You don’t seem to have read your own posts. You never said a word about boffking’s (lower case “b” lower case “k” - do you read anybody’s posts?) wanting to dispense with the legal process (a good thing, since that phrase has null meaning). Your only comments were to insist that he talk about Hillary as well, a particularly inane demand when long threads on Hillary are currently active.
It’s fascinating that like Trump you seek to deflect and deny your actual words when you are held to account on them. Also fascinating that like your master, your denials are so flimsy and insulting to the intelligence. Perhaps you should work on beefing them up, since a new Trump scandal will emerge every day from now to the election and they will all get trumpeted here on the Dope.
Very simply every power of the executive branch would be brought to bear against any parties involved in the indictment, and against any judge that doesn’t rule in Trumps favor. Trump’s tactics against all opposition has always been to crush, denigrate and intimidate, and he seems to have a very poor understanding of the idea of separation of powers. Judges are just another cog to be strong armed as part of the negotiating process. His administrative actions would make the Nixon’s Saturday night massacre look like a hug circle.
Cite? I’m on record here as saying I didn’t want Hillary to be the candidate due to the baggage she brings because of the insane right. I’ve hardly even mentioned Hillary in my posts. I don’t think I’ve ever posted anything overtly favorable let alone sycophantish.
So how about some actual examples of that behavior or else a straightforward admission that you’re wrong?
That one might have legs (although it remains to be seen whether the fallout will impact Bondi alone or Trump, too). Florida democrats are calling for an investigation.
In terms of scandals, it’s a good one. Even lay people can understand a quid pro quo bribe. Attorney General is considering a criminal investigation, she asks for a “donation”, she gets it, the criminal investigation is no more. Pretty easy to digest.
Of course, this is Trump, which is why I wonder if it would impact him along with Bondi. Given his rhetoric, he can probably brush it off by saying, “As I’ve said, I give money, politicians do what I want. This is why politics as usual is so dirty, and why I have been running as the anti-establishment candidate.” Personally, I think that’s weak as hell, but I can certainly imagine it placating his supporters.
From that article: Howard, concerned that being presented with money by a political candidate at a political rally might jeopardize his charity’s nonprofit status, called an expert in the state’s attorney general’s office, who confirmed his suspicions.
Does this mean that the other nonprofits who did accept money at campaign rallies may have jeopardized their nonprofit status? I realize that it may be state dependent (he did contact the the state attorney General) but that would be awful if these nonprofit organizations got screwed up by this.
It does read like they may have. But that a one time mistake may be met with less than the most severely possible response. An egregious offense, like one suspects the Trump Foundation’s, though may warrant a more significant action.
What are the chances of any court actually charging Trump for any of these crimes or misdemeanours? And what are the chances of him actually being convicted? And of going to jail?
