So Trump said... "“Despite that many campaign finance lawyers have strongly stated that I did nothing wrong with respect to campaign finance laws, if they even apply, because this was not campaign finance,” he continued."..

Who is the "many campaign finance lawyers"? If they exist, wouldn't they have spoken up by now?

I never directed Michael Cohen to break the law. He was a lawyer and he is supposed to know the law. It is called “advice of counsel,” and a lawyer has great liability if a mistake is made. That is why they get paid. Despite that many campaign finance lawyers have strongly......
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 13, 2018

....stated that I did nothing wrong with respect to campaign finance laws, if they even apply, because this was not campaign finance. Cohen was guilty on many charges unrelated to me, but he plead to two campaign charges which were not criminal and of which he probably was not...
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 13, 2018


....guilty even on a civil basis. Those charges were just agreed to by him in order to embarrass the president and get a much reduced prison sentence, which he did-including the fact that his family was temporarily let off the hook. As a lawyer, Michael has great liability to me!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 13, 2018

Also, if what Cohen did wasn't a crime then why was he charged with one? Does Trump think the DOJ doesn't know what is a crime and what isn't?

Anonymous wrote:Silence from my hard right friends on FB. I mean they’re posting about Christmas, or funny memes, but nothing on this news.

What can they say? They so totally messed up, it is hard for anyone to stomach them. I think they are hoping we all forget.

Silence from my hard right friends on FB. I mean they’re posting about Christmas, or funny memes, but nothing on this news.

Rudy, Trump's attorney, has admitted these crimes took place.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This op-ed by Mr. KellyAnne Conway and Neil Katyal explain things plainly:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2018/12/14/trumps-claim-that-he-didnt-violate-campaign-finance-law-is-weak-dangerous/

I am loathe to understand how or what the GOP is standing by this mess.

The rationalization is that they are getting conservative judges but that argument just does not make sense when they just don't seem to care about the rule of law being flouted so egregiously.
Do you want conservative judges because you want the country to operate as closely as possible to its founding principles (rule of law, independence from foreign influence/control, robust democratic institutions including a free press, independent judiciary, coequal legislative branch etc)
OR
do you want socially conservative judges who ascribe to values that are not necessarily reflected in our founding documents- a bigger role for religion in our political life, more control over the personal decisions of others (sexual orientation, birth control) etc.

What we are seeing is that most of the people who ascribe to the first view have been frozen out of the Republican party - they are never trumpers, they have retired from Congress because they could not win a primary or they are from an earlier generation (in the George HW Bush mold)

Today's Republican party appears to hew mostly to the second brand of Conservatism. I think a lot of independents are starting to figure this out.

The other dominant group in today's Republican party are the Ayn Rand acolytes. These are folks who don't seem to have much of a moral compass in my opinion. They think everybody is just like them (motivated by pure self interest) and so they can justify every transgression with a shrug and an "everybody does this" attitude. In reality there is a lot of grey in politics and there is a big difference between actors who operate in the light grey and actors who operate in the dark grey.

Which isn't really conservatism. It is more akin to a neo-fascist Christian authoritarianism.

True and which would line up very well with what is happening in Russia right now with people who are influenced by the rabid writings of people like Dugin and Ilyin:

https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium-how-trump-s-foreign-policy-is-making-russian-fascism-great-again-1.6167199
https://www.theguardian.com/world/commentisfree/2016/dec/19/trump-putin-same-side-new-world-order

https://www.wsj.com/articles/czar-vladimir-putin-acolytes-want-to-bring-back-the-monarchy-11544732680

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This op-ed by Mr. KellyAnne Conway and Neil Katyal explain things plainly:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2018/12/14/trumps-claim-that-he-didnt-violate-campaign-finance-law-is-weak-dangerous/

I am loathe to understand how or what the GOP is standing by this mess.

The rationalization is that they are getting conservative judges but that argument just does not make sense when they just don't seem to care about the rule of law being flouted so egregiously.
Do you want conservative judges because you want the country to operate as closely as possible to its founding principles (rule of law, independence from foreign influence/control, robust democratic institutions including a free press, independent judiciary, coequal legislative branch etc)
OR
do you want socially conservative judges who ascribe to values that are not necessarily reflected in our founding documents- a bigger role for religion in our political life, more control over the personal decisions of others (sexual orientation, birth control) etc.

What we are seeing is that most of the people who ascribe to the first view have been frozen out of the Republican party - they are never trumpers, they have retired from Congress because they could not win a primary or they are from an earlier generation (in the George HW Bush mold)

Today's Republican party appears to hew mostly to the second brand of Conservatism. I think a lot of independents are starting to figure this out.

The other dominant group in today's Republican party are the Ayn Rand acolytes. These are folks who don't seem to have much of a moral compass in my opinion. They think everybody is just like them (motivated by pure self interest) and so they can justify every transgression with a shrug and an "everybody does this" attitude. In reality there is a lot of grey in politics and there is a big difference between actors who operate in the light grey and actors who operate in the dark grey.

Which isn't really conservatism. It is more akin to a neo-fascist Christian authoritarianism.

Anonymous wrote:This op-ed by Mr. KellyAnne Conway and Neil Katyal explain things plainly:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2018/12/14/trumps-claim-that-he-didnt-violate-campaign-finance-law-is-weak-dangerous/

I am loathe to understand how or what the GOP is standing by this mess.

The rationalization is that they are getting conservative judges but that argument just does not make sense when they just don't seem to care about the rule of law being flouted so egregiously.
Do you want conservative judges because you want the country to operate as closely as possible to its founding principles (rule of law, independence from foreign influence/control, robust democratic institutions including a free press, independent judiciary, coequal legislative branch etc)
OR
do you want socially conservative judges who ascribe to values that are not necessarily reflected in our founding documents- a bigger role for religion in our political life, more control over the personal decisions of others (sexual orientation, birth control) etc.

What we are seeing is that most of the people who ascribe to the first view have been frozen out of the Republican party - they are never trumpers, they have retired from Congress because they could not win a primary or they are from an earlier generation (in the George HW Bush mold)

Today's Republican party appears to hew mostly to the second brand of Conservatism. I think a lot of independents are starting to figure this out.

The other dominant group in today's Republican party are the Ayn Rand acolytes. These are folks who don't seem to have much of a moral compass in my opinion. They think everybody is just like them (motivated by pure self interest) and so they can justify every transgression with a shrug and an "everybody does this" attitude. In reality there is a lot of grey in politics and there is a big difference between actors who operate in the light grey and actors who operate in the dark grey.

Anonymous wrote:This op-ed by Mr. KellyAnne Conway and Neil Katyal explain things plainly:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2018/12/14/trumps-claim-that-he-didnt-violate-campaign-finance-law-is-weak-dangerous/

I am loathe to understand how or what the GOP is standing by this mess.

Any one of the 10 scandals swirling around Trump would have ended a normal Presidency. The Don is made of Teflon

This op-ed by Mr. KellyAnne Conway and Neil Katyal explain things plainly:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2018/12/14/trumps-claim-that-he-didnt-violate-campaign-finance-law-is-weak-dangerous/

I am loathe to understand how or what the GOP is standing by this mess.

Trump going to jail. Can not wait.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s the reaction from the Bible Belt about these numerous affairs?
Are people excusing this or downplaying this or are they having misgivings about the President and admonishing him for his extramarital affairs?

Once some of the evangelicals endorsed him they haven’t let go and are giving him mulligans. I won’t be surprised if a) Trump and co. have kompromat on some of them - see the thread about Jerry Falwell Jr.’s pool boy and/or b) some of the religious right’s 501cs are compromised like the NRA is.

Im fascinated by this. What could possibly the motivation for Evangelicals giving him a mulligan on having extramarital affairs (plural) when that totally contradicts the basics of their emphasis on moral standards? Does faith come second to party?

To them, banning abortion and having a conservative SCOTUS are more important than infidelity, or taking care of living babies, apparently.

I have heard them compare Trump to King David who basically lusted after a married woman, and sent her husband who was a general to the front lines to be killed.

What these folks either don't realize or just ignore is that God wasn't exactly happy with David after his many sins, and that the end result was the eventual destruction of the Kingdom of Israel.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s the reaction from the Bible Belt about these numerous affairs?
Are people excusing this or downplaying this or are they having misgivings about the President and admonishing him for his extramarital affairs?

Once some of the evangelicals endorsed him they haven’t let go and are giving him mulligans. I won’t be surprised if a) Trump and co. have kompromat on some of them - see the thread about Jerry Falwell Jr.’s pool boy and/or b) some of the religious right’s 501cs are compromised like the NRA is.

Im fascinated by this. What could possibly the motivation for Evangelicals giving him a mulligan on having extramarital affairs (plural) when that totally contradicts the basics of their emphasis on moral standards? Does faith come second to party?

Everything has always come far, far, far behind money for Evangelicals. They never really grasped the meaning of the Gospels they profess to worship.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s the reaction from the Bible Belt about these numerous affairs?
Are people excusing this or downplaying this or are they having misgivings about the President and admonishing him for his extramarital affairs?

Once some of the evangelicals endorsed him they haven’t let go and are giving him mulligans. I won’t be surprised if a) Trump and co. have kompromat on some of them - see the thread about Jerry Falwell Jr.’s pool boy and/or b) some of the religious right’s 501cs are compromised like the NRA is.

Im fascinated by this. What could possibly the motivation for Evangelicals giving him a mulligan on having extramarital affairs (plural) when that totally contradicts the basics of their emphasis on moral standards? Does faith come second to party?

Anonymous wrote:What’s the reaction from the Bible Belt about these numerous affairs?
Are people excusing this or downplaying this or are they having misgivings about the President and admonishing him for his extramarital affairs?

Once some of the evangelicals endorsed him they haven’t let go and are giving him mulligans. I won’t be surprised if a) Trump and co. have kompromat on some of them - see the thread about Jerry Falwell Jr.’s pool boy and/or b) some of the religious right’s 501cs are compromised like the NRA is.

What’s the reaction from the Bible Belt about these numerous affairs?
Are people excusing this or downplaying this or are they having misgivings about the President and admonishing him for his extramarital affairs?