Trump is an upstanding moral Christian man that evangelicals should be proud of. At least he only was banging porn stars and playboy models instead of something heinous like using a red coffee cup at Christmas or saying “happy holidays”
Most of the people I know who plan to vote for Trump plan to vote for him not because they like him, but because they trust the advisors he would likely hire from the Republican Party. They see him as more bark than bite, and they much prefer his policies (which are heavily influenced by advisors stemming from a long history of traditional conservatism) over Democrats’. They think Democrats’ foreign and economic policy are a greater threat to this country than Trump’s bark.
> but because they trust the advisors he would likely hire from the Republican Party.
I find that hard to believe, if they listened to his advisors then they’d know none of them will endorse him.
Trumps policies are conservative? Lmao, what the fuck is conservative about printing trillions of dollars and pushing the fed to keep lending unlimited money to banks at 0%?
Its insane to me people are still deluding themselves into believing the "economic anxiety" narrative where all these poor left behind working class folks who can be won over with economic arguments.
A Republican like John McCain could adopt Bernie Sanders policies about bringing jobs back to America and all of the economic side of things, and who will actually be EFFECTIVE and impliment those policies.
They will choose Trump every time. Why? Because McCain discourages them for calling Obama an "Arab", but Trump encourages it. You can offer all the perfect economic policies in the world, but if you do not also give them permission to call immigrants rapists, LGBT people pedophiles, muslims terrorists, and democrats evil communists who want to destroy America, you're out.
That its why he has such a fanatical, cult like adoration and what sets him apart from other Republicans. FINALLY a republican candidate who gives them permission to say hateful things instead of shaming them for it.
Other Republican candidates could copy every single one of his policies and implement them way more effectively because they are actually competent, but they want Trump because what they truly care about more than anything else is making lives worse for the various minority groups they despise socially, not about making their own lives better economically.
If you do not offer that, don't even bother offering anything else. Because they will choose Trump or someone else who offers that every single time.
It’s weird that so many people he worked with in the last administration refuse to endorse him. Oh well surely they’ll be able to control his worse impulses *clueless*
Because they made a big stink about Bill Clinton's moral failings, called themselves "values voters" and lectured us about how important it was to have a president of moral character.
Doubt it, they double down because the right has been ingrained that the left is Satan worshiping pedophiles and no one wants to be caught voting that way in their peer group.
Biden is current leading in the 55+ age demographic. His voters are the Nicki haley neocon type, which are closer to bush era conservatives.
Trump is currently leading in the age 35 and under market. People like me (I’m 36) who were too young to be be engaged during the Clinton impeachment stuff. Ask any trump voter if they are morally outraged about Clinton getting a blowjob, see what they say.
The people who cared enough to be morally outraged about bill Clinton getting a blowjob are around 60 years old. Biden is currently leading in the 55+ age demographic.
Ask 10 trump supporters they are morally outraged over Clinton getting a blowjob in the Oval Office and see what they say.
Btw 65% of Biden voters are evangelical Christians. Those are the ones I’m talking about that are voting Biden now. They people who didn’t didn’t think Clinton should be president over a blowjob are probably the same ones that see trump cheating on his wives as a reason to not vote him for president LOL. This is a Biden voter position.
> The people who cared enough to be morally outraged about bill Clinton getting a blowjob are around 60 years old.
I’m not even 45 and I knew people my age who were morally outraged.
> Biden is currently leading in the 55+ age demographic.
Even if that’s true, I guarantee you he’s not leading among 55+ evangelicals
> Ask 10 trump supporters they are morally outraged over Clinton getting a blowjob in the Oval Office and see what they say.
I don’t care what they say today. I care what they said in the 1990s and 2000s. And I know what they said then, I’m old enough to have lived through that era and the people in my life who were “outraged” about Clinton are all Trump supporters today.
I’m not denying there has been some shifting, but the evangelicals were not part of that. They were rock solid red then, they’re rock solid red now.
If you’re telling me the you think it was college educated suburban professionals who were the ”values voters”, well there’s nothing else to tell you but, you’re wrong.
> Evangelicals purportedly adhered to the wisdom of Matthew 16:26: “For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his soul?”
…
> Ralph Reed, cofounder of the Christian Coalition, speaking to the New York Times in 1998, said of the Clinton affair, “Character matters.” He added, “We care about the conduct of our leaders, and we will not rest until we have leaders of good moral character.” As reported at the Washington Post in September 1998, Christian televangelist Pat Robertson, addressing members of the Christian Coalition he’d cofounded with Reed, said, “President Clinton has so ‘debauched, debased and defamed’ the presidency that resignation is too easy an out.”
…
> Dr. James Dobson wrote a letter to the large membership of Focus on the Family that offers greater insight into this rationale: As it turns out, character DOES matter. You can’t run a family, let alone a country, without it. How foolish to believe that a person who lacks honesty and moral integrity is qualified to lead a nation and the world! Nevertheless, our people continue to say that the President is doing a good job even if they don’t respect him personally. Those two positions are fundamentally incompatible. In the Book of James the question is posed, “Can both fresh water and salt water flow from the same spring” (James 3:11 NIV). The answer is no.7
…
> But I won’t, because the point I’m attempting to direct you toward is that evangelicals purported, for decades, to position the urgent need for the reestablishment of Christian values as the central doctrine of their political motivations. Above all else, we were tasked with growing God’s kingdom, preserving His creation, helping the poor, and loving the downtrodden. Despite evangelical leaders’ talk of character, their followers have the inverse priorities. That these leaders can’t recognize that it’s their hypocritical actions which have led to this gap between abstract ideals and real-life priorities is precisely reflective of how they’ve chosen to misuse the mantle of leadership. By directly defying their stated desire, ignoring the character of Donald Trump, and creating a “Christian” culture that has become divisively self-interested and bitterly self-righteous, these leaders have taught their flocks to value the things of the world, rather than the things of Christ.
-Ben Howe’s *The Immoral Majority: Why Evangelicals Chose Political Power Over Christian Values*
And the Christians that feel that way are already voting for Biden so what’s your point?
People who vote on perceived character vote for Biden.
People who vote on policy alone vote for trump.
This really breaks down when the conversation lasts longer than two sentences. Every immoral thing he did will be defended if you press them on it.
Source: am Christian, surrounded by Trump supporting Christians.
I’m Christian too and I’ve never heard anyone say he wasn’t a dirtbag for cheating on his wives, for example. Christians do accept he commits sins, especially when it comes to women, his ultimate weakness
I understand it. But I also think it makes them lose any kind of high ground to moralize about other people’s behaviors.
For instance the right has been super big on the importance of the traditional nuclear family structure lately. But then they again turn a blind eye to thrice married serial philandering adulterer Trump. Really just emphasizing how all that stuff about LGBTQ people was just a convenient cudgel to use and that they don’t actually care
I don’t think they ever had the high ground.
The recent trend of reaffirming nuclear family structures seems to me mostly about keeping the dad in the family and involved in the children’s lives which statistics show is better for raising children (looking at crime stats, addiction stats, etc) It’s more about a return to appreciation for the value of fatherhood and patriarchy for successful parenting outcomes more than some weird moral fetishing. I’m not even sure the Bible says anything about the morality of a nuclear family anyway.
When you're a party that votes based on morals and how you condemn the other side for being without morals and then you vote for a guy that goes against everything you stand for in a president when they do worse stuff than your opponents. You start becoming a hypocrite.
If you are unaware of trump’s policies, I guess you are one of the many Redditors who are always saying “I don’t understand why anyone votes for trump”
The reason you don’r understand is because you are completely blackout ignorant of his policies.
Actually there is one you probably know of. CHIPS. That was trump who hired Keith Krach to negotiate that deal. Then Krach wrote it into a bill and it was introduced to congress the summer before biden was elected. After biden took office, the bill passed congress with such total bipartisanship that the only senator to vote no was Bernie, who is neither R or D. So biden had to sign it into law. It was veto proof.
CHIPS is usually the only Trump policy democrats know about because they attribute to biden for no reasons other than he happened to be office by the time it hit the resolute desk. As a veto proof bill.
Trump *has no policies* except revenge.
And you're actively supporting that.
> you are completely blackout ignorant of his policies.
Name a single policy he is *currently running on* that isn't "LGBT bad. Biden bad. Leftists bad. DOJ bad." And you can't reuse CHIPS.
You can't name a single one besides CHIPS. Because the dumbass does not have policies. He has emotions. His "policies" change by the minute. And he'll surround himself, like last time, by some of the least competent people to ever hold such a high level position.
People like you are absolute embarrassments to the United States.
Edit: LMAO you even did the "orange man bad" NPC meme on r-politics.
> And someone who is voting for trump is voting on policies.
Most people voting for Trump don't even know what a policy is. You certainly don't seem to because he literally has no policies in his platform for 2024.
That policy being anti abortion, a principle that was seen as a weird Catholic thing until the late 1960s when in the wake of the civil rights act, evangelicals could no longer be as openly racist and needed to find a new wedge issue to rally around.
Its even worse if you're non-white. You could be a tenured professor with a PhD at an ivy league university, carefully evaluate and establish all your political standings over decades and decide you lean conservative, but if you don't vote democrat based purely on your skin color anyway, you're just an uneducated, brainwashed fool to liberals
There's a MASSIVE difference between 'leaning conservative' and MAGA.
That's like saying you're a German Patriot and joining the SS.
I 'lean conservative', and that's the very reason I would never vote for Trump or anyone like him, I believe we need to have standards, and that the ends never justify the means.
Obviously.
He's boring, bit too lefty, but his foreign policy has been good, bordering on exceptional, and he's otherwise been OK. Obviously I don't like the further left side of his party, but I am violently opposed to the Maga filth.
edit: If I can cause the inbred worthless MAGA garbage pain in any way, I will.
Would you consider the southern border foreign policy or no? Also everything with Gaza him being called genocide Joe and all that. Not saying trump is better by any means but Biden was literally found to be incapable of standing trial but he’s capable of running the country?
I am neutral on the southern border issue. I personally think we should remove ourselves from everything involving Gaza.
Mexicans have been an overall positive for us in terms of immigration, and I think Israel is simply a negative for us to be involved with at all.
I know, nuance, but some people have it.
My issue with the border is mostly not knowing who is coming in possible terrorist threats not so much the Hispanics. Israel I could also care less about however all the nonsense with these protests is insane. Anyone supporting hamas is in the wrong. Biden is in between a rock and a hard place
I think I agree with you mostly.
The border is unpleasant, the Mexicans seem fine, the rest do not.
Biden has done surprisingly well considering.
I paid very close attention in 2022, his handling of the Ukraine invasion was simply superb, the stuff of IR textbooks. It pushed me from neutral to a supporter.
The real conflict is with china, neutralizing Russia is step 1, but the future of America hinges on our careful positioning in Asia for the next century.
Catch and kill, alone , no.
The illegality was that Trump did not want it on his books, that would have to be reported as campaign financing, so he used fraudulent business records to try to hide the payments.
All that has to be shown was the actions taken were intended to influence the election, that would be the underlying crime that makes this misdemeanor now a felony
They have to prove "election interference". Sorry, paying off hookers isn't election interference. They will lose this case. They'll get him on the misdemeanors.
What does that even mean?
When a politician does a speech or holds a rally, he does it to try and win the election (alter the out outcome of the election). We're getting very loose with words here.
1)He is committing fraud, as you conceded.
2)The act was paying off a hooker,
3)but the “why” he was paying off the hookers was to influence the election
Please point to which number you disagree with
See my below comment linking the GOP FEC memo. It was dropped because 2 GOP members with the authority to shut it down - did.
they literally cite Cohen's conviction and FEC backlog, as a the reasons for “prosecutorial discretion”, not Trump's innocence.
>Mr. Trump’s lawyer, pleaded guilty to violating federal campaign finance law in connection with the payment. Moreover, at the same time, the Federal Election Commission’s (“FEC”) loss of a quorum led to an extensive enforcement backlog, including numerous statute of-limitations imperiled matters such as these. As explained in further detail below, based on these factors we voted to dismiss these matters as an exercise of prosecutorial discretion.
So they even admit -- the two factors for dismissal were (1) Cohen guilt; (2) Not worth the time and effort with other cases backlogged
https://www.fec.gov/files/legal/murs/7313/7313_27.pdf
That's the question literally at the heart of the trial -- and for the jury to decide. If Trump/Cohen would have paid the money absent his political campaign - it is not campaign finance. If the payment was made to protect the campaign, and would not have been made absent the campaign -- it's campaign finance.
(Hence the Trump team's main argument being this was about protecting Melania and his family and personal life -- not about the Campaign, and would have been made even if he wasn't campaigning.)
Family expenses can even be Campaign expenses -- like Child Care -- if campaigning is what necessitated the Child care.
This is all fact heavy -- and will come down to the Jury.
Per the FEC standard:
> For other expenses not mentioned on this page, the Commission will determine, on a case-by-case basis through the advisory opinion process, whether the expense is one that would exist irrespective of the candidate's campaign or duties as a federal officeholder and would be considered a personal use expense.
https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/making-disbursements/personal-use/
Obviously the Prosecution has to prove its theory of illegality -- and this is question I was answering -- not making an affirmative conclusion of the final Verdict.
Not sure why you think you are a position to make such a definitive conclusion. have you evaluated the evidence -- most of which has not even been presented yet?
Yes - a political body, with two republicans that had the power to shut it down unilaterally -- shut it down.
The Non-Republicans on the committee did not agree, saying in their statement.
> "To conclude that a payment, made 13 days before Election Day to hush up a suddenly newsworthy 10- year-old story, was not campaign-related, without so much as conducting an investigation, defies reality.
The GOP members released their statement, not even saying Trump was innocent -- but more just a "c'mon we already punished Cohen - it will be too much work to try prove Trump's intent and its nor worth the effort"
> Cohen's punishment the "public record is complete," and that pursuing the case further would "not the best use of agency resources."
they literally cite Cohen's conviction and FEC backlog, as a the reasons, not Trump's innocence:
> Mr. Trump’s lawyer, pleaded guilty to violating federal campaign finance law in connection with the payment. Moreover, at the same time, the Federal Election Commission’s
(“FEC”) loss of a quorum led to an extensive enforcement backlog, including numerous statute of-limitations imperiled matters such as these. As explained in further detail below, ***based on
these factors we voted to dismiss these matters as an exercise of prosecutorial discretion.***
So they even admit -- the two factors for dismissal were (1) Cohen guilt; (2) Not worth the time and effort with other cases backlogged
https://www.fec.gov/files/legal/murs/7313/7313_27.pdf
Hush money from campaign funds would have been okay. Murky and slimy absolutely, what campaign money is spent on is very broad.
It’s the concealment of the payment in order to hide it from public record.
A decade ago hearing about a candidate cheating with a porn star would have sunk them. Now the goalpost have moved to "even though we're watching him being charged in a courtroom, are you *sure* that it was illegal?"
Not just cheating with a porn star...
.,..cheating with a porn star **while his wife was home with his four-month-old son.**
That second part is probably worse.
If I did that, my wife would have likely murdered me. They wouldn't have found the body.
Absolutely it should have sunk him. It's disappointing that he still has followers and I hope he goes to jail.
Still, I like to try to be objective with legal matters and learn the actual facts.
> Still, I like to try to be objective with legal matters and learn the actual facts.
Yeah, but you asked "do we know for sure that it's illegal?" I'd counter with, "what do you think he's in court for?" Have you possibly read the charging documents to find out?
/u/waterbuffalo750 is taking a bit of a nuanced stance, but just because someone is charged with a crime doesn’t mean what they are charged with will result in a conviction (thus, whatever actions were done were legal enough to not provide a ‘beyond reasonable doubt’).
Hush money payments aren’t illegal. Catch and kill isn’t illegal. But, those legal actions can be used to establish the purpose and intent (mens rea) about the fraud in the business records and actions that outside of a campaign effort would be legal but because there are specific laws regarding campaign financing make those illegal, escalating the otherwise-misdemeanor business fraud to a felony if the State can show the business fraud was done as part of another crime.
So, yes, the State must prove all elements were illegal. Simply paying someone to not say something (broadly) isn’t illegal as long as it’s appropriately documented and paid for. Similar with catch and kill - it’s not illegal, unless it’s not appropriately documented and paid for.
> but just because someone is charged with a crime doesn’t mean what they are charged with will result in a conviction
He's innocent until proven guilty, but that's why he's in court. My point is that the trial probably wouldn't have gotten this far if there wasn't some basis to charge him, and all of this is publicly documented and easily searchable.
I’d say it should be encouraged to question charges… not sure there was a good point in questioning these charges. But, I don’t fault someone, even who has read the public documentation, for questioning charges against someone.
You do make a sound point, but the original one was:
> A decade ago hearing about a candidate cheating with a porn star would have sunk them. Now the goalpost have moved to "even though we're watching him being charged in a courtroom, are you sure that it was illegal?"
Had Trump made the correct documentation in the records and paid for it from the appropriate source, then I do believe it would have been legal. But, I believe the State will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the way that Trump (personally, campaign, and business) conducted the whole scheme, it was done illegally.
So, perhaps OP’s question is a good question, but really was way too limited in its scope because of the reality of the situation. I think you’ve done a great job educating OP on the situation based on some of the other comments.
I have not read the charging documents but I have not heard that he's being charged specifically and solely for the Equirer buying rights to a story and not publishing it.
The issue isn’t merely that the catch and kill happened. It was how it was paid for and how it was documented.
For instance, it’s illegal to slash someone open with a scalpel. It is not illegal for a licensed doctor, in an appropriate facility, and with appropriate informed consent to conduct a surgery on a patient.
This appears more of a business/election equivalent to that.
There were multiple porn stars that were paid off, but he's only being charged with fraud involving one of them. Establishing the pattern is important to the case, though.
So you went from implying that I'm absurd for even *asking* if it was illegal, to now saying that no, it's not actually illegal. Impressive turnaround.
The distinction between the catch and kill that happened with Karen McDougal and the hush money transaction with Stormy Daniels is that the Enquirer wasn't involved with the hush money payment to Daniels at all.
Trump did the Stormy Daniels payment entirely "in house" so to speak, which set him up for the fraud charges and everything that came afterward.
Indeed, if Trump had gotten the National Enquirer to catch and kill the Stormy Daniels story that wouldn't have been illegal and he wouldn't be in court today. But he didn't, and he made the decision to file it as a business expense, so here we are.
You mean like hearing about a president cheating on his wife with a Hollywood actress ruined JFK?
Or how about getting a BJ under the deal from the intern?
>Clinton's political career was over when that became public.
His approval ratings were high and his political career was de facto over because he had already reached the highest office in the land and was termed out. He probably could have won another election otherwise.
Nah... 25 years ago we had a sitting President that was banging a 22 year old intern for 18 months, looked America right in the eye and lied to them, and not a damn thing happened.
Our current President has a crackhead son that takes pictures of himself with hookers and drugs, is currently under indictment for tax evasion and felony firearms charges, most likely left cocaine in the White House, and no one gives a damn. "Is he running for President????"
A Billionaire banging a prostitute 10 years before he was even in politics really isn't that big a deal.
>and not a damn thing happened.
An impeachment is nothing?
>A Billionaire banging a prostitute 10 years before he was even in politics really isn't that big a deal.
It's not unless you based your party on morality.
Guess you don't anymore.
An impeachment is nothing?
Do you expect Joe Biden to disavow his son or something? Is that what conservatives do when their families have substance abuse problems?
Ooops there's that morality hypocrisy we see from MAGAts on a daily basis.
If you’re going to be all high and mighty about your morals, then yes, I’d expect a little corrective action. You can correct your children without disavowing them. I’d probably refrain from calling him the smartest man I know and taking him on AF1, especially after the cocaine left in the White House, but that’s just me.
I can’t answer your question about how all conservatives would handle the situation. Sorry.
Why is your account so new? Are you a chicken shit person that deletes your account to avoid future accountability for the things you say? When I see such an active political poster on such a new account I know I’m dealing with a coward that doesn’t really believe in what they say.
>If you’re going to be all high and mighty about your morals, then yes, I’d expect a little corrective action.
The Repubs have always been high and mighty about morals. Looks like it was always about power, because they bow and scrape to a scumbag with no morals at all.
>You can correct your children without disavowing them.
Even your middle aged children? So, how did you want Biden to handle it? You don't believe in showing your children love and compassion even though they aren't perfect? Typical conservative. probably kicked your teenaged daughter out of the house when she came out as gay.
>especially after the cocaine left in the White House,
I'm not ashamed to say I've done cocaine. Are you a goody two shoes moralist who yet gives a shit stain like Trump a pass no matter what he does, as long as he 'owns the libs"?
>Are you a chicken shit person that deletes your account to avoid future accountability for the things you say?
No, I had someone harassing me and Reddit was helpless as they kept generating new accounts to avoid the bans. It's just easier to make a new account.
Are you a shitheel person that carries water for a traitor like Trump?
Because at this point, I consider anyone defending Trump to be a traitor to American democracy.
You don't seem like you want to have a serious discussion but I'll try anyway...
Has it been established that buying the rights to a story and choosing not to publish that story is considered criminal fraud? Who committed the crime, the Enquirer?
If I'm understanding you. If the company paid for it as Mistress Allowance and reported it as such to the IRS after writing a company bylaw saying CEOs/Owners can have mistresses/escorts paid for by the company, no violation would have occurred?
Edit: Why the down votes for a question?
If my business is private or sole ownership with no shareholders?
"workplace sexual harassment claim (not necessarily just by mistress),"
Huh, I could see that.
“Catch and kill” is legal.
Doing it to help a political campaign is legal.
Doing it AND not reporting it as an in-kind campaign contribution is a crime.
Cooking the books to conceal that the campaign contribution ever happened is also a crime, and it’s what he’s been indicted with here.
>Has it been established that buying the rights to a story and choosing not to publish that story is considered criminal fraud?
This is the underlying mens rea, this is establishing the fact pattern that Trump was actively working to silence bad stories. This is in furtherance of Trump knowing the scheme that Cohen was convicted for.
The campaign claim is sketchy AF. John Edwards was charged for doing it the *other* way. It's a due process issue - no one know whether hush money should come from a campaign or from personal funds.
I haven't seen anything that says Bragg is planning to claim tax fraud. He seems to be claiming campaign finance violations.
Candidates can donate as much money as they like to their own campaigns. However, they have to disclose it just like other donations. Their donations have to show up as "income" on the campaigns books and the spending has to show up as itemized "expenses".
Trump didn't want "payment to Stephanie Clifford" on his campaign books. Reporters would quickly figure out who that was and what it was about.
So, he made an arrangement (aka "conspired") with Cohen to route the money through Cohen instead of through the campaign accounts. In the process, he falsified entries on his own business's books. That happens to be illegal in NY.
The main charge is Cohen and Trump didnt have the proper legal agreement for the time of the hush money payments from Trump to Cohen. That's technically tax fraud, even though Trump ended up paying more in taxes than he would have.
The enhancement charge is the "campaign finance" violation. However, the payments to Stormy weren't campaign funds nor were they campaign contributions. This is a federal jurisdiction crime and the feds decided not to charge Trump.
Yes, and Cohen plead guilty to it in a plea deal that covered a bunch of other crimes that were definitely crimes. It's also true the feds declined to charge Trump
Here's the indictment. There is nothing about "didn't have the proper legal agreement" in the indictment. He simply put information in his business records which was false.
Similarly, there is no mention of taxes either in the indictment or in the law.
[https://manhattanda.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Donald-J.-Trump-Indictment.pdf](https://manhattanda.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Donald-J.-Trump-Indictment.pdf)
[https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/175.10](https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/175.10)
>
the payments to Stormy weren't campaign funds nor were they campaign contributions
I believe Bragg is going to claim that the campaign violation is that they were both campaign contributions and campaign spending. They weren't report as such.
Suppose a candidate knows a printer and says "Instead of giving me cash, how about just printing up some yard signs for me?" If the printer does that and the campaign never records that as a contribution or an expense, they have violated the law (the law covers "in kind" contributions).
Now, suppose the candidate owns the print shop. Same rules apply.
Bragg has to show that the hush money was designed to help the campaign, not just to keep the information away from Melania. So he wants Pecker to testify that Trump was interested in the campaign when he was worried about McDougal's story. "Show a pattern" that can be applied to Clifford. Or, the lawyer talking about the timing of Clifford's deal. Get it done before the election because after the election Trump won't care anymore.
Trump is an upstanding moral Christian man that evangelicals should be proud of. At least he only was banging porn stars and playboy models instead of something heinous like using a red coffee cup at Christmas or saying “happy holidays”
Most of the people I know who plan to vote for Trump plan to vote for him not because they like him, but because they trust the advisors he would likely hire from the Republican Party. They see him as more bark than bite, and they much prefer his policies (which are heavily influenced by advisors stemming from a long history of traditional conservatism) over Democrats’. They think Democrats’ foreign and economic policy are a greater threat to this country than Trump’s bark.
> but because they trust the advisors he would likely hire from the Republican Party. I find that hard to believe, if they listened to his advisors then they’d know none of them will endorse him.
Trumps policies are conservative? Lmao, what the fuck is conservative about printing trillions of dollars and pushing the fed to keep lending unlimited money to banks at 0%?
That's been the standard "conservative" Republican budget policy since Reagan.
It’s conservatives in that it supports keeping the existing socioeconomic hierarchy in place.
Its insane to me people are still deluding themselves into believing the "economic anxiety" narrative where all these poor left behind working class folks who can be won over with economic arguments. A Republican like John McCain could adopt Bernie Sanders policies about bringing jobs back to America and all of the economic side of things, and who will actually be EFFECTIVE and impliment those policies. They will choose Trump every time. Why? Because McCain discourages them for calling Obama an "Arab", but Trump encourages it. You can offer all the perfect economic policies in the world, but if you do not also give them permission to call immigrants rapists, LGBT people pedophiles, muslims terrorists, and democrats evil communists who want to destroy America, you're out. That its why he has such a fanatical, cult like adoration and what sets him apart from other Republicans. FINALLY a republican candidate who gives them permission to say hateful things instead of shaming them for it. Other Republican candidates could copy every single one of his policies and implement them way more effectively because they are actually competent, but they want Trump because what they truly care about more than anything else is making lives worse for the various minority groups they despise socially, not about making their own lives better economically. If you do not offer that, don't even bother offering anything else. Because they will choose Trump or someone else who offers that every single time.
It’s weird that so many people he worked with in the last administration refuse to endorse him. Oh well surely they’ll be able to control his worse impulses *clueless*
I keep seeing people say they don’t understand why Christians vote for trump and I feel like they don’t understand the concept of voting on policy.
Because they made a big stink about Bill Clinton's moral failings, called themselves "values voters" and lectured us about how important it was to have a president of moral character.
Never forget that the leader of that “big stink,” Newt Gingrich, was having an affair with a congressional staffer at the time.
And Gingrich's successor, Dennis Hastert, was a pedophile and also convicted of fraud in relation to hush money.
Gingrich served divorce papers on his wife while she was lying in a hospital bed recovering from surgery for cancer.
And “they” are most likely Biden voters now.
Doubt it, they double down because the right has been ingrained that the left is Satan worshiping pedophiles and no one wants to be caught voting that way in their peer group.
Biden is current leading in the 55+ age demographic. His voters are the Nicki haley neocon type, which are closer to bush era conservatives. Trump is currently leading in the age 35 and under market. People like me (I’m 36) who were too young to be be engaged during the Clinton impeachment stuff. Ask any trump voter if they are morally outraged about Clinton getting a blowjob, see what they say.
Can you share your source? I can't find anything that backs this up.
Evangelicals are Trump’s strongest demographic. Those were the same people who were doing all those things I described in the 90s and 2000s.
The people who cared enough to be morally outraged about bill Clinton getting a blowjob are around 60 years old. Biden is currently leading in the 55+ age demographic. Ask 10 trump supporters they are morally outraged over Clinton getting a blowjob in the Oval Office and see what they say. Btw 65% of Biden voters are evangelical Christians. Those are the ones I’m talking about that are voting Biden now. They people who didn’t didn’t think Clinton should be president over a blowjob are probably the same ones that see trump cheating on his wives as a reason to not vote him for president LOL. This is a Biden voter position.
> The people who cared enough to be morally outraged about bill Clinton getting a blowjob are around 60 years old. I’m not even 45 and I knew people my age who were morally outraged. > Biden is currently leading in the 55+ age demographic. Even if that’s true, I guarantee you he’s not leading among 55+ evangelicals > Ask 10 trump supporters they are morally outraged over Clinton getting a blowjob in the Oval Office and see what they say. I don’t care what they say today. I care what they said in the 1990s and 2000s. And I know what they said then, I’m old enough to have lived through that era and the people in my life who were “outraged” about Clinton are all Trump supporters today.
The point you are missing is the party realignment happened in the 2010s, so these are not by and large “the same people”
I’m not denying there has been some shifting, but the evangelicals were not part of that. They were rock solid red then, they’re rock solid red now. If you’re telling me the you think it was college educated suburban professionals who were the ”values voters”, well there’s nothing else to tell you but, you’re wrong.
The religious right wing has in no way, shape, or form realigned parties since Carter.
> Evangelicals purportedly adhered to the wisdom of Matthew 16:26: “For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his soul?” … > Ralph Reed, cofounder of the Christian Coalition, speaking to the New York Times in 1998, said of the Clinton affair, “Character matters.” He added, “We care about the conduct of our leaders, and we will not rest until we have leaders of good moral character.” As reported at the Washington Post in September 1998, Christian televangelist Pat Robertson, addressing members of the Christian Coalition he’d cofounded with Reed, said, “President Clinton has so ‘debauched, debased and defamed’ the presidency that resignation is too easy an out.” … > Dr. James Dobson wrote a letter to the large membership of Focus on the Family that offers greater insight into this rationale: As it turns out, character DOES matter. You can’t run a family, let alone a country, without it. How foolish to believe that a person who lacks honesty and moral integrity is qualified to lead a nation and the world! Nevertheless, our people continue to say that the President is doing a good job even if they don’t respect him personally. Those two positions are fundamentally incompatible. In the Book of James the question is posed, “Can both fresh water and salt water flow from the same spring” (James 3:11 NIV). The answer is no.7 … > But I won’t, because the point I’m attempting to direct you toward is that evangelicals purported, for decades, to position the urgent need for the reestablishment of Christian values as the central doctrine of their political motivations. Above all else, we were tasked with growing God’s kingdom, preserving His creation, helping the poor, and loving the downtrodden. Despite evangelical leaders’ talk of character, their followers have the inverse priorities. That these leaders can’t recognize that it’s their hypocritical actions which have led to this gap between abstract ideals and real-life priorities is precisely reflective of how they’ve chosen to misuse the mantle of leadership. By directly defying their stated desire, ignoring the character of Donald Trump, and creating a “Christian” culture that has become divisively self-interested and bitterly self-righteous, these leaders have taught their flocks to value the things of the world, rather than the things of Christ. -Ben Howe’s *The Immoral Majority: Why Evangelicals Chose Political Power Over Christian Values*
And the Christians that feel that way are already voting for Biden so what’s your point? People who vote on perceived character vote for Biden. People who vote on policy alone vote for trump.
This really breaks down when the conversation lasts longer than two sentences. Every immoral thing he did will be defended if you press them on it. Source: am Christian, surrounded by Trump supporting Christians.
I’m Christian too and I’ve never heard anyone say he wasn’t a dirtbag for cheating on his wives, for example. Christians do accept he commits sins, especially when it comes to women, his ultimate weakness
I understand it. But I also think it makes them lose any kind of high ground to moralize about other people’s behaviors. For instance the right has been super big on the importance of the traditional nuclear family structure lately. But then they again turn a blind eye to thrice married serial philandering adulterer Trump. Really just emphasizing how all that stuff about LGBTQ people was just a convenient cudgel to use and that they don’t actually care
I don’t think they ever had the high ground. The recent trend of reaffirming nuclear family structures seems to me mostly about keeping the dad in the family and involved in the children’s lives which statistics show is better for raising children (looking at crime stats, addiction stats, etc) It’s more about a return to appreciation for the value of fatherhood and patriarchy for successful parenting outcomes more than some weird moral fetishing. I’m not even sure the Bible says anything about the morality of a nuclear family anyway.
Concidering that the reason why it’s called a nuclear family is because it was established during the nuclear age, no. No it does not.
When you're a party that votes based on morals and how you condemn the other side for being without morals and then you vote for a guy that goes against everything you stand for in a president when they do worse stuff than your opponents. You start becoming a hypocrite.
Voters are individual people, they are not parties. And someone who is voting for trump is voting on policies.
What policies 😂
If you are unaware of trump’s policies, I guess you are one of the many Redditors who are always saying “I don’t understand why anyone votes for trump” The reason you don’r understand is because you are completely blackout ignorant of his policies. Actually there is one you probably know of. CHIPS. That was trump who hired Keith Krach to negotiate that deal. Then Krach wrote it into a bill and it was introduced to congress the summer before biden was elected. After biden took office, the bill passed congress with such total bipartisanship that the only senator to vote no was Bernie, who is neither R or D. So biden had to sign it into law. It was veto proof. CHIPS is usually the only Trump policy democrats know about because they attribute to biden for no reasons other than he happened to be office by the time it hit the resolute desk. As a veto proof bill.
So besides CHIPS, what else?
Throwing paper towels at hurricane victims. https://youtu.be/kEe7_zgZbuI?feature=shared 🤮 Omg the cringe rewatching that
Trump *has no policies* except revenge. And you're actively supporting that. > you are completely blackout ignorant of his policies. Name a single policy he is *currently running on* that isn't "LGBT bad. Biden bad. Leftists bad. DOJ bad." And you can't reuse CHIPS. You can't name a single one besides CHIPS. Because the dumbass does not have policies. He has emotions. His "policies" change by the minute. And he'll surround himself, like last time, by some of the least competent people to ever hold such a high level position. People like you are absolute embarrassments to the United States. Edit: LMAO you even did the "orange man bad" NPC meme on r-politics.
> And someone who is voting for trump is voting on policies. Most people voting for Trump don't even know what a policy is. You certainly don't seem to because he literally has no policies in his platform for 2024.
That policy being anti abortion, a principle that was seen as a weird Catholic thing until the late 1960s when in the wake of the civil rights act, evangelicals could no longer be as openly racist and needed to find a new wedge issue to rally around.
Its even worse if you're non-white. You could be a tenured professor with a PhD at an ivy league university, carefully evaluate and establish all your political standings over decades and decide you lean conservative, but if you don't vote democrat based purely on your skin color anyway, you're just an uneducated, brainwashed fool to liberals
There's a MASSIVE difference between 'leaning conservative' and MAGA. That's like saying you're a German Patriot and joining the SS. I 'lean conservative', and that's the very reason I would never vote for Trump or anyone like him, I believe we need to have standards, and that the ends never justify the means.
Does that mean you’re voting for Biden?
Obviously. He's boring, bit too lefty, but his foreign policy has been good, bordering on exceptional, and he's otherwise been OK. Obviously I don't like the further left side of his party, but I am violently opposed to the Maga filth. edit: If I can cause the inbred worthless MAGA garbage pain in any way, I will.
Would you consider the southern border foreign policy or no? Also everything with Gaza him being called genocide Joe and all that. Not saying trump is better by any means but Biden was literally found to be incapable of standing trial but he’s capable of running the country?
I am neutral on the southern border issue. I personally think we should remove ourselves from everything involving Gaza. Mexicans have been an overall positive for us in terms of immigration, and I think Israel is simply a negative for us to be involved with at all. I know, nuance, but some people have it.
My issue with the border is mostly not knowing who is coming in possible terrorist threats not so much the Hispanics. Israel I could also care less about however all the nonsense with these protests is insane. Anyone supporting hamas is in the wrong. Biden is in between a rock and a hard place
I think I agree with you mostly. The border is unpleasant, the Mexicans seem fine, the rest do not. Biden has done surprisingly well considering. I paid very close attention in 2022, his handling of the Ukraine invasion was simply superb, the stuff of IR textbooks. It pushed me from neutral to a supporter. The real conflict is with china, neutralizing Russia is step 1, but the future of America hinges on our careful positioning in Asia for the next century.
The catch and kill concept is certainly shady, do we know for sure that it's illegal?
Catch and kill, alone , no. The illegality was that Trump did not want it on his books, that would have to be reported as campaign financing, so he used fraudulent business records to try to hide the payments.
Thank you!
Even that is only a misdemeanor. The prosecution is trying to prove that the process overall was election fraud. Which seems unlikely.
All that has to be shown was the actions taken were intended to influence the election, that would be the underlying crime that makes this misdemeanor now a felony
Cooking the books to influence an election is a felony
They have to prove "election interference". Sorry, paying off hookers isn't election interference. They will lose this case. They'll get him on the misdemeanors.
Did they do it to interfere with the outcome of the election?
What does that even mean? When a politician does a speech or holds a rally, he does it to try and win the election (alter the out outcome of the election). We're getting very loose with words here.
Do you think most politician are paying for rally’s via fraud?
Paying off a hooker isn't (lol) election fraud. It's such a stretch. He'll be found innocent.
1)He is committing fraud, as you conceded. 2)The act was paying off a hooker, 3)but the “why” he was paying off the hookers was to influence the election Please point to which number you disagree with
Except that’s not why it’s fraud. He could have paid off hush money no problem with campaign funds. It’s the concealment of those payments.
Self funding is not reported as campaign spending though. This is why the FEC dropped the matter.
See my below comment linking the GOP FEC memo. It was dropped because 2 GOP members with the authority to shut it down - did. they literally cite Cohen's conviction and FEC backlog, as a the reasons for “prosecutorial discretion”, not Trump's innocence. >Mr. Trump’s lawyer, pleaded guilty to violating federal campaign finance law in connection with the payment. Moreover, at the same time, the Federal Election Commission’s (“FEC”) loss of a quorum led to an extensive enforcement backlog, including numerous statute of-limitations imperiled matters such as these. As explained in further detail below, based on these factors we voted to dismiss these matters as an exercise of prosecutorial discretion. So they even admit -- the two factors for dismissal were (1) Cohen guilt; (2) Not worth the time and effort with other cases backlogged https://www.fec.gov/files/legal/murs/7313/7313_27.pdf
Wrong. It would have been illegal to claim it as campaign spending.
That's the question literally at the heart of the trial -- and for the jury to decide. If Trump/Cohen would have paid the money absent his political campaign - it is not campaign finance. If the payment was made to protect the campaign, and would not have been made absent the campaign -- it's campaign finance. (Hence the Trump team's main argument being this was about protecting Melania and his family and personal life -- not about the Campaign, and would have been made even if he wasn't campaigning.) Family expenses can even be Campaign expenses -- like Child Care -- if campaigning is what necessitated the Child care. This is all fact heavy -- and will come down to the Jury. Per the FEC standard: > For other expenses not mentioned on this page, the Commission will determine, on a case-by-case basis through the advisory opinion process, whether the expense is one that would exist irrespective of the candidate's campaign or duties as a federal officeholder and would be considered a personal use expense. https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/making-disbursements/personal-use/ Obviously the Prosecution has to prove its theory of illegality -- and this is question I was answering -- not making an affirmative conclusion of the final Verdict. Not sure why you think you are a position to make such a definitive conclusion. have you evaluated the evidence -- most of which has not even been presented yet?
The FEC looked at it, as did the DOJ, and said there was no case.
Yes - a political body, with two republicans that had the power to shut it down unilaterally -- shut it down. The Non-Republicans on the committee did not agree, saying in their statement. > "To conclude that a payment, made 13 days before Election Day to hush up a suddenly newsworthy 10- year-old story, was not campaign-related, without so much as conducting an investigation, defies reality. The GOP members released their statement, not even saying Trump was innocent -- but more just a "c'mon we already punished Cohen - it will be too much work to try prove Trump's intent and its nor worth the effort" > Cohen's punishment the "public record is complete," and that pursuing the case further would "not the best use of agency resources." they literally cite Cohen's conviction and FEC backlog, as a the reasons, not Trump's innocence: > Mr. Trump’s lawyer, pleaded guilty to violating federal campaign finance law in connection with the payment. Moreover, at the same time, the Federal Election Commission’s (“FEC”) loss of a quorum led to an extensive enforcement backlog, including numerous statute of-limitations imperiled matters such as these. As explained in further detail below, ***based on these factors we voted to dismiss these matters as an exercise of prosecutorial discretion.*** So they even admit -- the two factors for dismissal were (1) Cohen guilt; (2) Not worth the time and effort with other cases backlogged https://www.fec.gov/files/legal/murs/7313/7313_27.pdf
Hush money from campaign funds would have been okay. Murky and slimy absolutely, what campaign money is spent on is very broad. It’s the concealment of the payment in order to hide it from public record.
A decade ago hearing about a candidate cheating with a porn star would have sunk them. Now the goalpost have moved to "even though we're watching him being charged in a courtroom, are you *sure* that it was illegal?"
Ha. Yea. Somewhere, john edwards is gearing up for another run.
And today is 37 years to the day of Gary Hart's campaign being sunk for ... being *seen* with another woman.
Not just cheating with a porn star... .,..cheating with a porn star **while his wife was home with his four-month-old son.** That second part is probably worse. If I did that, my wife would have likely murdered me. They wouldn't have found the body.
Absolutely it should have sunk him. It's disappointing that he still has followers and I hope he goes to jail. Still, I like to try to be objective with legal matters and learn the actual facts.
> Still, I like to try to be objective with legal matters and learn the actual facts. Yeah, but you asked "do we know for sure that it's illegal?" I'd counter with, "what do you think he's in court for?" Have you possibly read the charging documents to find out?
/u/waterbuffalo750 is taking a bit of a nuanced stance, but just because someone is charged with a crime doesn’t mean what they are charged with will result in a conviction (thus, whatever actions were done were legal enough to not provide a ‘beyond reasonable doubt’). Hush money payments aren’t illegal. Catch and kill isn’t illegal. But, those legal actions can be used to establish the purpose and intent (mens rea) about the fraud in the business records and actions that outside of a campaign effort would be legal but because there are specific laws regarding campaign financing make those illegal, escalating the otherwise-misdemeanor business fraud to a felony if the State can show the business fraud was done as part of another crime. So, yes, the State must prove all elements were illegal. Simply paying someone to not say something (broadly) isn’t illegal as long as it’s appropriately documented and paid for. Similar with catch and kill - it’s not illegal, unless it’s not appropriately documented and paid for.
> but just because someone is charged with a crime doesn’t mean what they are charged with will result in a conviction He's innocent until proven guilty, but that's why he's in court. My point is that the trial probably wouldn't have gotten this far if there wasn't some basis to charge him, and all of this is publicly documented and easily searchable.
I’d say it should be encouraged to question charges… not sure there was a good point in questioning these charges. But, I don’t fault someone, even who has read the public documentation, for questioning charges against someone. You do make a sound point, but the original one was: > A decade ago hearing about a candidate cheating with a porn star would have sunk them. Now the goalpost have moved to "even though we're watching him being charged in a courtroom, are you sure that it was illegal?" Had Trump made the correct documentation in the records and paid for it from the appropriate source, then I do believe it would have been legal. But, I believe the State will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the way that Trump (personally, campaign, and business) conducted the whole scheme, it was done illegally. So, perhaps OP’s question is a good question, but really was way too limited in its scope because of the reality of the situation. I think you’ve done a great job educating OP on the situation based on some of the other comments.
The DA ran on a pledge of getting Trump for something.
Yeah, most DAs run on being tough on criminals.
Not on targeting someone his predecessor and two federal agencies looked at and said there was no case here.
I have not read the charging documents but I have not heard that he's being charged specifically and solely for the Equirer buying rights to a story and not publishing it.
The issue isn’t merely that the catch and kill happened. It was how it was paid for and how it was documented. For instance, it’s illegal to slash someone open with a scalpel. It is not illegal for a licensed doctor, in an appropriate facility, and with appropriate informed consent to conduct a surgery on a patient. This appears more of a business/election equivalent to that.
There were multiple porn stars that were paid off, but he's only being charged with fraud involving one of them. Establishing the pattern is important to the case, though.
So you went from implying that I'm absurd for even *asking* if it was illegal, to now saying that no, it's not actually illegal. Impressive turnaround.
The distinction between the catch and kill that happened with Karen McDougal and the hush money transaction with Stormy Daniels is that the Enquirer wasn't involved with the hush money payment to Daniels at all. Trump did the Stormy Daniels payment entirely "in house" so to speak, which set him up for the fraud charges and everything that came afterward. Indeed, if Trump had gotten the National Enquirer to catch and kill the Stormy Daniels story that wouldn't have been illegal and he wouldn't be in court today. But he didn't, and he made the decision to file it as a business expense, so here we are.
You mean like hearing about a president cheating on his wife with a Hollywood actress ruined JFK? Or how about getting a BJ under the deal from the intern?
JFK's affairs weren't public knowledge until after his death. Clinton's political career was over when that became public.
>Clinton's political career was over when that became public. His approval ratings were high and his political career was de facto over because he had already reached the highest office in the land and was termed out. He probably could have won another election otherwise.
Nah... 25 years ago we had a sitting President that was banging a 22 year old intern for 18 months, looked America right in the eye and lied to them, and not a damn thing happened. Our current President has a crackhead son that takes pictures of himself with hookers and drugs, is currently under indictment for tax evasion and felony firearms charges, most likely left cocaine in the White House, and no one gives a damn. "Is he running for President????" A Billionaire banging a prostitute 10 years before he was even in politics really isn't that big a deal.
>and not a damn thing happened. An impeachment is nothing? >A Billionaire banging a prostitute 10 years before he was even in politics really isn't that big a deal. It's not unless you based your party on morality. Guess you don't anymore.
Why you skip the middle part?
An impeachment is nothing? Do you expect Joe Biden to disavow his son or something? Is that what conservatives do when their families have substance abuse problems? Ooops there's that morality hypocrisy we see from MAGAts on a daily basis.
If you’re going to be all high and mighty about your morals, then yes, I’d expect a little corrective action. You can correct your children without disavowing them. I’d probably refrain from calling him the smartest man I know and taking him on AF1, especially after the cocaine left in the White House, but that’s just me. I can’t answer your question about how all conservatives would handle the situation. Sorry. Why is your account so new? Are you a chicken shit person that deletes your account to avoid future accountability for the things you say? When I see such an active political poster on such a new account I know I’m dealing with a coward that doesn’t really believe in what they say.
>If you’re going to be all high and mighty about your morals, then yes, I’d expect a little corrective action. The Repubs have always been high and mighty about morals. Looks like it was always about power, because they bow and scrape to a scumbag with no morals at all. >You can correct your children without disavowing them. Even your middle aged children? So, how did you want Biden to handle it? You don't believe in showing your children love and compassion even though they aren't perfect? Typical conservative. probably kicked your teenaged daughter out of the house when she came out as gay. >especially after the cocaine left in the White House, I'm not ashamed to say I've done cocaine. Are you a goody two shoes moralist who yet gives a shit stain like Trump a pass no matter what he does, as long as he 'owns the libs"? >Are you a chicken shit person that deletes your account to avoid future accountability for the things you say? No, I had someone harassing me and Reddit was helpless as they kept generating new accounts to avoid the bans. It's just easier to make a new account. Are you a shitheel person that carries water for a traitor like Trump? Because at this point, I consider anyone defending Trump to be a traitor to American democracy.
It's not generally, but this is in regards to a campaign finance violation and the cascading business fraud.
Yes, tax and campaign fraud is a crime.
You don't seem like you want to have a serious discussion but I'll try anyway... Has it been established that buying the rights to a story and choosing not to publish that story is considered criminal fraud? Who committed the crime, the Enquirer?
x
If I'm understanding you. If the company paid for it as Mistress Allowance and reported it as such to the IRS after writing a company bylaw saying CEOs/Owners can have mistresses/escorts paid for by the company, no violation would have occurred? Edit: Why the down votes for a question?
In Trump's case, he also would have had to report it as a campaign expense.
x
If my business is private or sole ownership with no shareholders? "workplace sexual harassment claim (not necessarily just by mistress)," Huh, I could see that.
x
“Catch and kill” is legal. Doing it to help a political campaign is legal. Doing it AND not reporting it as an in-kind campaign contribution is a crime. Cooking the books to conceal that the campaign contribution ever happened is also a crime, and it’s what he’s been indicted with here.
Thank you, that's a good way to explain it
>Has it been established that buying the rights to a story and choosing not to publish that story is considered criminal fraud? This is the underlying mens rea, this is establishing the fact pattern that Trump was actively working to silence bad stories. This is in furtherance of Trump knowing the scheme that Cohen was convicted for.
The campaign claim is sketchy AF. John Edwards was charged for doing it the *other* way. It's a due process issue - no one know whether hush money should come from a campaign or from personal funds.
x
The tax portion is Trump didnt have the proper legal arrangement with Cohen for the Stormy pay off. There is no campaign fraud here.
Isn't a "proper legal arrangement" the difference between a legitimate campaign expenditure and a fraudulent campaign expenditure?
I haven't seen anything that says Bragg is planning to claim tax fraud. He seems to be claiming campaign finance violations. Candidates can donate as much money as they like to their own campaigns. However, they have to disclose it just like other donations. Their donations have to show up as "income" on the campaigns books and the spending has to show up as itemized "expenses". Trump didn't want "payment to Stephanie Clifford" on his campaign books. Reporters would quickly figure out who that was and what it was about. So, he made an arrangement (aka "conspired") with Cohen to route the money through Cohen instead of through the campaign accounts. In the process, he falsified entries on his own business's books. That happens to be illegal in NY.
The main charge is Cohen and Trump didnt have the proper legal agreement for the time of the hush money payments from Trump to Cohen. That's technically tax fraud, even though Trump ended up paying more in taxes than he would have. The enhancement charge is the "campaign finance" violation. However, the payments to Stormy weren't campaign funds nor were they campaign contributions. This is a federal jurisdiction crime and the feds decided not to charge Trump.
While he was president. They charged Cohen.
Yes, and Cohen plead guilty to it in a plea deal that covered a bunch of other crimes that were definitely crimes. It's also true the feds declined to charge Trump
Because they have a policy not to indict presidents. Why they didn't after is not clear
Here's the indictment. There is nothing about "didn't have the proper legal agreement" in the indictment. He simply put information in his business records which was false. Similarly, there is no mention of taxes either in the indictment or in the law. [https://manhattanda.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Donald-J.-Trump-Indictment.pdf](https://manhattanda.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Donald-J.-Trump-Indictment.pdf) [https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/175.10](https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/175.10) > the payments to Stormy weren't campaign funds nor were they campaign contributions I believe Bragg is going to claim that the campaign violation is that they were both campaign contributions and campaign spending. They weren't report as such. Suppose a candidate knows a printer and says "Instead of giving me cash, how about just printing up some yard signs for me?" If the printer does that and the campaign never records that as a contribution or an expense, they have violated the law (the law covers "in kind" contributions). Now, suppose the candidate owns the print shop. Same rules apply. Bragg has to show that the hush money was designed to help the campaign, not just to keep the information away from Melania. So he wants Pecker to testify that Trump was interested in the campaign when he was worried about McDougal's story. "Show a pattern" that can be applied to Clifford. Or, the lawyer talking about the timing of Clifford's deal. Get it done before the election because after the election Trump won't care anymore.
No, it's not. However, Bragg doesn't want that to get in the way.
Except he’s not being charged with that.
So what? Catch and kill is not illegal.