Did Trump care if his hush money affairs would hurt Melania and Ivanka?

We've had this discussion plenty. Clinton BJs in the oval office, for example. Clinton was awful for America IMO, but not because of getting BJs in the oval office. That whole trial or investigation or whatever was a political show to punish him for all the policies that conservatives didn't like that he was doing, but were perfectly legal and legitimate within the authority of the executive. So cons spotlighted his infidelity instead. Same thing Dems are doing now to Trump. And Trump supporters are going to care about it as much as Clinton supporters did- not much.

 

Kennedy is as pretty much a bungler. What successes did he preside over?

 

In my view a post receives the type of response it deserves. But when you issue you typical, Uber-partisan, diatribe - there is no room for the response you allegedly seek. And given the massive post any attempt at addressing the point at length crash into the 5000 character limit.

 

Not with a teenager of the opposite sex.

 

Paying money to Cohen for negotiating and NDA is not a crime

Your claim misses the greater context:

The heart of the case lies in the alleged intent: influencing the 2016 election outcome by silencing negative stories about Trump. Prosecutor Matthew Colangelo contends that this was not merely a communication strategy but a planned, coordinated, long-running conspiracy. Their characterization suggests that Trump’s actions constituted election fraud.

While Trump has downplayed the accusations, referring to the trial as a “bookkeeping” case, the prosecution’s argument centers on the broader context. So, you need to consider the full scope of the case when evaluating whether paying money to Cohen for negotiating an NDA was a crime or not. The trial is not about routine bookkeeping; it’s about the unlawful influencing an election through hush money payments and how that crime elevates the false records charges from misdemeanors to felonies.

So far, David Pecker's testimony supports this argument, in spades, i.,e, his 'catch and kill' acts weren't for the benefit of Nat Enquirer, but they were for the benefit of Trump, and he admitted knowing that it was illegal (as unreported campaign finance contributions, which neither he nor Trump reported, where Trump covered it up as fake 'retainer fees to Cohen' exceeding legal limits, defrauding the voters, etc. ).

So, it looks like Trump as a Pecker problem. (Drum roll, rim shot).

Hah!

 

I merely asked. If you can't offer a substantive post, could you please abstain.

It's just an ask. Don't have a conniption.

 

Was that a substantive post?

 

What are you talking about? Clinton/dems partnered with Repubs to:

1. Achieve a budget surplus, the first time in the 20th century.
2. Pass the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000.

What Clinton did was sleazy ahs hell, but it didn't make him unfit for office.

As for 'lying to congress', as a member of the male species, myself, I can state with a modicum of authority that males, on the subject of sex, will lie to God Almighty, Himself, let alone Congress.

On that count, I'll cut Clinton some slack. But, because of the Flowers affair, I left the top of the ticket blank when I casted my vote, same goes a couple of years later, when we found out about Paula Jones.

 

No conniption involved - I gave you the logical, rational justification for my comments. And you

 

Which is not a crime.


By the left’s standards, campaigning is illegally influencing an election.

 

The rest of the story on those surpluses is that they were mostly surplus FICA revenue, not any legislative or Presidential genius. I second you comment on male lying.

 

Or even saying "Trump" in polite company

 

Thats sorta fair, he didnt really get much done. But its also sorta not fair, given that he didn't get a lot done because he was assassinated before he could do any of it.

Breaking up the CIA and 'scattering it to the winds' would've been nice. Not sure if he could've actually done it... but we'll never know.

Stabilizing our currency by backing it with a hard/objective asset to limit inflation is something I think we would all be benefitting from right now.

But I think most importantly, his Civil Defense program was the closest thing to a constitutionally intended 'well regulated militia' as we've ever had, and would have substantially hardenned our nation against disasters both natural and manmade. But Civil Defense pretty much died with him, was abandonned and replaced with FEMA and more COG, neither of which are going to benefit the average citizen or soceity in general in the case of a nationwide disaster such as famine, pandemic, economic or grid collapse, or nuclear attack. We're perpetually about 3 days away from coast-to-coast societal collapse if anything disrupts our electrical grid or our food distribution network, and those are both incredibly fragile. Our powerful military isn't going to be able to protect us from a grid collapse, and aside from a handful of volunteer 'preppers', we're not prepared as a nation to survive any sort of substantial disruption to the economy. We are in effect a massive glass cannon, and everyone but us knows it. Kennedy was the only (or at least the last) president to even try to address this massive achilles heal we have, and it was nowhere near as bad then as it is now.

 

I still don't care, don't think it has any bearing on his presidency, and think that if this is what bothers you most about hin being president then you have warped priorities.

 

Those are the talking points that the politicians lean on to get votes but rarely do anything towards those ends. Same as Republicans saying they are for smaller government and controlling the borders, but doing little regarding either when in power. Obama didn't even try for universal single player health care, instead options for a system that forces more money into the pockets of insurance companies. This was Romneycare.

Yes, I see little difference between the two parties, especially when it comes to human rights and freedom, which was what I was responding to. He thinks Trump is better for human rights and freedom. You probably think Biden is (as he sends weapons and money to help Israel bomb children in Gaza). I see no real difference between the two on that.

George Washington correctly warned against the creation of these political parties. And it is more like one big party than two. For real change, yes, you nees to break the system down. That's why Trump and Bernie Sanders were so popular in 2016, why Hillary lost (after screwing over Bernie), and why Trump may win again. They are seen as outsiders to the uniparty and you need that if you ever hope to get real change to the benefit of the people.

I don't think you necessarily need a parliamentary system. There are many other changes you could make. Yes, some of them may require amending your constitution, which you have done before. Others probably would not.

I don't believe you. I think many if not most at not at all happy with it, and only vote for one of the two because of fear the other will take power in the first past the post voting system, and alarmists on both sides constantly demonizing the other, as you do in the vast majority of your posts here.

 

the cover up is what got him

 

The loudest yelling I am currently hearing about how dangerous free speech is, is the crackdown on college protestors against the Nettenyahu regime.

 

I heard it claimed that Trump did shenanigans with fake electors, etc. If that's true, then that seems to me your best case against him. Why isn't more made of that? If that's true it could be much more damning than prodding at his marital affairs or pretending he stormed the capital.

 

That’s not something NYC can deal with.

 

@Patricio Da Silva - I understand that you want to self-righteously condemn Trump, but where was Jill Biden while Bribed Joe was taking naked showers with their daughter?

Between those two acts, hush money to a porn star is far less damaging than naked showers with the daughter.

 

There is plenty of room so your excuse is a lame cop out and by the way that's why the character limit is 16k, not 5.

 

And you know this how?

There was one fleeting reference to father in a diary entirely focused upon her boyfriends. And she put it as a question and she did not accuse. Pedophiles can't help themselves.There'd be a lot if father-daughter trauma in that diary if he were a pedo and there is NONE, and now we have photos of her and her father in loving embrace and videos of her heaping praise upon her father. Hardly the portrait of a pedophile.

That so-called evidence is so scant, It's probably why Bill Barr never pursued it.

 

It's a crime to defraud the electorate and running has everything to do with that point.

It's one thing to engage in sales talk and exaggerations and mislead the public.But it's another thing altogether to pay hush money to a porn star in order to prevent that fact from becoming known and then covering it up in fake legal expense transactions, Whereupon one of the conspirators comes forward and describes it as illegal that he knew it was illegal who was immunized for that very testimony.

If Trump hadn't done that and came out right out and admitted it to the public they just might have forgave him and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

To the argument that the former SDNY did not pursue this therefore it wasn't a "crime" This was because Bill Barr pressured the SDNY to not prosecute, and he put that pressure on the SDNY and they acquiesced.We have testimony to this fact.

 

He is not guilty of a criminal offense. Everyone knows this trial is 100% political in nature.

 

The diary recollection was of a teenager of her toddler years.

It is not uncommon in some families in the United States for parents to shower with their very young children to bathe them, even if the child is of the opposite sex. This practice is generally seen as a practical approach for bathing small children, and it is typically considered acceptable when the children are very young. The primary focus is on convenience and the child's safety and comfort during bath time. As children grow older and become more independent, they typically transition to bathing on their own. It is all very innocent And it boggles my mind that the right is so ignorant to not even be aware of this cultural fact in some families.

This idea that Joe Biden is a pedo is utter nonsense and if it ever came to a court of law that notion would be destroyed on cross examination. Clearly Bill Barr knew this and didn't even consider prosecution.