526
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 04 Aug 2023
526 points (98.0% liked)
politics
19240 readers
1662 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
"Resources that would have gone into Ads and Rallies, will now have to be spent fighting these Radical Left Thugs in numerous courts"
Or you could spend your own money
“It is Election Interference, & the Supreme Court must intercede,”
That isn't how the court works you file in whatever court has jurisdiction then appeal if you have cause. It would be contrary to standards for them to even comment at this juncture.
If he wanted to campaign unimpeded he could have simply not committed the crimes he has openly admitted to on TV
Wait…
Did he just admit to another crime?
I don't think so. You can put your own money into running a political campaign.
However, the IMPLICATION that he uses campaign donations for his legal defense is there. And stupid MAGA donors will believe that's how their money could be spent and that it's OK.
I can easily see a scenario in the coming months where someone asks Trump to clarify this and he confirms he plans to use campaign funds and will say that he’s allowed to.
It’s all super PAC money that has very little rules about its use. They’ve been using it thus way all along and openly raising money for legal defense. He may be admitting to exerting control over the super pac, which is supposed to be against the law, but seems to be practically unenforceable.
Meh....sorta? I'm pretty sure he can legally use campaign funds to pay legal bills relating to the election interference cases, since the cases are sort of tied to actions made during his 2020 campaign. But AFAIK he cannot do so with the classified documents case, since it has no direct connection to his election campaign.
But even if part of it IS legal, given his propensity to break the law whenever possible, it probably should warrant another investigation if nothing else.
He ran again because it was the most profitable thing he has ever done. Him and his family made billions.
Amazingly...no
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2023/08/01/donald-trump-2024-campaign-donations-legal-fees/70503786007/
There's a part of me that believes he only ran again because, aside from his ego, he believed it would make him immune to indictments.
Unfortunately Mango Mussolini could even be arrested and still win the presidency from prison... (Although it is a good thing the rules exist in that way)
Horrible hypothetical: he wins and pardons himself of all federal crimes, but he’s still convicted of state crimes in NY and GA and has prison sentences. What happens?
Constitutional crisis. Decent band name, horrible time to live through.
Reminds me of the old Chinese curse, ”may you live in interesting times.”
I would like to have a few less historic years please.
I know it's not a Discworld reference, but I couldn't help but think of Interesting Times
Nixon was apparently warned against trying to pardon himself because no man can be judge over his own case. Clear conflict of interest.
Idk how well that would hold up now as a reasoning, considering…. gestures broadly
https://archive.thinkprogress.org/nixons-justice-department-warned-that-the-president-can-t-pardon-himself-f70228c8b9ef/
When Nixon was president we also didn’t have public indoctrination stations like Fox. Nixon being accountable for Watergate was why Rupert Murdoch created Fox
👌🏽
Cheeto Benito
Tweetler
Immor-tangelo.
Orange Julius Caesar
So my question is, if he won the presidency from prison, would they let him out of prison during his presidential term? Would the White House temporarily have some black bars on it?
There is neither precedent or written rules for it. Whatever happens will be a case of 'made up as we go along'
Imho that’s reason enough not to find out.
Imagine the global reputation hit from a convicted treasonous felon being the leader of the country… woof. So much worse than him just having the support of such a huge swath of the country..
We've already lost credit rating due to this clown
Imagine if every presidential public appearance, he has to do it wearing his orange jumpsuit.
Thank God he's not smart because if I were him and doing these things on purpose I would wear that orange jumpsuit as a Red badge of courage and end up becoming emperor or at least Hitler part 2 electric boogaloo.
He should have listened when Liz Cheney, and more importantly her father, said he wouldn't be allowed near the Presidency again.
🍊🤌🏻
IMO this is mainly a way to communicate talking points to his supporters. They want to start a lot of talk about Biden's "election Interference" to make it feel like this is something both sides do but only Trump is getting charged for.
This is the correct answer.
For being the party that supposedly represents "law and order", Republicans really seem soft on crime (at least on the ones they continually committed).
Did he just say he was going to use campaign funds for personal benefit?
🧐
“Not committed the crimes? How does that work?”
Crimes don't just commit themselves! You gotta commit crimes, because if you don't do it, who will?
Can't the SCOTUS adopt cases they think have some sort of importance outside of the apeal system? I thought I heard of them just recently doing that on a case they ruled on.
Typically they don't but this supreme court has already shown what it thinks of established legal procedure.
there is no case to adopt.. he wants them to create one or something, i don't know.. neither does he..
Yeah, basically the attorney general of some states claims that there was a business that was harmed by certain laws, which the business deny that they were harmed, but the supreme Court heard the case anyways and ruled that the business was actually harmed by said law so it was overturned.
You have to fix your formatting.