What Happens Next After Donald Trump’s Indictment
Donald Trump has been indicted. His pending arraignment raises questions about the process the former President will be subject to
If Donald Trump Is Indicted, Here's What Would Happen Next in the Process
Former US President Donald Trump speaks during an "America First Education Policy" event in Davenport, Iowa, US, on March 13, 2023.
Miriam Alarcon Avila—Bloomberg/Getty Images
BY ANISHA KOHLI
MARCH 18, 2023 3:32 PM EDT
Former President Donald Trump says his indictment by the Manhattan District Attorney for alleged hush money payments is imminent, claiming on Saturday that it could come as early as Tuesday.
District Attorney Alvin Bragg has not commented on Trump’s claims, and a spokesperson for Trump later clarified that Trump had received no notification an indictment was imminent.
However, Trump’s comments highlight the possibility that he could face arrest for the first time. Trump was invited to testify before a grand jury in early March. The offer to testify, which Trump declined, is required before any indictment.
The investigation centers around cash paid to pornographic film star Stormy Daniels in 2016 before Trump’s election win. Daniels says she had an affair with Trump; Trump denies this.
As part of Bragg’s investigation, Trump could face charges for falsifying business records when he allegedly reimbursed his then-personal attorney Michael Cohen for paying off Daniels. The hush-money deal, allegedly crafted weeks before his presidential win, could also put Trump in jeopardy of violating campaign finance laws.
The prospect of Trump’s arrest—the first in history for a former president—raises questions about the process Trump would be subject to during his arrest and trial—including whether any extraordinary measures would be taken given his unique status.
TIME spoke with legal experts about each step of the process, and how Trump’s indictment might proceed differently from run-of-the-mill white-collar crime cases.
The arrest
The charges Trump would likely face are for white-collar crimes regarding financial dealings, and given their non-violent nature, defendants in such cases typically “self-surrender,” skipping public perp walks.
Shanlon Wu, a white-collar defense attorney and former federal prosecutor, tells TIME that defense councils typically receive notice when their white-collar clients are being indicted. “You would make an appointment basically, to bring your client in to be booked and fingerprinted,” Wu says.
Wu adds that Trump’s lawyers may even seek some special arrangements, given he’s a former president, to avoid walking through the front entrance of the courthouse or police station in an attempt to be more discreet. On Friday, Trump’s attorney said that if indicted, Trump would not resist arrest and that they would follow normal procedures. “There won’t be a standoff at Mar-a-Lago with Secret Service and the Manhattan DA’s office,” Joe Tacopina told the New York Daily News.
If indicted, Trump would have to go through the same process, where he would be booked into jail, finger-printed, and a “mug shot” taken. However, given Trump’s substantial ties to the community, especially his ongoing 2024 presidential campaign, the judge likely wouldn’t deem him a flight risk and would probably immediately release him on bond, former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti tells TIME.
In a post on Truth Social on Saturday morning, Trump claimed his arrest was imminent and called for his supporters to protest, citing “illegal leaks” from a “corrupt” and “highly political Manhattan district attorney’s office.”
Security measures
Law enforcement agencies at the local, state and federal level have been working to prepare the Manhattan Criminal Court for the possibility that Trump is indicted, NBC News reported Friday, citing anonymous sources. The New York Police Department, New York State Court Officers, the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office, the Secret Service, and the FBI are all involved, according to NBC.
Wu doesn’t anticipate many unusual logistics in the procedures if Trump is indicted, but believes that security would be heightened—similar to measures for other high-profile political figures or celebrities. “Sometimes we see a huge flood of cameras and reporters at the front of the courthouse,” he says. “With a former president, the Secret Service would probably have some screening mechanism for that, because otherwise, you don’t know who’s in the crowd.”
“Court security may also set up a sort of a barrier zone, meaning there’s going to be ‘X’ amount of feet, where people can walk through and there won’t be any reporters sticking microphones in their faces,” Wu adds that there would probably be limits to how many people are allowed in the courtroom.
If Trump is indicted and charged, the case would eventually move on to jury selection, which could be a lengthy and exhausting process.
“The majority of people in the jury pool would have some opinions about Donald Trump,” former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti tells TIME. “Most defendants, even if they’re famous, are often not known by prospective jurors or they don’t have a certain opinion about that person. I think it’s safe to say that Donald Trump is different.”
During jury selection the prosecution and the defense use voir dire questioning, meaning they can ask each prospective juror questions about their qualifications and knowledge of the case, in an attempt to ensure fair and impartial jurors.
Wu thinks a judge could opt to issue a so-called “gag order,” restricting all parties from talking to the press. “This is gonna get so much publicity anyway if he’s charged,” Wu says. “It’d be very hard to find jurors who haven’t been exposed to the news.” Although rarely used, one method to combat this is for a judge to sequester jurors, limiting their exposure to outside influence or information.
“If this case is still ongoing, during his run for president, you could face a very unprecedented and challenging situation,” Mariotti says. “[Trump] would be subject to a criminal enforcement action by a state, which would pose a lot of serious constitutional quandaries.”
ESPN’s Stephen A. Smith rips Tucker Carlson’s Jan. 6 framing: ‘That’s bulls— that you’re spewing’
Sports media talk show host Stephen A. Smith went after Fox News star Tucker Carlson this week, blasting the network’s top-watched host for his recent treatment of the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on…
thehill.com
Why Stormy Daniels matters
Judd Legum
Mar 20
https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch...811-d2ef-4900-9959-eb17543fcf46_1024x780.jpeg
Adult film actress/director Stormy Daniels attends the 2019 Adult Video News Awards (Photo by Ethan Miller/Getty Images)
On Saturday morning, Donald Trump announced on Truth Social that he "WILL BE ARRESTED ON TUESDAY OF NEXT WEEK." Trump's comments came after widespread reports that Manhattan District Alvin L. Bragg (D) was closing in on an indictment connected to Trump's $130,000 hush money payment to Stormy Daniels, a former adult film star who says she had an affair with Trump. Later, a Trump spokesman clarified that Trump had no "direct knowledge of the timing of any arrest" and was only "highlighting his innocence and the weaponization of our injustice system."
The strategy, it appears, is to drown out any discussion of his actual conduct by skipping right to the outrage about his arrest — even though Trump has not yet been arrested or charged. This approach involves convincing the public that his actions were unimportant and, therefore, any charges will be politically motivated.
Trump is getting help making this argument from both sides of the aisle. On the right, Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) said that Trump is a victim of "an outrageous abuse of power by a radical DA" who is pursuing "political vengeance against President Trump."
On the left, David Axelrod, who served as Barack Obama's chief strategist, characterized the money payments to Stormy Daniels as the "least meaningful" of all allegations against Trump. Axelrod said charges against Trump for something so insignificant would allow Trump to characterize all future charges as "politically-motivated."
While McCarthy and Axelrod are quick to dismiss Trump's conduct, his payment to silence Daniels was an effort to subvert the democratic process.
At their heart, presidential elections are relatively simple. Voters learn things about each candidate and then use that information to select their choice — including whether or not to vote at all. A campaign is a process of shaping that information environment through ads, events, policy announcements, and other activities.
There are some basic rules about how federal campaigns operate. If you spend money to benefit your campaign, it must be publicly reported. If you run an ad, you must disclose that your campaign paid for the ad. The underlying principle of these rules is transparency — voters have a right to know what you are saying and doing to get elected.
If Trump is charged, it will be because prosecutors believe he violated the law in order to hide relevant information from voters in the days leading up to the 2016 election. After Election Day, Trump allegedly engaged in more crimes, including falsifying business records, to cover up his actions.
Trump was not a "victim of an extortion plot"
Trump, in a statement released by his 2024 campaign, now says that he was a "victim of an extortion plot, yet he is the one being prosecuted." This is not what happened.
Daniels met Trump at a July 2006 celebrity golf tournament in Lake Tahoe, Nevada. (There is a photo of the two of them together at the event.) Daniels says Trump invited her to his hotel room and said he could secure her a spot on his reality show, The Apprentice. She alleges that they then had a sexual encounter, which Trump denies. Afterward, according to Daniels, Trump would call her and invite her to other events, including the 2007 launch of Trump Vodka.
Daniels sought to sell the story about her alleged relationship with Trump to media outlets beginning in 2011 when Trump raised his profile by making baseless accusations about Obama and publicly contemplated a presidential run. Daniels gave Life & Style an extensive interview in exchange for $15,000. That would have been the end of it, but when Life & Style contact the Trump Organization for comment, Trump's lawyer, Michael Cohen, threatened to sue. Life & Style killed the story and did not pay Daniels. (The full Life & Style interview was published in January 2018.)
Daniels tried to shop the story again in 2016, when Trump emerged as the Republican nominee, but did not receive an offer. Everything changed in October 2016 when the Washington Post published the infamous Access Hollywood tape that featured Trump's lewd comments about groping women. Trump's sexual mores were now at the center of a closely contested campaign. And his ability to win the election hinged largely on Trump changing the subject before Election Day.
Daniels' agent reached out to Dylan Howard, then-editor of the National Enquirer, and asked if he was interested in Daniels' story. What Daniels didn't know is that David Pecker, the publisher of the National Enquirer, Trump, and Cohen, had reached a secret agreement at the outset of Trump's presidential campaign to work together to "catch-and-kill" negative stories about Trump. The purpose of the agreement was to boost Trump's chances in the campaign.
Howard reached a tentative agreement to pay Daniels $120,000 for her story. But Pecker had recently paid Karen McDougal, another woman who alleged she had an affair with Trump, $150,000. Pecker wasn't prepared to shell out any more cash. So Howard advised Cohen that he would need to take care of it himself. Cohen conferred with Trump and Pecker and negotiated a $130,000 deal to purchase Daniels' silence.
Daniels, in other words, never tried to extort Trump. Instead, she was targeted by a "catch-and-kill" operation set up by Trump and his associates prior to the campaign to hide damaging stories.
Cohen's cash crunch
Cohen had successfully negotiated a deal for Daniels' silence, but he had a big problem: where was he going to come up with $130,000? On October 25, 2016, two weeks before Election Day, Daniels' attorney, Keith Davidson, told Cohen that he was canceling the deal and Daniels would resume shopping it to media outlets.
This put Trump, and his campaign, in a dire situation. Not only could Daniels reveal the story of her affair with Trump in the critical days before the election, but she could also reveal the botched scheme to buy her silence. Had the truth emerged in October 2016, it could have played a decisive role in an election determined by about 70,000 votes across a handful of states.
That didn't happen. After consulting with Trump, Cohen withdrew $131,000 from a home equity line of credit and transferred it to a recently formed shell company, Essential Consultants. The shell company transferred $130,000 to Davidson on October 27.
There was a great deal of effort to obscure Trump's involvement with the payment. In the non-disclosure agreement itself, Trump was referred to by a pseudonym, David Dennison (DD). A separate side agreement identified Dennison as Trump.
https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch...a158-2030-4955-9dc3-c616262615c3_1034x648.png
A few days later, Trump won the presidency.
Over the course of the next year, Cohen invoiced the Trump Organization $35,000 per month to both reimburse him for the payment to Daniels and compensate him for his role in defusing a threat to the campaign. Cohen was paid a total of $420,000 by the company, and the checks were personally signed by Trump.
https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch...65b3-145d-46ba-8d69-6c9d60e9bde9_1234x410.png
The public first learned of the hush money payments to Daniels from a story in the Wall Street Journal in January 2018. Trump repeatedly lied about his involvement.
On April 5, 2018, Trump was asked if he knew anything about the payments from Cohen to Daniels. He claimed he knew nothing:
Federal prosecutors declined, however, to prosecute Trump. This decision might have been based on an opinion by the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel stating that "the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions." But federal prosecutors did not charge Trump after he left office either.
Whether the same scheme also violated New York State law is a separate question. If Bragg decides to charge Trump, he will have to make the case in detail. But Trump's conduct was not unmeaningful, and efforts to hold him legally accountable are not outrageous.
Trump schemed to conceal relevant information from the voting public in the days before the election, engaged in an elaborate coverup, and then lied about his involvement. This deceit was a subversion of the democratic process and may have changed the course of history.
Judd Legum
Mar 20
https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch...811-d2ef-4900-9959-eb17543fcf46_1024x780.jpeg
Adult film actress/director Stormy Daniels attends the 2019 Adult Video News Awards (Photo by Ethan Miller/Getty Images)
On Saturday morning, Donald Trump announced on Truth Social that he "WILL BE ARRESTED ON TUESDAY OF NEXT WEEK." Trump's comments came after widespread reports that Manhattan District Alvin L. Bragg (D) was closing in on an indictment connected to Trump's $130,000 hush money payment to Stormy Daniels, a former adult film star who says she had an affair with Trump. Later, a Trump spokesman clarified that Trump had no "direct knowledge of the timing of any arrest" and was only "highlighting his innocence and the weaponization of our injustice system."
The strategy, it appears, is to drown out any discussion of his actual conduct by skipping right to the outrage about his arrest — even though Trump has not yet been arrested or charged. This approach involves convincing the public that his actions were unimportant and, therefore, any charges will be politically motivated.
Trump is getting help making this argument from both sides of the aisle. On the right, Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) said that Trump is a victim of "an outrageous abuse of power by a radical DA" who is pursuing "political vengeance against President Trump."
On the left, David Axelrod, who served as Barack Obama's chief strategist, characterized the money payments to Stormy Daniels as the "least meaningful" of all allegations against Trump. Axelrod said charges against Trump for something so insignificant would allow Trump to characterize all future charges as "politically-motivated."
While McCarthy and Axelrod are quick to dismiss Trump's conduct, his payment to silence Daniels was an effort to subvert the democratic process.
At their heart, presidential elections are relatively simple. Voters learn things about each candidate and then use that information to select their choice — including whether or not to vote at all. A campaign is a process of shaping that information environment through ads, events, policy announcements, and other activities.
There are some basic rules about how federal campaigns operate. If you spend money to benefit your campaign, it must be publicly reported. If you run an ad, you must disclose that your campaign paid for the ad. The underlying principle of these rules is transparency — voters have a right to know what you are saying and doing to get elected.
If Trump is charged, it will be because prosecutors believe he violated the law in order to hide relevant information from voters in the days leading up to the 2016 election. After Election Day, Trump allegedly engaged in more crimes, including falsifying business records, to cover up his actions.
Trump was not a "victim of an extortion plot"
Trump, in a statement released by his 2024 campaign, now says that he was a "victim of an extortion plot, yet he is the one being prosecuted." This is not what happened.
Daniels met Trump at a July 2006 celebrity golf tournament in Lake Tahoe, Nevada. (There is a photo of the two of them together at the event.) Daniels says Trump invited her to his hotel room and said he could secure her a spot on his reality show, The Apprentice. She alleges that they then had a sexual encounter, which Trump denies. Afterward, according to Daniels, Trump would call her and invite her to other events, including the 2007 launch of Trump Vodka.
Daniels sought to sell the story about her alleged relationship with Trump to media outlets beginning in 2011 when Trump raised his profile by making baseless accusations about Obama and publicly contemplated a presidential run. Daniels gave Life & Style an extensive interview in exchange for $15,000. That would have been the end of it, but when Life & Style contact the Trump Organization for comment, Trump's lawyer, Michael Cohen, threatened to sue. Life & Style killed the story and did not pay Daniels. (The full Life & Style interview was published in January 2018.)
Daniels tried to shop the story again in 2016, when Trump emerged as the Republican nominee, but did not receive an offer. Everything changed in October 2016 when the Washington Post published the infamous Access Hollywood tape that featured Trump's lewd comments about groping women. Trump's sexual mores were now at the center of a closely contested campaign. And his ability to win the election hinged largely on Trump changing the subject before Election Day.
Daniels' agent reached out to Dylan Howard, then-editor of the National Enquirer, and asked if he was interested in Daniels' story. What Daniels didn't know is that David Pecker, the publisher of the National Enquirer, Trump, and Cohen, had reached a secret agreement at the outset of Trump's presidential campaign to work together to "catch-and-kill" negative stories about Trump. The purpose of the agreement was to boost Trump's chances in the campaign.
Howard reached a tentative agreement to pay Daniels $120,000 for her story. But Pecker had recently paid Karen McDougal, another woman who alleged she had an affair with Trump, $150,000. Pecker wasn't prepared to shell out any more cash. So Howard advised Cohen that he would need to take care of it himself. Cohen conferred with Trump and Pecker and negotiated a $130,000 deal to purchase Daniels' silence.
Daniels, in other words, never tried to extort Trump. Instead, she was targeted by a "catch-and-kill" operation set up by Trump and his associates prior to the campaign to hide damaging stories.
Cohen's cash crunch
Cohen had successfully negotiated a deal for Daniels' silence, but he had a big problem: where was he going to come up with $130,000? On October 25, 2016, two weeks before Election Day, Daniels' attorney, Keith Davidson, told Cohen that he was canceling the deal and Daniels would resume shopping it to media outlets.
This put Trump, and his campaign, in a dire situation. Not only could Daniels reveal the story of her affair with Trump in the critical days before the election, but she could also reveal the botched scheme to buy her silence. Had the truth emerged in October 2016, it could have played a decisive role in an election determined by about 70,000 votes across a handful of states.
That didn't happen. After consulting with Trump, Cohen withdrew $131,000 from a home equity line of credit and transferred it to a recently formed shell company, Essential Consultants. The shell company transferred $130,000 to Davidson on October 27.
There was a great deal of effort to obscure Trump's involvement with the payment. In the non-disclosure agreement itself, Trump was referred to by a pseudonym, David Dennison (DD). A separate side agreement identified Dennison as Trump.
https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch...a158-2030-4955-9dc3-c616262615c3_1034x648.png
A few days later, Trump won the presidency.
Over the course of the next year, Cohen invoiced the Trump Organization $35,000 per month to both reimburse him for the payment to Daniels and compensate him for his role in defusing a threat to the campaign. Cohen was paid a total of $420,000 by the company, and the checks were personally signed by Trump.
https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch...65b3-145d-46ba-8d69-6c9d60e9bde9_1234x410.png
The public first learned of the hush money payments to Daniels from a story in the Wall Street Journal in January 2018. Trump repeatedly lied about his involvement.
On April 5, 2018, Trump was asked if he knew anything about the payments from Cohen to Daniels. He claimed he knew nothing:
Federal prosecutors determined the scheme that was directed by Trump and executed by Cohen was illegal. Among other things, the payments by Cohen, which were ultimately reimbursed by the Trump Organization, constituted unlawful corporate contributions to Trump's campaign. Cohen pled guilty to campaign finance violations and other crimes and was sentenced to three years in prison for his role.
Federal prosecutors declined, however, to prosecute Trump. This decision might have been based on an opinion by the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel stating that "the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions." But federal prosecutors did not charge Trump after he left office either.
Whether the same scheme also violated New York State law is a separate question. If Bragg decides to charge Trump, he will have to make the case in detail. But Trump's conduct was not unmeaningful, and efforts to hold him legally accountable are not outrageous.
Trump schemed to conceal relevant information from the voting public in the days before the election, engaged in an elaborate coverup, and then lied about his involvement. This deceit was a subversion of the democratic process and may have changed the course of history.
Trump Arrest Images (A.I. created - hysterical)
Hahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! Hysterical! How many leggs this mutha have?! https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/03/fake-ai-generated-images-imagining-donald-trumps-arrest-circulate-on-twitter/
www.bgol.us
