If they can fake planes crashing into buildings, then surely they can fake a phone call, that will be the defence there. The 'they' being the wishy-washy liberals of course.
When Eighteen Gets You Twenty The news from the Washington Post↱ is as striking as it is unexpected: Justice Department and FBI investigators have amassed fresh evidence pointing to possible obstruction by former president Donald Trump in the investigation into top-secret documents found at his Mar-a-Lago home, according to people familiar with the matter. The additional evidence comes as investigators have used emails and text messages from a former Trump aide to help understand key moments last year, said the people, who like others interviewed for this article spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss an ongoing criminal investigation .... .... Investigators now suspect, based on witness statements, security camera footage, and other documentary evidence, that boxes including classified material were moved from a Mar-a-Lago storage area after the subpoena was served, and that Trump personally examined at least some of those boxes, these people said. While Trump’s team returned some documents with classified markings in response to the subpoena, a later FBI search found more than 100 additional classified items that had not been turned over .... .... Investigators also have evidence that Trump sought advice from other lawyers and advisers on how he could keep documents after being told by some on his team that he could not, people familiar with the investigation said. They have collected evidence that multiple advisers warned Trump that trying to keep the documents could be legally perilous. Allison Gill↱ observes that 18 USC § 1519, "the statute at play in the WaPo reporting … carries a 20-year max sentence." ____________________ Notes: @MuellerSheWrote. "This is the statute at play in the WaPo reporting today. It carries a 20-year max sentence." Twitter. 2 April 2023. Twitter.com. 2 April 2023. https://bit.ly/3ZusvYo Barrett, Devlin, Josh Dawsey, and Perry Stein. "Justice Dept. said to have more evidence of possible Trump obstruction at Mar-a-Lago" The Washington Post. 2 April 2023. WashingtonPost.com. 2 April 2023. http://bit.ly/3ZurIqo See Also: "18 U.S. Code § 1519 - Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations and bankruptcy". United States Code. 2002. Law.Cornell.edu. 2 April 2023. https://bit.ly/3At18Uj
At time of writing he has yet to actually be charged, but it is thought that he will be charged with c.30 counts of business fraud, relating (in whole or in part) to hush-monies paid to two women to keep secret details of his encounter from the public. His lawyer paid the women through one company, and Trump reimbursed that company via his campaign funds, claiming the costs as "legal expenses" and thereby, so it is argued, defrauding the tax system. There are other charges, I'm sure, but that's the main one that I'm aware of.
Paying hush money is not a crime. Trying to make the payments business expenses or using campaign contributions to pay blackmail would be a crime.
In of themselves, as separate charges, misuse of campaign funds or falsifying business records are misdemeanors. However, if one is committed in the furtherance of the other, it rises to the level of a felony. This is most likely where the suspected felony charge will arise; that he falsified records to hide the use of campaign funds to make the payment.
It's fun to watch FOX News try to protect Trump - a man who seems like he is doing all he can to be indicted. Trump has long been a fixture on their TV show and they trot him out whenever they need a quick ratings boost. But they also are wary of the damage he causes them, and are worried that their cash cow will end up looking like, you know, a deceitful criminal, which they are anxious to avoid. Hence all the "Trump is a poor victim of the clueless - yet eerily competent - democrats who are indicting him in their latest witch hunt" stories. And also as a result of their worries they haven't been using him as much, But at the end of March Hannity trotted him out once again to get that ratings boost. Now he knows that he has to be careful, because the last thing FOX wants is him to say something like "well I barely remember doing Stormy Daniels, and I only paid my lawyer to make it go away. Not like this witch hunt says!" It would harm their viewership if a FOX News segment featured prominently in a case against him, Now, the latest Trump legal problem is that it appears that Trump personally rifled through his boxes of stolen records even after he was subpoenaed over them. This means that a) any denials that he didn't know what was in them are false and b) there is now evidence that he sought to hide some of the materials that the FBI later recovered during their search. Check out this exchange as Hannity tries desperately to keep Trump from incriminating himself on TV: Hannity: “I can't imagine you ever saying 'bring me some of the boxes that we brought back from the White House. I'd like to look at them.' Did you ever do that?” Trump: "I would have the right to do that. There's nothing wrong with it." Hannity begins to sweat: "I know you. I don't think you would do it." Trump plows ahead oblivious: "Well, I don't have a lot of time . . .but I would have the right to do that. I would do that. There’d be nothing wrong . . " Hannity interrupts him to try to change the subject before he says anything else: "Well, let me move on . . .” Trump still doesn't take the hint: "Remember this. This is the Presidential Records Act. I have the right to take stuff. Do you know that they ended up paying Richard Nixon, I think, $18 million for what he had? They did the Presidential Records Act. I have the right to take stuff. I have the right to look at stuff.” Dang, that's a lot of work to keep someone from saying something they want to say.
Did you read the indictment? Kept thinking of the old adage that you can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.
Yeah, but that's an easy platitude. To the other, what passes for reasonable doubt, and what standard is who willing to set? If I suggest recalling↗ the Eleventh Appeals overturning Judge Cannon's partisan pandering in the Mar-a-Lago investigation, it is because we see what it takes to defend Trump; the Court need only abandon jurisprudence. Every aspect of his defense will require extraordinarily low expectations for criminal defendants.
Apparently it's extremely difficult if not impossible/verboten to indict a ham sandwich, if it's sufficiently popular and shares the same political views as a bunch of violent people.
On Republican Jesus "On Twitter, a lot of the little Twitter trolls, they like to say, 'Oh, Jesus didn't need an AR-15! How many AR-15s do you think Jesus would have had?' Well, he didn't have enough to keep his government from killing him." ― Lauren Boebert↱
On the Rape and Slander Front "The judge in the E. Jean Carroll suit is getting increasingly frustrated with Joe Tacopina. In responding to Tacopina's request for 'clarification' of jury selection procedures, he issued a short order that is the epitome of a bench slap, as David Lat used to say." ― Lisa Rubin↱
That exact approach was predicted by Neal Stephenson a few years ago. His book Fall is set in a world that has been Facebooked. In the book, that term means "to suborn reality to a non-reality-based consensus." The first instance of this is when Moab, Utah is pranked. A DoS attack cripples communication in and out, and two or three actors produce "footage" that show a mushroom cloud over the city. A fake news conference is televised showing scientists talking about a nuclear weapon being detonated, only to be silenced by the military. After 12 hours or so one of the protagonists tracks down a personal satellite phone of someone in Moab and calls it. A woman answers and confirms they have not been blown up. It's clear that someone pulled this prank to short the stock market (which crashes) but it's never revealed who. The actors who played their roles are identified and the Chinese CGI house that created the mushroom cloud footage is outed. However, this does not stop the belief that a large percentage of the population has - that the hoax was real and that Moab is gone. "Remember Moab" bumper stickers appear. And every time someone posts a bunch of pictures from Moab saying "What is wrong with you people? I WAS JUST THERE!" they are called a government plant by a group of Internet people that sound very similar to Qanon. Fast forward 10 years or so and there are two Americas - the more reality based parts and Ameristan, parts that have reverted to religious fundamentalism, often called Leviticanism. In Ameristan infidels are still crucified for things like wearing cotton/polyester blends or being gay. They still rely on the reality based parts of the country for things like antibiotics and surgery, but maintain that they are the real US; they claim that the rest of the country has abandoned the Second Amendment so they're not really part of the US any more. They stockpile guns and ammunition and build burning crosses. (Crosses, that they insist, are NOT like the KKK.) In this excerpt, a bunch of recent college graduates comes across a massive steel cross that the Leviticans will soon light on fire. They ask a priest of this new Christianity what's going on. (Edited to reduce length) =============== “Now, let me take the bull by the horns as far as the KKK Libel." Ted had returned from inspecting the lambs. "Obviously you are not a white person, at least not one hundred percent, and I don't know about him." He cast a glance over at Julian, who was down on one knee feeding a handful of grass through the chicken wire to a lamb. Julian was part Chinese. "There's been all kinds of confusion about us Leviticans. Some kind of imagined link to the Ku Klux Klan." "Maybe it's because of the burning crosses," Phil suggested, deadpan, gazing across a few yards of gravel to the massive concrete foundation from which the cross's steel verticals erupted. "Supposedly the KKK burned crosses," Ted said with a roll of the eyes. “There's no 'supposedly' about it," Anne-Solenne started in. "What are you even—that's like saying supposedly Muhammad Ali was a boxer. Supposedly Ford makes cars. It's—" But Sophia silenced her with a hand on the arm. There was no point. "If that is even true, it has no connection to our burning crosses, which have a completely different significance. So-called Christianity, as it existed up until recently, is based on a big lie - the most successful conspiracy of all time. And it was all summed up in the symbolism of the cross. Every cross you see on a mainstream church, or worn as jewelry, or on a rosary or what have you, is another repetition of that lie." "And what is that lie exactly?" Phil asked. "That Jesus was crucified. That the Son of God, the most powerful incarnate being in the history of the universe, allowed Himself to be scourged and humiliated and taken out in the most disgraceful way you can imagine." "Taken out' means 'murdered'?" Anne-Solenne asked. It was a rhetorical question that Ted answered with the tiniest hint of a nod. "The church that was built on the lie of the Crucifixion had two basic tenets. One was the lovey-dovey Jesus who went around being nice to people—basically, just the kind of behavior you would expect from the kind of beta who would allow himself to be spat on, to be nailed to a piece of wood. The second was this notion that the Old Testament no longer counted for anything, that the laws laid down in Leviticus were part of an old covenant that could simply be ignored after, and because, he was nailed up on that cross. We have exposed all that as garbage. Nonsense. A conspiracy by the elites to keep people meek and passive. The only crosses you'll see in our church are on fire, and the symbolism of that has nothing to do with the KKK. It means we reject the false church that was built upon the myth of the Crucifixion." "So, to be clear, all Christianity for the last two thousand years—Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, evangelical—is just flat-out wrong," Phil said. "That is correct. That's the first thing the church did, was enshrine all those gospels. Telling the story they wanted to tell. About the meek liberal Jesus who gave food away to poor people and healed the sick and so on." "And was crucified and ... resurrected?" Anne-Solenne asked. "They needed some way to explain the fact that He was still alive, so they invented all that resurrection stuff." "So where'd Jesus go after that? What did He do?" "Fought the Romans. Went back and forth between this world and heaven. He has the power to do that." "Where is He now?" "We don't know! Maybe here. He has been in eclipse for two thousand years. The conspiracy of the church was powerful. They staged a fake Reformation to get people to believe that reform was possible. All a show. Orchestrated from the Vatican." "So, Martin Luther was running a false-flag operation for the Pope," Phil said. "In that case—" But he broke off as he felt Sophia stepping on his toe, under the table. He looked down at her. Having caught his eye, she panned her gaze across the entire scene, asking him to take it all in. Reminding him that this wasn't Princeton. This was Ameristan. Facebooked to the molecular level. ============================ This could have been written with Boebert in mind as the character of Ted.
So Trump has been found guilty in a civil court of sexual abuse (although cleared of rape), and, along with being found guilty on other matters, has to stump up $5m to the claimant. How does this, if at all, affect his chances of nomination? Does it put an end to it, or does it make no difference at all? I'm asking both legally speaking - i.e. does being convicted (in a civil court or otherwise) have any legal bearing on whether someone can stand? - but also in terms of his Republican base, and the desire of the Republican party to put someone found guilty of such (in a civil court) forward as their nominee?
No one should be permitted to run for any high political office, let alone the POTUS, if they’ve been found guilty for sexual crimes, civilly or criminally.
Trump's base will say it was rigged and will send him more than enough money to pay the 5 million. Which he will pocket.
