Why Trump’s court dates may not impact his primary success

[Social Media]

 

Former President Trump’s legal obligations are becoming increasingly intertwined with his political aspirations, with court dates threatening to split his time and attention in the heart of the 2024 presidential race.

Trump is set to go on trial in Washington and New York City next March, right in the middle of the GOP primary calendar, and his opponents have been happy to seize on the conflicts as evidence Trump will be too distracted to take on President Biden.

But with Trump’s first trial scheduled for the day before Super Tuesday, there is also the question of whether the former president may have effectively clinched the Republican nomination by the time his court dates begin in earnest.

“He can’t have it wrapped up, meaning he can’t be the presumptive nominee, per se, but I think if he were to win the first four contests by wide margins, he could be seen as the likely nominee,” said Sean Spicer, a former Trump White House press secretary and former Republican National Committee spokesperson.

 

Spicer said a Trump romp through Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada could make it difficult for a rival candidate to secure the necessary funding from donors to continue in the race.

“But I think there’s a lot of candidates that, depending on how they fare in the first four states, can say, ‘Screw it, I’m going to keep going for another week or two and see what happens,’” Spicer added.

 

FULL STORY

 

[Tug]

Well got to admit it’s a good grift to separate rubes from their money

[Olav Seglem]

Is this "the best man in USA" they are able to find--- really ??? :-)

 

[Tug]

12 minutes ago, Olav Seglem said:

Is this "the best man in USA" they are able to find--- really ??? :-)

 

Unfortunately for the republicans he seems to be their choice but not the majority of Americans choice for sure

[herfiehandbag]

9 hours ago, Tug said:

Unfortunately for the republicans he seems to be their choice but not the majority of Americans choice for sure

Goodness, can you just imagine the alternate bellowing and whining if/when he fails to win the election. 

 

The worry must be if the lunatic ammosexual fringe decide to come out and strut their stuff!

[thaibeachlovers]

18 hours ago, Olav Seglem said:

Is this "the best man in USA" they are able to find--- really ??? ????

 

Perhaps the best man not part of the Washington "swamp".

[thaibeachlovers]

IMO the people that will vote for Trump are already convinced to do so, and that there are few undecideds out there, so should not matter at all if he is in court or not.

[Tug]

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Perhaps the best man not part of the Washington "swamp".

And just who benefited from that (tax)break humm?he sure seems to have you fooled!

[Sheryl]

6 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

IMO the people that will vote for Trump are already convinced to do so, and that there are few undecideds out there, so should not matter at all if he is in court or not.

Exactly this.

 

The overwhelming majority of Americans have already made up their minds regarding him, long ago.  He really does not need to campaign nor will it change anything much if he does, and he knows this.

 

Now, what will happen if he is nominated, or even elected,  after being convicted and  either already sentenced to jail or awaiting sentnecing, is completely unchartered territory.

[ozimoron]

3 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

Exactly this.

 

The overwhelming majority of Americans have already made up their minds regarding him, long ago.  He really does not need to campaign nor will it change anything much if he does, and he knows this.

 

Now, what will happen if he is nominated, or even elected,  after being convicted and  either already sentenced to jail or awaiting sentnecing, is completely unchartered territory.

I disagree with that. Very little of the evidence, other than video evidence, that will be presented in court has been publicly shown. Once it does, I think it will change many minds.

[thaibeachlovers]

4 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

Exactly this.

 

The overwhelming majority of Americans have already made up their minds regarding him, long ago.  He really does not need to campaign nor will it change anything much if he does, and he knows this.

 

Now, what will happen if he is nominated, or even elected,  after being convicted and  either already sentenced to jail or awaiting sentnecing, is completely unchartered territory.

From what I have read, there is nothing to stop him becoming POTUS after being convicted, though that may only apply to certain types of convictions or perhaps a state conviction. I guess the situation was never considered by the Constitution writers.

 

The REALLY interesting situation would be if a court case was scheduled after the election and he had won already.

 

This entire situation seems to me like one of those nightmares where one can see the disaster coming but is unable to avoid it.

 

Personally, I used to hope that Trump would not stand again, but after the tsunami of court cases happening at such a politically sensitive time I have changed my mind.

[thaibeachlovers]

30 minutes ago, Tug said:

And just who benefited from that (tax)break humm?he sure seems to have you fooled!

The tax break has nothing to do with being a part of or not being a part of the Washington "swamp", other than many Washington politicians are unusually rich.

Even if they got a tax break, it didn't make them love Trump, did it?

[Sheryl]

34 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

From what I have read, there is nothing to stop him becoming POTUS after being convicted

Depends on what he is convicted of. Some of the charges would not make him ineligible but some would under the 14th amendment to the US Constitution  which states a  public official is not eligible to assume public office if, while they were previously in office, they took an oath to support the Constitution but then "engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or [gave] aid or comfort to the enemies thereof," unless they are granted amnesty by a two-thirds vote of Congress.

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, Sheryl said:

Exactly this.

 

The overwhelming majority of Americans have already made up their minds regarding him, long ago.  He really does not need to campaign nor will it change anything much if he does, and he knows this.

 

Now, what will happen if he is nominated, or even elected,  after being convicted and  either already sentenced to jail or awaiting sentnecing, is completely uncharted territory.

It takes two sets of voters to win an election.

 

The voters that are already firmly in the candidates bag swing voters who are definitely not.

 

Swing voters are by definition not pursued by extremist policies and views, they are by definition in the political center.

 

Trump’s crimes and his continuing extremism harden his core vote but distance him from the center politics of swing voters.

 

He also needs funding, and he’s not getting it.

[JonnyF]

I don't believe these politically motivated charges (and the very obvious timing of them for the greatest effect) will have the desired result.

 

The weaponization of the justice system is not a good look. Trump will play this like he's sticking it to the man, punching up etc. That might play very well to many people who are tired of being spoken down to by the current administration and other well known Democrats before them. 

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

The tax break has nothing to do with being a part of or not being a part of the Washington "swamp", other than many Washington politicians are unusually rich.

Even if they got a tax break, it didn't make them love Trump, did it?

 Two particularly favored interest groups were the real estate sector and subchapter S corporations. Guess which former President's business is structured around these 2 kinds of businesses. 

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, JonnyF said:

I don't believe these politically motivated charges (and the very obvious timing of them for the greatest effect) will have the desired result.

 

The weaponization of the justice system is not a good look. Trump will play this like he's sticking it to the man, punching up etc. That might play very well to many people who are tired of being spoken down to by the current administration and other well known Democrats before them. 

They should have charged him a year ago. For some reason the FBI dragged its feet. Why? Political interference?

 

If you're thinking of the way in which Donald Trump led an effort to steal the 2020 election, the Department of Justice and the FBI together waited 15 months to launch a formal investigation into that matter.

 

The problems, however, was there was a lot of evidence that Donald Trump and at least many of his allies were possibly engaged in a crime - that efforts to pressure the vice president and efforts to basically pressure state officials to declare fraud in their state when there was none. All of those things had a potential criminal statute that could be charged, and the department just simply did not want to look in that direction, according to multiple sources that we spoke with.

 

https://www.npr.org/2023/06/19/1183098037/washington-post-journalist-on-fbis-delayed-investigation-of-trumps-role-in-jan-6

[JonnyF]

10 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

They should have charged him a year ago. For some reason the FBI dragged its feet. Why? Political interference?

 

If you're thinking of the way in which Donald Trump led an effort to steal the 2020 election, the Department of Justice and the FBI together waited 15 months to launch a formal investigation into that matter.

 

The problems, however, was there was a lot of evidence that Donald Trump and at least many of his allies were possibly engaged in a crime - that efforts to pressure the vice president and efforts to basically pressure state officials to declare fraud in their state when there was none. All of those things had a potential criminal statute that could be charged, and the department just simply did not want to look in that direction, according to multiple sources that we spoke with.

 

https://www.npr.org/2023/06/19/1183098037/washington-post-journalist-on-fbis-delayed-investigation-of-trumps-role-in-jan-6

Then as if by magic, the liberal judge sets his trial date for the day before Super Tuesday.

 

Of course Liberals will ask the electorate to move along swiftly, nothing to see here etc. ????

 

The American people are not stupid. They will see what is happening here. It could very well backfire.

[Chomper Higgot]

The court appearance that is of most immediate threat to Trump is the NYAG filing for a $250 million summary judgment.

 

More than a small problem for a so called billionaire who needs to use a bondsman to raise a $200,000 bail bond while begging money from his supporters to cover his legal costs.

 

Trump needs to check his finances, is he even solvent?

[Chomper Higgot]

4 hours ago, JonnyF said:

I don't believe these politically motivated charges (and the very obvious timing of them for the greatest effect) will have the desired result.

 

The weaponization of the justice system is not a good look. Trump will play this like he's sticking it to the man, punching up etc. That might play very well to many people who are tired of being spoken down to by the current administration and other well known Democrats before them. 

You don’t have to believe any of that, because the charges are not politically motivated.

 

They were handed down by Grand Juries that were presented with evidence and testimony of crimes, all of which gleamed from Republicans, members of Trump’s hand picked administration and his own family members.

[BusyB]

''Spicer said a Trump romp through Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada could make it difficult for a rival candidate to secure the necessary funding from donors to continue in the race.''

 

Democracy in action.

[Purdey]

Probably important to know that the number of people who vote for Trump is rather irrelevant. 

 

To win the presidency, you don't have to win the majority of the popular vote. You have to win the majority of electoral votes. Win a state by just one vote, and you win all of its electoral votes (unless you live in Nebraska or Maine, which divvy up their votes a little differently). A candidate only needs to win the 11 states with the most electoral votes to hit 270 electors and win the presidency. Although the method of counting may differ according to who you read, it is possible to win the presidency with only 23% of the popular vote. That's the reason Hilary won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote last time.

[Tropposurfer]

8 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Perhaps the best man not part of the Washington "swamp".

Yeah ! Oh but wait??! ... He's been indicted on massive tax-fraud charges, tax-evasion charges spanning almost his entire adult business life to sums in the region of billions of dollars. A man who has made a life-work of stealing from the American people just like the sop called 'swamp'.

 

He has envied and hated (like his father before him) the elite classes and desperately fought (always illegally) to join them and have the same access to power. 

 

A silver spoon child without doubt. 

Lived a privileged life.

Cavorts and curries favour with the elite classes.

 

Is cheek to jowl with the robber baron class and is undoubtably one of them.

A slumlord property owner who has stiffed the working class who built his obscene edifices for decades.

A man who has an appalling business-crashing resume, and who has maintained his lifestyle by lying, cheating, bullying, persecuting those who oppose him, and defrauding everyone his entire life.  

 

Oh yeah he's going to "drain the swamp" alright NOT! 

[Tropposurfer]

1 hour ago, Purdey said:

Probably important to know that the number of people who vote for Trump is rather irrelevant. 

 

To win the presidency, you don't have to win the majority of the popular vote. You have to win the majority of electoral votes. Win a state by just one vote, and you win all of its electoral votes (unless you live in Nebraska or Maine, which divvy up their votes a little differently). A candidate only needs to win the 11 states with the most electoral votes to hit 270 electors and win the presidency. Although the method of counting may differ according to who you read, it is possible to win the presidency with only 23% of the popular vote. That's the reason Hilary won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote last time.

A concise synopsis of why America has little to no resemblance to a democracy.

[travelerjim]

8 hours ago, Sheryl said:

Depends on what he is convicted of. Some of the charges would not make him ineligible but some would under the 14th amendment to the US Constitution  which states a  public official is not eligible to assume public office if, while they were previously in office, they took an oath to support the Constitution but then "engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or [gave] aid or comfort to the enemies thereof," unless they are granted amnesty by a two-thirds vote of Congress.

You're drinking the Kool Aide of Socialist leftists seeking to keep Trump from being elected President again. 

[RichardColeman]

Nice to see big Fani now coming under fire for potentially withholding evidence in the Georgia Trump prosecution. I guess when you own party did in the 60's in Hawaii what Trump is accused of now and fail to tell the court you reap what you sow ! Hopefully Fani will be impeached for this potential blatant misleading of the court and put in prison herself. Very very daft woman not telling the court the history of the democrat party in Hawaii

[jerrymahoney]

The electors’ comparison to the 1960 Hawaii example is specious for several reasons. There, the Kennedy electors cast their votes on December 19, 1960, amid an ongoing court-ordered recount of Nixon’s slim preliminary victory.

 

The ceremony was public, and the Democratic certificate was ultimately approved by the governor as required by law.

Under the circumstances of the Hawaii case, the court-ordered recount created reasonable uncertainty surrounding the vote total, giving the Kennedy electors a justifiable basis for their production of a Kennedy certificate. The 2020 Georgia Trump electors, on the other hand, met and signed their fraudulent certificate on December 14, seven days after the results were recertified (for the second time) on December 7. The governor—a Republican—never approved.

 

Furthermore, Nixon’s initial Hawaii victory (pre-recount) was by a margin of only 141 votes, well within the realm of possibility for a recount to change; Biden’s total, on the other hand, was more than 12,000 votes (and still 11,779
after the second recount) greater than Trump’s, a much larger advantage unlikely to be overturned by a recount.

 

Footnote 496 page PF page 105

 

https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/11122022_GA_Investigation_Report_SecondEdition.pdf

[Srikcir]

10 hours ago, ozimoron said:

I disagree with that. Very little of the evidence, other than video evidence, that will be presented in court has been publicly shown. Once it does, I think it will change many minds.

It's ALL available on line.

Not been lost, not been destroyed, not been hidden by DOJ. 

[thaibeachlovers]

On 9/6/2023 at 7:09 PM, BusyB said:

''Spicer said a Trump romp through Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada could make it difficult for a rival candidate to secure the necessary funding from donors to continue in the race.''

 

Democracy in action.

Are you saying that money makes voters support one candidate over another? Can they not make up their mind without ads?

[mikebike]

On 9/6/2023 at 6:13 AM, thaibeachlovers said:

Perhaps the best man not part of the Washington "swamp".

Nope, 45's swamp is nationwide, not just the beltway ????????????