That’s the Dem plan, to disenfranchise 75 million voters next election with 3rd world crap hole politics.
And the NTers play along….
So what does an actual legal expert think?
Special Counsel Jack Smith just issued the first criminal indictment of alleged disinformation in my view. If you take a red pen to all of the material presumptively protected by the First Amendment, you can reduce much of the indictment to haiku…
…The press conference held by Smith only deepened the unease for some of us. Smith railed against the January 6th riot and made it sound like he was indicting Trump on incitement. He didn't. The disconnect was glaring and concerning.
Anyone else noticing a pattern here? The corrupt beurocrats of the Biden regime charge Trump literally the day after every single disastrous Biden crime family story. Rather than looking into the millions sent to the Biden’s their kids and their grandkids from virtually all of… pic.twitter.com/Hat0cnlcpf
At 5pm, the same DOJ that let Hillary walk, lied to a federal court to spy on Trump, censored Hunter Biden’s laptop, and gave Hunter Biden a sweet plea deal to cover up Joe Biden’s foreign bribery schemes will indict Donald Trump for telling rioters to peacefully protest. https://t.co/8GWUVauIB8
Trump’s poll numbers have been fairly consistent – about mid 50s for the Republican nomination. He benefited from the collapse of DeSantis’ campaign more than anything else. Against Biden, he’s about 0-2% behind Biden. The real question is motivation to vote. Does Trump motivated Republicans or Democrats to vote – it’s probably the latter. About 10% of Republicans won’t vote for Trump – they’ll stay home or just skip the top of the ballot. If I was a betting person, I’d bet on Biden. It might come down to Maine split votes but Biden will win. And of course Biden will win the popular vote – as Democrats usually do.
I do think this latest indictment is the weakest. The Mar-A-Lago charges should stick – now that its known he asked employees to wipe out some video. A felon can’t vote in some states but he can become president – weird. Sure, Jack Smith’s timing is impeccable but Trump’s past behaviour allowed this to happen.
From what I understand, indictments in the US are only possible through a grand jury. In other words, the people chose to charge Trump not the DOJ.
The Trump campaign response calling this similar to Nazi Germany is amusing – when you have to play the Nazi card, you lost the debate.
Sex trafficking was not called a Q-Anon conspiracy. What was called a conspiracy was the idea that a large coordinated network of elites participate in large scale child sex trafficking. This idea is by definition a conspiracy and a fake one at that. The more complex a conspiracy the less likely its true. Sex trafficking is real and has been real for centuries.
The current rumour-mongering reminds of the moral hygiene movement/scare of the 1920s. It even had the same rumours – white sex slaves, groomers, drug trafficking by minorities, etc. The racism in the 1920s was more overt but the nonsense is the same.
hw: I find it unbelievable that you still think that Biden is a legitimate candidate. If you could vote in the US elections, is that who you would vote for?
And yes, the actions of the current Marxists are the same as the Nazis of the late 1930s.
~ … Much of the left and right have convinced themselves that American democracy has been hijacked, to one extent or another, by powerful special interests, billionaire donors, the “deep state,” hegemonic party establishments, and/or “the media.” And yet, time and again, the string-pullers have proven to be ordinary people.
Trump will be the nominee unless enough Republican voters either change their minds or consolidate around a challenger. And that remains possible.
Cohn is right that it’s unprecedented for a frontrunner to lose with such a lead. But Trump is an unprecedented candidate. A former president with multiple criminal indictments despised by a quarter of his party almost as much as he’s loved by a third of it. You could argue he’s running with an incumbent president’s lead, but for an incumbent president, his lead would be disastrously narrow.
Throughout most of 2003, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean was seen as the unstoppable, inevitable Democratic nominee. “Dean has wrapped up the Democratic nomination for president of the United States,” the widely respected analyst Stuart Rothenberg declared (with some minor hedging), in November 2003. By December Dean was nearly 20 points ahead of his nearest rivals. The next month he was crushed in the Iowa caucuses, as voters started paying attention and changed their minds. Dean didn’t score a single win outside of Vermont.
For those desperate for a Republican nominee other than Trump, hoping voters will change their minds seems scary. But that’s democracy for you. ~
_____________
WSJ Editorial Board (and others) agree the documents case is much stronger and this latest one has problems.
+++++++++++
Another Troubling Trump Indictment
Special counsel Jack Smith’s broad theory of fraud has dangerous implications.
By The (WSJ) Editorial Board
~ … This is a remarkably broad theory of “conspiracy to defraud the United States,” and one with troubling implications far beyond the fate of Mr. Trump. Mr. Smith’s theory seems to be that if a President and his “co-conspirators” are lying, and then take action on that lie, they are defrauding the U.S.
This potentially criminalizes many kinds of actions and statements by a President that a prosecutor deems to be false. You don’t have to be a defender of Donald Trump to worry about where this will lead. It makes any future election challenges, however valid, legally vulnerable to a partisan prosecutor. And it might have criminalized the actions by Al Gore and George W. Bush to contest the Florida election result in 2000. …
… one of this is an apology for Mr. Trump’s post-election behavior. These columns have been clear from Election Day that we have seen no evidence that the election was stolen, and that Mr. Trump should have resigned in disgrace after the events of Jan. 6.
But the good news of that day, and of all four Trump years as President, is that America’s institutions held up under great stress. If there was a conspiracy, it was by a gang of misfits. As Mr. Smith’s indictment makes clear, most GOP officials in the states wanted nothing to do with it. Neither did most Trump officials, and Trump-appointed judges ruled against the President’s claims. Mr. Pence was a hero. The conspiracy had no chance of success.
This indictment, perhaps even more than the others, will by dint of looking back at 2020 roil the 2024 campaign. Democrats want Mr. Trump to be the Republican nominee, and Mr. Smith (whether he intends it or not) is making that outcome more likely.
*** We will have an election campaign that rotates between courtrooms and rallies. The carnival will make it difficult for other Republicans to be heard. A debate between Joe Biden and Mr. Trump, if they are the nominees, will be over one man’s age and infirmity and another’s attempt to stay out of jail.
We’ve argued that an indictment of a former President should be based on serious charges with enough evidence to convince most Americans that it is justly brought. We doubt most Republicans will see this one in that light, and that means we are headed for more difficult and dangerous months ahead. ~
And the idiots like Jonah Soldoutmysocalledprinciplesberg play along and earn their 30 pieces of silver…..
“‘Noticing a Pattern Here?’: Trump’s Indictment Happened After Hunter Associate Confirms Biden was on Phone Calls
“There’s no such thing as this much coincidence and if you’ve been paying attention, you will realize that we have become a banana republic. Truly disgusting.”
“Can we please call a moving van and a fumigator to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, and – when the poison clears – can we have the house cleaned by a religious team? Rabbi, priest, imam – whoever and whatever it takes to get a ritual cleansing for the ages done of the White House, and remove the scum that has to be clinging to the walls with every breath Joe Biden takes in that hallowed place.
You knew it was real, and I knew it was real. But in your heart of hearts, the things written in what was purported to be Ashley Biden’s diary were so depraved, so utterly revolting, SO MAKE YOUR SKIN CRAWL that you prayed there was no way they could be true.
That this was the one line the revolting old slimeball Democrats put in the Oval Office hadn’t crossed.
Man.
There are no depths this family won’t plumb.”
🔥🚨DEVELOPING: New released footage of Ashley Biden confirming that her leaked diary was legitimate which also verifies that Joe Biden sexually assaulted her. pic.twitter.com/Rv78X6um3l
— Dom Lucre | Breaker of Narratives (@dom_lucre) August 1, 2023
“Project Veritas, after 2 long years, has released the phone calls related to the diary, and they also – besides the “tipster” who originally found the abandoned diary in the rented beach house – have Ashley Biden on tape, asking for her belongings back. She wants ALL of the belongings she’d left in the beach house, and kindly threatens not to get the Secret Service involved if they were returned to her.”
The diary is hers along with everything written in it. The contents that were explosive enough to trigger a predawn raid on James O’Keefe’s house, and two Project Veritas reporters, not to mention vacuuming up texts, emails, mountains of materials. Even after PV chose not to publish it for lack of verification, trying to return it to Ashley’s legal flack, Roberta Kaplan, and ultimately turning it over to law enforcement.
…We took steps to corroborate the authenticity of the diary but, ultimately, made the decision not to publish. We attempted to return the diary to an attorney representing Ms. Biden, Roberta Kaplan. Project Veritas then gave the diary to law enforcement to return it to its rightful owner. Soon after, we learned in 2021 that the Department of Justice began investigating the issue a year prior, claiming the diary was stolen. In November of 2021, James O’Keefe’s and two other Veritas journalists’ homes were subjected to pre-dawn FBI raids. Documents obtained by Project Veritas later revealed that details of the investigation were leaked to journalists at the New York Times during the raids.
During testimony before the House Judiciary Committee’s Representative, Andy Biggs, James O’Keefe stated, “In short, we did nothing wrong other than the non-crime of investigating a story, as journalists do.”
When Project Veritas reached out to the Biden campaign for comment on October 16th of 2020, Ashley Biden’s attorney, Ms. Kaplan, responded by email stating, “We should send to the Southern District of New York.” Shortly thereafter, the SDNY approved the first of 19 secret subpoenas, orders and warrants, which gave the Department of Justice unfettered access to Project Veritas’ newsroom, sensitive email and phone data, and gag orders preventing our journalists from knowing about the seizures.
Why the panic if it wasn’t Ashley Biden’s stuff.
Cuz it was.
[10.08.2020] ASHLEY BIDEN: “I am Ashley Biden. It is my stuff.”
Federal agencies sure do spend an inordinate amount of time playing “clean up” for the Bidens. How does that happen?”
not only was Ashley Biden's diary real, but she hired none other than E Jean Carroll's lawyer, Roberta Kaplan to deal with Project Veritas, ultimately resulting in the predawn FBI raid at the home of founder @JamesOKeefeIII. You can't make this stuff up. @OKeefeMediapic.twitter.com/2Qjw37ZEh4
“So they indicted President Donald John Trump again, this time for giving a speech on the National Mall. Apparently that is now an insurrection. J. Edgar Hoover is probably kicking himself for not thinking of arresting Martin Luther King after his “I Have A Dream” speech. Hoover once tried to blackmail King into committing suicide.
Now, whenever Biden indicts Trump, smart readers ask themselves what is Biden trying to distract us from this time? His son’s day in court? His secretary of state bowing to Chairman Xi? A whistleblower testifying before Congress?
This time it is creditors getting uneasy about his overspending. For every dollar the federal government takes in taxes, it spends two. Lenders want too charge you more money when you do that.
CNBC reported, “Fitch downgrades U.S. long-term rating to AA+ from AAA.”
The world’s once most reliable and secure investment — the valedictorian of the world economy — just got downgraded. It may not seem like much but it is a step in the wrong direction.
CNBC said, “Fitch Ratings downgraded the United States’ long-term foreign currency issuer default rating to AA+ from AAA on Tuesday, pointing to ‘expected fiscal deterioration over the next three years,’ an erosion of governance and a growing general debt burden.
“‘The repeated debt-limit political standoffs and last-minute resolutions have eroded confidence in fiscal management,’ said Fitch.
“U.S. stock futures opened lower after the rating agency issued its downgrade, with Dow futures sliding about 100 points.
“In May, the agency placed the nation’s AAA rating on negative watch, blaming the debt ceiling fight. At the time, lawmakers in Washington butted heads over an agreement that would keep the federal government from running out of money. President Joe Biden signed the debt ceiling bill on June 2, just days away from the X-date on June 5.”
Not mentioned is there would be no debt ceiling bills with their X-dates if Biden, Democrats and RINOs were not borrowing trillions of dollars a year.
When Biden took over, the national debt stood at $27,751,896,000,000.
2 1/2 years later, the national debt tops $32,763,982,000,000.
That’s $5 trillion in debt Biden and the DC syndicate borrowed in a little over 30 months. That’s $2 trillion a year. That’s money the U.S. government never intends to pay back.
To put this spendaholicism in perspective, we gave Zelensky $100 billion. 20 times that amount is $2 trillion. So Biden and company are borrowing enough money to hold 20 Ukraine wars a year.”
“”It’s just not strong enough or specific enough to satisfy the very high standard that’s required when a president of the United States allows his Justice Department to indict his opponent, and influence the outcome of the election,” Dershowitz said.
“It doesn’t satisfy the high standard that should be required when you’re going after your political opponent. That’s banana republic, when you go after your political opponents by indicting them.”
ALAN DERSHOWITZ: Well it’s just not strong enough or specific enough to satisfy the very high standard that’s required when a president of the United States allows his Justice Department to indict his opponent, and influence the outcome of the election.
That is such a serious matter that it can’t be based on vague conspiratorial notions, proof of intent beyond a reasonable doubt. No, this is a charge that will result in a conviction in the District of Columbia, because just as a grand jury can indict a ham sandwich, a jury, a petit jury in the District of Columbia will certainly convict somebody named Donald Trump, as long as the evidence is plausible. But it doesn’t satisfy the high standard that should be required when you’re going after your political opponent. That’s banana republic, when you go after your political opponents by indicting them… and denying your right to vote for him or against them. I want to vote against Donald Trump and I don’t want the prosecutor to deny me that right.
GRETA VAN SUSTEREN: What about the whole concept of a special counsel? We had an independent counsel, which of course, Ken Starr was investigating former president Bill Clinton back in the 90s. That statute sunset, and that was the special independent counsel selected by three judges at the U.S. Court of Appeals. But when that sunset, we then went to the special counsel and that’s appointed by the attorney general of the United States, who of course, is appointed by the president of the United States. Is there a place to go back to something like an independent counsel? So we escape the suggestion that the choice is a poisoned one. Or is the special counsel something that we should do more of, or less of? What’s your thought on it?
DERSHOWITZ: Well it should be independent, and it should be picked by judges if it is going to be picked it all up. The ultimate answer is to have two departments, one political justice department that advises the president, a member of the cabinet. Most countries have that. And then a director of public prosecution, which is a civil service job, not answerable to the president. If you have that division, you don’t need special counsel or independent counsel. The reason we need independent counsel is because we have a schizophrenic Justice Department, that half the day it’s supposed to be the president’s political advisors to help them get reelected, and the other half of the day, they’re supposed to be independent, and only indict people based on on the merits. But we combine those two roles, which is why we need special counsel. But it’s much better to have whatever that person is called, appointed by three judges, not appointed by the person who was appointed by the president, especially in cases where somebody is running against the incumbent president. The standard has to be so high for that, and it does not look like it’s been met by this indictment. It certainly wasn’t met by the indictment in New York, and questionable whether it was met by the indictment in Florida, or will be met by the indictment in Fulton County.
In my book on Trump, I went through all of these indictments and showed how politicized our system of justice has become, and today’s indictment seems to demonstrate that.
VAN SUSTEREN: We have talked about the selective prosecution, asking about why Chuck Schumer, the Senate Majority leader, wasn’t indicted for what he did and Trump was here. Let me go to the whole issue of selective prosecution, as it relates to the classified documents down in Florida. Look, all the people who have classified documentation, whether it’s vice president Mike Pence, President Biden, who had them in two places, one in his garage, that I suspect a lot of people have access to, and one in a closet in downtown DC, and I can tell you these closets, even if they’re locked in these office buildings, you can pop them with a credit card. That was silly.
It seems to me that Trump’s indictment was almost a self-inflicted wound, because they all have it in their heads that they want to do something sinister. They’ve all got intel in their head that they could do. They don’t need a bunch of papers on the desk, but it almost seems like Trump was a self-inflicted wound because he was he seemed to be rather obnoxious or uncooperative. But was he treated fairly?
DERSHOWITZ: No, he wasn’t treated fairly. Now we have to see whether the obstruction charge sticks. It’s based apparently on triple hearsay. I’ve read the indictment. It doesn’t say that Donald Trump himself told and eye or ear witness to erase videotapes. Apparently, there were no erased videotapes. All the videotapes were turned over. So that obstruction charge seems to be based on triple hearsay, but we’ll wait and see how it uncovers and develops.
The charge itself of classified material doesn’t meet the standard of the same justice for all, because it doesn’t seem all that different from the allegations made against other people of the Democratic Party. So, so far, I’ve seen nothing that warrants prosecuting the man who is now in a 44-44 poll tie with the incumbent president, and trying to influence the outcome of the election through prosecution.
To do that, the standard has to be so high, like in the Nixon case, I don’t think it was met here.
VAN SUSTEREN: Let me ask you about the New York state case, which I haven’t dug into in a little while. As I see it very generally, it’s he that he used his company, privately held, not public… perhaps to pay hush money, and perhaps, it has been proven, signed some documents saying where the money is going. Is that a more fair prosecution or not?
DERDHOWITZ: No, it’s the worst indictment I’ve seen in 60 years of practice. Never in the history of America, and probably never in the history of the world, has somebody been indicted for paying hush money, the purpose of which is to keep people quiet, and they’re not publicly not acknowledging the payment of hush money on a corporate form. It’s unheard of. It’s never been done. It’s a made-up crime. It’s the worst of the four indictments… It’s the worst. The strongest indictment is the obstruction indictment in Florida, if there’s evidence to support it, it looks like maybe there isn’t evidence to support it.
But the self-inflicted wound of waving a classified document, saying I could have declassified when I was president, but I didn’t. But again, that is not a serious enough crime to warrant interfering with an election.
VAN SUSTEREN: I mean, I think they’re all hoarders. I mean, every single one of these people hoards, and I know every single one of them has been charged with classified documents. But you take Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and you know, I do not think she was ever going to do anything with the documents. I just don’t believe it. I don’t, but they ended up on Anthony Weiner’s computer, who’s got he’s got all these sort of sex crimes, he pledged to it, and he’s the husband of her chief of staff or something. I mean, it is so sloppy. What are classified documents doing on her chief of staff’s husband, who’s got questionable problems, he got convicted, I think. It’s all sloppy, it’s terrible. But I mean, you know they all ought to be treated the same.
DERSHOWITZ: It was worse than a crime, it was dumb, and it may have cost her the election, because Comey basically said what you’ve just said, that although it’s not a crime, it was serious.
VAN SUSTEREN: Let’s talk about Comey for a second. He’s the director of the FBI, and he leaks, improperly, records, and he doesn’t even have the courage to put his name on it. He doesn’t have the courage to leak it himself, he launders it through a friend in New York, so he doesn’t get caught. If that isn’t sneaky, what about him?
DERSHOWITZ: I agree with you. I used to like Comey, he used to come to teach at Harvard, and I used to like him very much. But the idea of laundering secret information through an NYU law professor? I just can’t imagine a person of high integrity doing that. The standards of morality and ethics have gone so low in America today for so many people, equally on both sides of the political spectrum, and the excuse they all have is, well, they did it first. Two wrongs make a right, the victim is Americans who want to have a system of due process in place, and equal application of the law. We’re very far from that today.”
“If Congress does absolutely nothing – which is what Congress is best at doing – then pretty much every American will soon be paying higher taxes. Rich or poor, your tax bill is going up – and economic growth will decrease – when the non-permanent provisions of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 expire at the end of 2025.
But we don’t actually need to wait until the end of 2025 to see what the expiration of those provisions means for the economy. Two of its provisions that were vital to the economic growth experienced prior to the COVID crisis have already begun to phase out – the bonus depreciation tax deduction and the Opportunity Zones tax credit.
Prior to this year, any qualified business could get bonus depreciation of 100%. For this year it’s 80%, next year 60%, and 40% the year after that. The credit for investing in Opportunity Zones – which are designed to incentivize development in disadvantaged communities – is also similarly diminishing year after year.
This is a big deal for individuals trying to preserve their wealth and run small businesses. It means less capital to invest back into their businesses, employees, and the economy at large.
Unless Congress does something, the next few years will see the economy continue to struggle as American small businesses – the engine of the American economy – act to preserve their capital in the face of a hostile economic climate. This means no investment, no growth, and no jobs.
The slow death of those provisions is bad enough for the economy, but the end of 2025 will see the expiration of the across-the-board tax cuts that the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act ushered in. The top rate decreased from 39.6% to 37%, the 33% bracket fell to 32%, the 28% bracket to 24%, the 25% bracket to 22%, and the 15% bracket to 12%.
In other words, the folks on the lower end of the income spectrum are going to be forking over an extra 3% of their annual earnings to Uncle Sam, while higher earners will get a smaller hike that will cost them more in absolute terms.
Even more significantly for many filers, the TCJA roughly doubled the amount of the standard deduction from $13,000 to $24,000 for married filers. Unless Congress acts, this extraordinary benefit will expire at the end of 2025.”
First – there are no Marxists in the US gov’t or the Democratic party. Marxism is a political, economic, and historical theory. Its descriptive analysis of capitalism is not much different than the analysis of classical liberals such as Adam Smith and David Riccardo. The difference is in the view of history and the outcome of a capitalist economy. Due to their emphasis on economics, neo-liberals (ie Chicago School, etc) are sometimes sarcastically referred to as the only Marxists left today. Obviously they have a different outcome in mind.
Second – the Nazi political party is a bit of an outlier for the fascists parties of the 1930s – Mussolini, Franco, et al are far more representative. Fascists emphasise adherence to a leader and a culture which frequently results in totalitarianism. In addition, fascists tend towards a managed corporatist economy – the owners work with the leader and his party to manage the economy. Softer more modern versions include Erdogan, Orban, Putin, the Law and Justice Party in Poland, etc.
Thus Biden is neither Marxists nor a fascist nor a Nazi. I actually don’t believe I had to explain this.
Now as for how I would vote – the American two party system forces a person like me to vote Democratic (unless there’s a viable alternative for some positions on the ballot). Personally I see the Democrats as right of centre and the Republicans as right wing (there are some individual differences in representatives) . There are of course far better options available for both parties – but egos have determined it’s a rematch. A better political system would have multiple parties and run-off elections for the presidency based on the popular vote. For that of course we’d need to drop the first past the post and adopt proportional representation.
Aj – A grand jury agreed to an indictment just after Hunter’s associate testified that Joe Biden frequently called his son but never discussed business with him.
Project Veritas who have no credibility didn’t want to pursue the story, so we know there’s not even a remote chance it’s a story. Thus the story is now how the Secret Service reacted? Weird and not worth discussing.
US credit rating dropped because of the debt ceiling fight not because of the debt or deficit. The debt ceiling debates are ridiculous and make the US look less creditworthy. Republicans who are deficit hawks only when they are not in charge caused this.
The US gov’t needs a return to Clinton level taxation. The unfortunate thing is if Bush had continued with Clinton level of taxation; there would be no deficit and the debt would have decreased. Tax cuts have very little effect on the economy – for the most part corporations and rich people stash it somewhere or go on overseas trips.
Interestingly neo-classical economics states that to slow down inflation you need to remove money from the economy. Apparently they think the only cause for inflation is excessive money in the economy (they’re wrong). Hence, interest rate hike which slow down borrowing (aka bank created money) and increase housing costs. Another way to remove money from the economy is to increase taxes and not put it back in the economy. Now, there are obviously other causes of inflation (supply shock, greed, etc) but both Republican and Democrats toe the neo-classical line.
~ Nearly half of Trump supporters still considering voting for different GOP candidate: poll
46% of Trump supporters are considering voting for different candidate
While recent polls suggest former President Donald Trump is currently leading the GOP presidential primary race, a large portion of his supporters are still considering other 2024 candidates, according to a new poll.
A New York Times/Siena College poll found that 54% of Republican respondents are supporting Trump in his third presidential bid. However, 46% are still considering voting for a different candidate in 2024.
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis was the choice candidate to 17% of GOP voters, receiving the second-most support among the primary contenders. The margins were tighter, however, in a one-on-one matchup between Trump and his Florida rival, 62% to 31% — with Trump still holding a significant lead. …
~ … we’ve never had a major-party candidate campaign free on bail in four states, as former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie put it. This is the strangest election imaginable. The Republican frontrunner has a record polling lead and an unprecedented legal situation that will only get worse. No one really knows how this will play out. We’re in a political alternative universe. ~
This phony teased voters for days that he would do something on Jan 6. He knew he had no intention of doing anything that day and waited until the joint session convened at 1pm on Jan 6 to release his letter.
🚨BREAKING: Pence implicitly admits he had the power to reject fraudulent votes on J6
He knew there was fraud and if he sent EC votes back to state legislatures for further review, 12th Amendment would’ve kicked in where GOP House of Reps would’ve voted for Trump
He wasn’t asked to overturn the election. He was encouraged to send the results back to the states to make sure they were in agreement with the perceived results. That was well within his job description.
Just like a bad cop has all cases reviewed, this poor excuse for a human and his owners should have every single story he (and they) ever wrote reviewed for accuracy. Most likely, he was known inside and was their go to “reporter” to deflect.
This is why I argue Jack Smith, a longtime Dem DOJ apparatchik, doesn’t want either case so go to trial. Leaks, hearings, court filings, superseding indictments will be used as a weapon to divert attention from emerging Biden/Dem scandals. https://t.co/pGwmyrigWg
Wandering Views 
And up go his poll numbers yet again.
That’s the Dem plan, to disenfranchise 75 million voters next election with 3rd world crap hole politics.
And the NTers play along….
So what does an actual legal expert think?
LikeLiked by 2 people
They are an incestuous bunch….
LikeLiked by 1 person
Squirrel!
Yep.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Another legal expert chimes in….
https://twitter.com/KevinTober94/status/1686500595115393024?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1686500595115393024%7Ctwgr%5E6c8b326bb614f28ee7c047f05a2d37738f26df63%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitchy.com%2Fdougp%2F2023%2F08%2F01%2Fandrew-mccarthy-and-jonathan-turley-pour-cold-water-on-latest-trump-indictments-n2385910
LikeLiked by 2 people
So many squirrels….
LikeLiked by 2 people
Weird, right?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yep.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Trump’s poll numbers have been fairly consistent – about mid 50s for the Republican nomination. He benefited from the collapse of DeSantis’ campaign more than anything else. Against Biden, he’s about 0-2% behind Biden. The real question is motivation to vote. Does Trump motivated Republicans or Democrats to vote – it’s probably the latter. About 10% of Republicans won’t vote for Trump – they’ll stay home or just skip the top of the ballot. If I was a betting person, I’d bet on Biden. It might come down to Maine split votes but Biden will win. And of course Biden will win the popular vote – as Democrats usually do.
I do think this latest indictment is the weakest. The Mar-A-Lago charges should stick – now that its known he asked employees to wipe out some video. A felon can’t vote in some states but he can become president – weird. Sure, Jack Smith’s timing is impeccable but Trump’s past behaviour allowed this to happen.
From what I understand, indictments in the US are only possible through a grand jury. In other words, the people chose to charge Trump not the DOJ.
The Trump campaign response calling this similar to Nazi Germany is amusing – when you have to play the Nazi card, you lost the debate.
Sex trafficking was not called a Q-Anon conspiracy. What was called a conspiracy was the idea that a large coordinated network of elites participate in large scale child sex trafficking. This idea is by definition a conspiracy and a fake one at that. The more complex a conspiracy the less likely its true. Sex trafficking is real and has been real for centuries.
The current rumour-mongering reminds of the moral hygiene movement/scare of the 1920s. It even had the same rumours – white sex slaves, groomers, drug trafficking by minorities, etc. The racism in the 1920s was more overt but the nonsense is the same.
LikeLike
hw: I find it unbelievable that you still think that Biden is a legitimate candidate. If you could vote in the US elections, is that who you would vote for?
And yes, the actions of the current Marxists are the same as the Nazis of the late 1930s.
LikeLike
From Jonah Goldberg:
~ … Much of the left and right have convinced themselves that American democracy has been hijacked, to one extent or another, by powerful special interests, billionaire donors, the “deep state,” hegemonic party establishments, and/or “the media.” And yet, time and again, the string-pullers have proven to be ordinary people.
Trump will be the nominee unless enough Republican voters either change their minds or consolidate around a challenger. And that remains possible.
Cohn is right that it’s unprecedented for a frontrunner to lose with such a lead. But Trump is an unprecedented candidate. A former president with multiple criminal indictments despised by a quarter of his party almost as much as he’s loved by a third of it. You could argue he’s running with an incumbent president’s lead, but for an incumbent president, his lead would be disastrously narrow.
Throughout most of 2003, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean was seen as the unstoppable, inevitable Democratic nominee. “Dean has wrapped up the Democratic nomination for president of the United States,” the widely respected analyst Stuart Rothenberg declared (with some minor hedging), in November 2003. By December Dean was nearly 20 points ahead of his nearest rivals. The next month he was crushed in the Iowa caucuses, as voters started paying attention and changed their minds. Dean didn’t score a single win outside of Vermont.
For those desperate for a Republican nominee other than Trump, hoping voters will change their minds seems scary. But that’s democracy for you. ~
_____________
WSJ Editorial Board (and others) agree the documents case is much stronger and this latest one has problems.
+++++++++++
Another Troubling Trump Indictment
Special counsel Jack Smith’s broad theory of fraud has dangerous implications.
By The (WSJ) Editorial Board
~ … This is a remarkably broad theory of “conspiracy to defraud the United States,” and one with troubling implications far beyond the fate of Mr. Trump. Mr. Smith’s theory seems to be that if a President and his “co-conspirators” are lying, and then take action on that lie, they are defrauding the U.S.
This potentially criminalizes many kinds of actions and statements by a President that a prosecutor deems to be false. You don’t have to be a defender of Donald Trump to worry about where this will lead. It makes any future election challenges, however valid, legally vulnerable to a partisan prosecutor. And it might have criminalized the actions by Al Gore and George W. Bush to contest the Florida election result in 2000. …
… one of this is an apology for Mr. Trump’s post-election behavior. These columns have been clear from Election Day that we have seen no evidence that the election was stolen, and that Mr. Trump should have resigned in disgrace after the events of Jan. 6.
But the good news of that day, and of all four Trump years as President, is that America’s institutions held up under great stress. If there was a conspiracy, it was by a gang of misfits. As Mr. Smith’s indictment makes clear, most GOP officials in the states wanted nothing to do with it. Neither did most Trump officials, and Trump-appointed judges ruled against the President’s claims. Mr. Pence was a hero. The conspiracy had no chance of success.
This indictment, perhaps even more than the others, will by dint of looking back at 2020 roil the 2024 campaign. Democrats want Mr. Trump to be the Republican nominee, and Mr. Smith (whether he intends it or not) is making that outcome more likely.
*** We will have an election campaign that rotates between courtrooms and rallies. The carnival will make it difficult for other Republicans to be heard. A debate between Joe Biden and Mr. Trump, if they are the nominees, will be over one man’s age and infirmity and another’s attempt to stay out of jail.
We’ve argued that an indictment of a former President should be based on serious charges with enough evidence to convince most Americans that it is justly brought. We doubt most Republicans will see this one in that light, and that means we are headed for more difficult and dangerous months ahead. ~
LikeLike
Biden is a foreign agent, and deeply corrupt. He is a clear and present danger to the USA.
This is the biggest political scandal in American history, and it’s only going to get bigger…
LikeLike
And the idiots like Jonah Soldoutmysocalledprinciplesberg play along and earn their 30 pieces of silver…..
“‘Noticing a Pattern Here?’: Trump’s Indictment Happened After Hunter Associate Confirms Biden was on Phone Calls
“There’s no such thing as this much coincidence and if you’ve been paying attention, you will realize that we have become a banana republic. Truly disgusting.”
https://legalinsurrection.com/2023/08/noticing-a-pattern-here-trumps-indictment-happened-after-hunter-associate-confirms-biden-was-on-phone-calls/
“Trump indictments and charges always seem to happen whenever news drops against Biden and his family.”
LikeLike
But Trump’s character and treatment of women amirite?…..
https://hotair.com/tree-hugging-sister/2023/08/01/oh-ick-ick-ick-ashley-biden-ick-n568562
“Can we please call a moving van and a fumigator to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, and – when the poison clears – can we have the house cleaned by a religious team? Rabbi, priest, imam – whoever and whatever it takes to get a ritual cleansing for the ages done of the White House, and remove the scum that has to be clinging to the walls with every breath Joe Biden takes in that hallowed place.
You knew it was real, and I knew it was real. But in your heart of hearts, the things written in what was purported to be Ashley Biden’s diary were so depraved, so utterly revolting, SO MAKE YOUR SKIN CRAWL that you prayed there was no way they could be true.
That this was the one line the revolting old slimeball Democrats put in the Oval Office hadn’t crossed.
Man.
There are no depths this family won’t plumb.”
“Project Veritas, after 2 long years, has released the phone calls related to the diary, and they also – besides the “tipster” who originally found the abandoned diary in the rented beach house – have Ashley Biden on tape, asking for her belongings back. She wants ALL of the belongings she’d left in the beach house, and kindly threatens not to get the Secret Service involved if they were returned to her.”
The diary is hers along with everything written in it. The contents that were explosive enough to trigger a predawn raid on James O’Keefe’s house, and two Project Veritas reporters, not to mention vacuuming up texts, emails, mountains of materials. Even after PV chose not to publish it for lack of verification, trying to return it to Ashley’s legal flack, Roberta Kaplan, and ultimately turning it over to law enforcement.
…We took steps to corroborate the authenticity of the diary but, ultimately, made the decision not to publish. We attempted to return the diary to an attorney representing Ms. Biden, Roberta Kaplan. Project Veritas then gave the diary to law enforcement to return it to its rightful owner. Soon after, we learned in 2021 that the Department of Justice began investigating the issue a year prior, claiming the diary was stolen. In November of 2021, James O’Keefe’s and two other Veritas journalists’ homes were subjected to pre-dawn FBI raids. Documents obtained by Project Veritas later revealed that details of the investigation were leaked to journalists at the New York Times during the raids.
During testimony before the House Judiciary Committee’s Representative, Andy Biggs, James O’Keefe stated, “In short, we did nothing wrong other than the non-crime of investigating a story, as journalists do.”
When Project Veritas reached out to the Biden campaign for comment on October 16th of 2020, Ashley Biden’s attorney, Ms. Kaplan, responded by email stating, “We should send to the Southern District of New York.” Shortly thereafter, the SDNY approved the first of 19 secret subpoenas, orders and warrants, which gave the Department of Justice unfettered access to Project Veritas’ newsroom, sensitive email and phone data, and gag orders preventing our journalists from knowing about the seizures.
Why the panic if it wasn’t Ashley Biden’s stuff.
Cuz it was.
[10.08.2020] ASHLEY BIDEN: “I am Ashley Biden. It is my stuff.”
Federal agencies sure do spend an inordinate amount of time playing “clean up” for the Bidens. How does that happen?”
LikeLike
LikeLike
Wow, so weird the media isn’t covering this…. 🙄
“Biden indicts Trump to hide USA’s credit rating dropping”
https://donsurber.substack.com/p/biden-indicts-trump-to-hide-usas?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1115457&post_id=135647241&isFreemail=true&utm_medium=email
“So they indicted President Donald John Trump again, this time for giving a speech on the National Mall. Apparently that is now an insurrection. J. Edgar Hoover is probably kicking himself for not thinking of arresting Martin Luther King after his “I Have A Dream” speech. Hoover once tried to blackmail King into committing suicide.
Now, whenever Biden indicts Trump, smart readers ask themselves what is Biden trying to distract us from this time? His son’s day in court? His secretary of state bowing to Chairman Xi? A whistleblower testifying before Congress?
This time it is creditors getting uneasy about his overspending. For every dollar the federal government takes in taxes, it spends two. Lenders want too charge you more money when you do that.
CNBC reported, “Fitch downgrades U.S. long-term rating to AA+ from AAA.”
The world’s once most reliable and secure investment — the valedictorian of the world economy — just got downgraded. It may not seem like much but it is a step in the wrong direction.
CNBC said, “Fitch Ratings downgraded the United States’ long-term foreign currency issuer default rating to AA+ from AAA on Tuesday, pointing to ‘expected fiscal deterioration over the next three years,’ an erosion of governance and a growing general debt burden.
“‘The repeated debt-limit political standoffs and last-minute resolutions have eroded confidence in fiscal management,’ said Fitch.
“U.S. stock futures opened lower after the rating agency issued its downgrade, with Dow futures sliding about 100 points.
“In May, the agency placed the nation’s AAA rating on negative watch, blaming the debt ceiling fight. At the time, lawmakers in Washington butted heads over an agreement that would keep the federal government from running out of money. President Joe Biden signed the debt ceiling bill on June 2, just days away from the X-date on June 5.”
Not mentioned is there would be no debt ceiling bills with their X-dates if Biden, Democrats and RINOs were not borrowing trillions of dollars a year.
When Biden took over, the national debt stood at $27,751,896,000,000.
2 1/2 years later, the national debt tops $32,763,982,000,000.
That’s $5 trillion in debt Biden and the DC syndicate borrowed in a little over 30 months. That’s $2 trillion a year. That’s money the U.S. government never intends to pay back.
To put this spendaholicism in perspective, we gave Zelensky $100 billion. 20 times that amount is $2 trillion. So Biden and company are borrowing enough money to hold 20 Ukraine wars a year.”
LikeLike
Jonah will be shocked to hear this, I’m sure….
This is the 3rd world BS he’s cheering on.
“Dershowitz: Trump Indictment Does Not Meet High Standard Required For DOJ To Influence 2024 Election”
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2023/08/02/dershowitz_trump_indictment_does_not_meet_high_standard_required_for_doj_to_influence_2024_election.html
“”It’s just not strong enough or specific enough to satisfy the very high standard that’s required when a president of the United States allows his Justice Department to indict his opponent, and influence the outcome of the election,” Dershowitz said.
“It doesn’t satisfy the high standard that should be required when you’re going after your political opponent. That’s banana republic, when you go after your political opponents by indicting them.”
ALAN DERSHOWITZ: Well it’s just not strong enough or specific enough to satisfy the very high standard that’s required when a president of the United States allows his Justice Department to indict his opponent, and influence the outcome of the election.
That is such a serious matter that it can’t be based on vague conspiratorial notions, proof of intent beyond a reasonable doubt. No, this is a charge that will result in a conviction in the District of Columbia, because just as a grand jury can indict a ham sandwich, a jury, a petit jury in the District of Columbia will certainly convict somebody named Donald Trump, as long as the evidence is plausible. But it doesn’t satisfy the high standard that should be required when you’re going after your political opponent. That’s banana republic, when you go after your political opponents by indicting them… and denying your right to vote for him or against them. I want to vote against Donald Trump and I don’t want the prosecutor to deny me that right.
GRETA VAN SUSTEREN: What about the whole concept of a special counsel? We had an independent counsel, which of course, Ken Starr was investigating former president Bill Clinton back in the 90s. That statute sunset, and that was the special independent counsel selected by three judges at the U.S. Court of Appeals. But when that sunset, we then went to the special counsel and that’s appointed by the attorney general of the United States, who of course, is appointed by the president of the United States. Is there a place to go back to something like an independent counsel? So we escape the suggestion that the choice is a poisoned one. Or is the special counsel something that we should do more of, or less of? What’s your thought on it?
DERSHOWITZ: Well it should be independent, and it should be picked by judges if it is going to be picked it all up. The ultimate answer is to have two departments, one political justice department that advises the president, a member of the cabinet. Most countries have that. And then a director of public prosecution, which is a civil service job, not answerable to the president. If you have that division, you don’t need special counsel or independent counsel. The reason we need independent counsel is because we have a schizophrenic Justice Department, that half the day it’s supposed to be the president’s political advisors to help them get reelected, and the other half of the day, they’re supposed to be independent, and only indict people based on on the merits. But we combine those two roles, which is why we need special counsel. But it’s much better to have whatever that person is called, appointed by three judges, not appointed by the person who was appointed by the president, especially in cases where somebody is running against the incumbent president. The standard has to be so high for that, and it does not look like it’s been met by this indictment. It certainly wasn’t met by the indictment in New York, and questionable whether it was met by the indictment in Florida, or will be met by the indictment in Fulton County.
In my book on Trump, I went through all of these indictments and showed how politicized our system of justice has become, and today’s indictment seems to demonstrate that.
VAN SUSTEREN: We have talked about the selective prosecution, asking about why Chuck Schumer, the Senate Majority leader, wasn’t indicted for what he did and Trump was here. Let me go to the whole issue of selective prosecution, as it relates to the classified documents down in Florida. Look, all the people who have classified documentation, whether it’s vice president Mike Pence, President Biden, who had them in two places, one in his garage, that I suspect a lot of people have access to, and one in a closet in downtown DC, and I can tell you these closets, even if they’re locked in these office buildings, you can pop them with a credit card. That was silly.
It seems to me that Trump’s indictment was almost a self-inflicted wound, because they all have it in their heads that they want to do something sinister. They’ve all got intel in their head that they could do. They don’t need a bunch of papers on the desk, but it almost seems like Trump was a self-inflicted wound because he was he seemed to be rather obnoxious or uncooperative. But was he treated fairly?
DERSHOWITZ: No, he wasn’t treated fairly. Now we have to see whether the obstruction charge sticks. It’s based apparently on triple hearsay. I’ve read the indictment. It doesn’t say that Donald Trump himself told and eye or ear witness to erase videotapes. Apparently, there were no erased videotapes. All the videotapes were turned over. So that obstruction charge seems to be based on triple hearsay, but we’ll wait and see how it uncovers and develops.
The charge itself of classified material doesn’t meet the standard of the same justice for all, because it doesn’t seem all that different from the allegations made against other people of the Democratic Party. So, so far, I’ve seen nothing that warrants prosecuting the man who is now in a 44-44 poll tie with the incumbent president, and trying to influence the outcome of the election through prosecution.
To do that, the standard has to be so high, like in the Nixon case, I don’t think it was met here.
VAN SUSTEREN: Let me ask you about the New York state case, which I haven’t dug into in a little while. As I see it very generally, it’s he that he used his company, privately held, not public… perhaps to pay hush money, and perhaps, it has been proven, signed some documents saying where the money is going. Is that a more fair prosecution or not?
DERDHOWITZ: No, it’s the worst indictment I’ve seen in 60 years of practice. Never in the history of America, and probably never in the history of the world, has somebody been indicted for paying hush money, the purpose of which is to keep people quiet, and they’re not publicly not acknowledging the payment of hush money on a corporate form. It’s unheard of. It’s never been done. It’s a made-up crime. It’s the worst of the four indictments… It’s the worst. The strongest indictment is the obstruction indictment in Florida, if there’s evidence to support it, it looks like maybe there isn’t evidence to support it.
But the self-inflicted wound of waving a classified document, saying I could have declassified when I was president, but I didn’t. But again, that is not a serious enough crime to warrant interfering with an election.
VAN SUSTEREN: I mean, I think they’re all hoarders. I mean, every single one of these people hoards, and I know every single one of them has been charged with classified documents. But you take Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and you know, I do not think she was ever going to do anything with the documents. I just don’t believe it. I don’t, but they ended up on Anthony Weiner’s computer, who’s got he’s got all these sort of sex crimes, he pledged to it, and he’s the husband of her chief of staff or something. I mean, it is so sloppy. What are classified documents doing on her chief of staff’s husband, who’s got questionable problems, he got convicted, I think. It’s all sloppy, it’s terrible. But I mean, you know they all ought to be treated the same.
DERSHOWITZ: It was worse than a crime, it was dumb, and it may have cost her the election, because Comey basically said what you’ve just said, that although it’s not a crime, it was serious.
VAN SUSTEREN: Let’s talk about Comey for a second. He’s the director of the FBI, and he leaks, improperly, records, and he doesn’t even have the courage to put his name on it. He doesn’t have the courage to leak it himself, he launders it through a friend in New York, so he doesn’t get caught. If that isn’t sneaky, what about him?
DERSHOWITZ: I agree with you. I used to like Comey, he used to come to teach at Harvard, and I used to like him very much. But the idea of laundering secret information through an NYU law professor? I just can’t imagine a person of high integrity doing that. The standards of morality and ethics have gone so low in America today for so many people, equally on both sides of the political spectrum, and the excuse they all have is, well, they did it first. Two wrongs make a right, the victim is Americans who want to have a system of due process in place, and equal application of the law. We’re very far from that today.”
LikeLike
Oh goody!
But no mean tweets, right?
“Sunset of Trump Tax Cuts Will Darken the Economy”
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2023/08/02/sunset_of_trump_tax_cuts_will_darken_the_economy__149572.html?callback=in&code=NJYZN2UXMTGTZGY5NC0ZZTHLLTLHYZQTZDK3MJQ5ZTU4MZAY&state=262f14fdfb2c41b2a4f94573f3a26b48
“If Congress does absolutely nothing – which is what Congress is best at doing – then pretty much every American will soon be paying higher taxes. Rich or poor, your tax bill is going up – and economic growth will decrease – when the non-permanent provisions of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 expire at the end of 2025.
But we don’t actually need to wait until the end of 2025 to see what the expiration of those provisions means for the economy. Two of its provisions that were vital to the economic growth experienced prior to the COVID crisis have already begun to phase out – the bonus depreciation tax deduction and the Opportunity Zones tax credit.
Prior to this year, any qualified business could get bonus depreciation of 100%. For this year it’s 80%, next year 60%, and 40% the year after that. The credit for investing in Opportunity Zones – which are designed to incentivize development in disadvantaged communities – is also similarly diminishing year after year.
This is a big deal for individuals trying to preserve their wealth and run small businesses. It means less capital to invest back into their businesses, employees, and the economy at large.
Unless Congress does something, the next few years will see the economy continue to struggle as American small businesses – the engine of the American economy – act to preserve their capital in the face of a hostile economic climate. This means no investment, no growth, and no jobs.
The slow death of those provisions is bad enough for the economy, but the end of 2025 will see the expiration of the across-the-board tax cuts that the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act ushered in. The top rate decreased from 39.6% to 37%, the 33% bracket fell to 32%, the 28% bracket to 24%, the 25% bracket to 22%, and the 15% bracket to 12%.
In other words, the folks on the lower end of the income spectrum are going to be forking over an extra 3% of their annual earnings to Uncle Sam, while higher earners will get a smaller hike that will cost them more in absolute terms.
Even more significantly for many filers, the TCJA roughly doubled the amount of the standard deduction from $13,000 to $24,000 for married filers. Unless Congress acts, this extraordinary benefit will expire at the end of 2025.”
—-
Enjoy!
LikeLike
Tychicus,
First – there are no Marxists in the US gov’t or the Democratic party. Marxism is a political, economic, and historical theory. Its descriptive analysis of capitalism is not much different than the analysis of classical liberals such as Adam Smith and David Riccardo. The difference is in the view of history and the outcome of a capitalist economy. Due to their emphasis on economics, neo-liberals (ie Chicago School, etc) are sometimes sarcastically referred to as the only Marxists left today. Obviously they have a different outcome in mind.
Second – the Nazi political party is a bit of an outlier for the fascists parties of the 1930s – Mussolini, Franco, et al are far more representative. Fascists emphasise adherence to a leader and a culture which frequently results in totalitarianism. In addition, fascists tend towards a managed corporatist economy – the owners work with the leader and his party to manage the economy. Softer more modern versions include Erdogan, Orban, Putin, the Law and Justice Party in Poland, etc.
Thus Biden is neither Marxists nor a fascist nor a Nazi. I actually don’t believe I had to explain this.
Now as for how I would vote – the American two party system forces a person like me to vote Democratic (unless there’s a viable alternative for some positions on the ballot). Personally I see the Democrats as right of centre and the Republicans as right wing (there are some individual differences in representatives) . There are of course far better options available for both parties – but egos have determined it’s a rematch. A better political system would have multiple parties and run-off elections for the presidency based on the popular vote. For that of course we’d need to drop the first past the post and adopt proportional representation.
LikeLike
Aj – A grand jury agreed to an indictment just after Hunter’s associate testified that Joe Biden frequently called his son but never discussed business with him.
Project Veritas who have no credibility didn’t want to pursue the story, so we know there’s not even a remote chance it’s a story. Thus the story is now how the Secret Service reacted? Weird and not worth discussing.
US credit rating dropped because of the debt ceiling fight not because of the debt or deficit. The debt ceiling debates are ridiculous and make the US look less creditworthy. Republicans who are deficit hawks only when they are not in charge caused this.
The US gov’t needs a return to Clinton level taxation. The unfortunate thing is if Bush had continued with Clinton level of taxation; there would be no deficit and the debt would have decreased. Tax cuts have very little effect on the economy – for the most part corporations and rich people stash it somewhere or go on overseas trips.
Interestingly neo-classical economics states that to slow down inflation you need to remove money from the economy. Apparently they think the only cause for inflation is excessive money in the economy (they’re wrong). Hence, interest rate hike which slow down borrowing (aka bank created money) and increase housing costs. Another way to remove money from the economy is to increase taxes and not put it back in the economy. Now, there are obviously other causes of inflation (supply shock, greed, etc) but both Republican and Democrats toe the neo-classical line.
LikeLike
And it is still ‘early,’ somewhat.
FoxNews:
~ Nearly half of Trump supporters still considering voting for different GOP candidate: poll
46% of Trump supporters are considering voting for different candidate
While recent polls suggest former President Donald Trump is currently leading the GOP presidential primary race, a large portion of his supporters are still considering other 2024 candidates, according to a new poll.
A New York Times/Siena College poll found that 54% of Republican respondents are supporting Trump in his third presidential bid. However, 46% are still considering voting for a different candidate in 2024.
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis was the choice candidate to 17% of GOP voters, receiving the second-most support among the primary contenders. The margins were tighter, however, in a one-on-one matchup between Trump and his Florida rival, 62% to 31% — with Trump still holding a significant lead. …
LikeLike
On the weirdness of it all:
~ … we’ve never had a major-party candidate campaign free on bail in four states, as former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie put it. This is the strangest election imaginable. The Republican frontrunner has a record polling lead and an unprecedented legal situation that will only get worse. No one really knows how this will play out. We’re in a political alternative universe. ~
— Karl Rove
LikeLiked by 1 person
Traitor.
But he mentioned God, so some will fall for his schtick.
LikeLike
Yep.
Out this perv.
LikeLike
Lather, rinse, repeat.
LikeLike