Below is my column on how the upcoming election could play out with three different criminal cases in New York, Georgia, and Washington, D.C. This morning we are reading new leaks from the Justice Department’s grand jury investigation. It is another disheartening example of intentional leaks in violation of federal law and DOJ policies. The federal judge in the case seems entirely unconcerned about the violations that are clearly meant to undermine former president Donald Trump and pressure witnesses.
Here is the column:
The 2024 presidential campaign technically began months ago with the first announced candidates. Yet April 4 will be “Super Tuesday” for America’s first carceral presidential campaign, with the arrest and arraignment of Donald Trump. With the exception of the socialist (and incarcerated) Eugene Debs in 1920, we have not faced the prospect of a president who could be elected with both a term of office and a term of imprisonment.
The New York indictment of Trump has been widely criticized as politically motivated and legally flawed. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg boasted during his 2021 campaign about being best suited to go after Trump, and he is making good on his boast with a highly dubious bootstrapped legal theory.
The New York indictment will face considerable challenges. Those challenges will likely take some time to resolve, and if this case follows the customary schedule of criminal matters, it still may be pending when Americans go to the polls to select the next president in 2024.
In addition, a Georgia grand jury reportedly has finished its work on other charges against Trump. Weeks ago, Emily Kohrs, the forewoman of that special grand jury, gave a series of bizarre giggling interviews about nailing Trump. It is a mystery, given Kohrs’ apparent confirmation of pending charges, why Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis has held back on an indictment.
Although stronger than the Manhattan case, the Georgia case has its own problems but could make it to trial because those problems are largely fact questions generally left to jurors. But it too would likely be pending by Election Day 2024.
The most serious threat among the potential cases is being developed by Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith. His investigation of Trump’s role in the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot is unlikely to result in charges and, if it does, is unlikely to survive challenges on First Amendment grounds. His investigation of the Mar-a-Lago classified-documents controversy presents a far more established — and, frankly, easier — route for prosecution. From its earliest filings, the Justice Department maintained there is evidence of obstruction and false statements — claims that it could use to distinguish any prosecution from the unlawful possession of classified material by President Joe Biden or former Vice President Mike Pence.
Smith is under a tight schedule if he wants to charge Trump, though. Since the Justice Department (incorrectly in my view) maintains that a sitting president cannot be indicted, Smith would have to charge and, ideally, try Trump before Election Day. Indeed, the Justice Department strives to avoid any major legal steps that might impact voting near to an election — a period that could stretch back to the late summer of 2024.
What this means is that Trump could face as many as three sets of criminal charges in three different jurisdictions as he campaigns for the presidency. He would likely seek accommodations from courts to delay any trial during the campaign.
Whether or not Trump can delay a trial, much of 2024 will be focused on carceral rather than political issues. Trump has long claimed that Democrats are weaponizing the criminal justice system against him and other Republicans. Bragg has given him the case positive for proving that allegation, especially since Bragg ran for office on his ability to find a criminal charge against Trump.
The question is what happens if any of these efforts succeed.
I previously raised the prospect of an actual indictment in converting the election into a debate for presidential self-pardons. Article II of the Constitution states that a president may “grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.” There is no language specifying who may or may not be the subject of a pardon, and presidents have abused the pardon power to protect political allies and even family members.
Numerous legal analysts have argued those constitutional provisions “make no sense if the president could pardon himself.” Yet it seems highly doubtful that courts would agree. Despite the massive gravitational pull of Trump on the legal analysis of many pundits, there is nothing in the Constitution to exclude presidents alone from pardon eligibility. The Supreme Court stated in Schick v. Reed that “the pardoning power is an enumerated power of the Constitution and … its limitations, if any, must be found in the Constitution itself.”
While a newly elected Trump could only pardon himself for the federal crimes, it is the federal case that likely represents the greatest threat to him. Moreover, the two state cases would add to Trump’s narrative of facing ‘political prosecutions’ from a ‘weaponized’ legal system on every level. Trump often campaigns on just such a primal level. He knows that a man chased by a dog can spark public outcry — but a man chased by a pack of dogs can spark public outrage.
It is not simply the election that could take a carceral turn, however.
What would happen if Trump were elected but convicted in either state case? Such a trial would likely occur after the election. Even if courts extended a trial until after the 2024 election, it would be difficult to delay it for four years.
The last time a president faced the threat of a criminal trial was in 1872, when Ulysses S. Grant was arrested for speeding in his horse-drawn carriage in Washington.
I have long maintained that a sitting president can be indicted and tried. Almost 25 years ago, I wrote an academic work, “‘From Pillar to Post’: The Prosecution of Sitting Presidents,” that challenged immunity theories protecting presidents. I do not believe the indictment of a president or former president is a national tragedy. To the contrary, it is the ultimate affirmation that no one is above the law.
However, that doesn’t mean it wouldn’t get weird if Trump loses in court but wins in the election.
If Trump were convicted in a state proceeding, it would not bar him from running — or serving — as president. A state judge could grant probation or an alternative sentence to avoid imprisonment. Moreover, appeals on the issue of incarceration could take years to address a state order conflicting with the performance of a federal function. Once that time was exhausted, a court could order any incarceration to be delayed until after the end of the presidential term, since Trump could not be elected a third time.
We may have to face one of these scenarios. The question is whether voters may not only accept this prospect but some might even invite it. Regardless of how it works out, this election is about to take a carceral turn.
Elections often raise the politics of crime — but in this election, it may be hard to separate the politics from the crime.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at The George Washington University. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.
THE RULE OF LAW
OR THE RULE OF THE SEIZURE OF POWER, MARTIAL LAW, DICTATORSHIP, TYRANNY AND VIOLENCE
________________________________________________________________________________________
Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1798 and 1802 (four confirming iterations)
United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” March 26, 1790
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof…
“The truth of the matter is that If Mister Rogers ran as an unapologetic conservative today, he’d be treated with the same level of disdain as Trump. That’s a point that cannot be emphasized often enough. Anyone who thinks that these types of attacks will go away once Trump does is delusional.
The left has now perfected its plans and strategies for multi-year, wide-ranging, never-ending attacks on the political opposition. It won’t ever stop until it is made to stop.”
https://issuesinsights.com/2023/04/01/trump-isnt-a-special-case-hes-a-test-case/
Nah, Mr. Rogers was moral and one of his key teachings was to be kind, neither suggest anything like Trump.
The fact that Pelosi rejected conservative Jim Jordan for the J6 committee, while including conservatives Cheney and Kinzinger, is more evidence against your claim.
The fact that Nancy Pelosi has not yet been subpoenaed for questioning under oath by Republicans investigating the events of J6 is very troubling. Still waiting for her to answer questions about that day….under oath.
Time to play by the Democrats’ own rules.
“The entire Biden family should be indicted and arrested on the first day the next Republican takes office in the White House.”
100%
Meanwhile, here’s the most-reasonable explanation I’ve read yet concerning the legal bases, or absence thereof, regarding the pending Trump indictment by Soros operative Bragg in NYC. Not sure why this had to come from Andy McCarthy instead of Turley:
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/trump-argues-crime-misdemeanor-falsification-record
Apparently the statutory language includes the phrase, “with intent to defraud,” and as Andy McCarthy argues (or explains), it’s not clear WHO — if anyone — is supposed to have been defrauded by the alleged deal.
Peter Beinart: ‘Soros-backed’ is evoking a trope rooted in antisemitic history
Garbage
“‘Soros-backed’ is evoking a trope rooted in antisemitic history”
Nice attempt to intimidate Soros’ critics into silence, via a smear campaign, and to whitewash his destructiveness.
Such are the despicable tactics of intellectual bullies.
Whom I would vote for in preferred order:
Professor Turley
DeSantis
Trump
Gabbard
Haley
Youngkin
MTG
One of my livestock
Ham sandwich
Biden
“Funny how there’s no Dem demonstrators clamoring for “justice” @ the Nemours Bldg in Wilmington, Del, where US Attorney Weiss has been dragging out since 2018 a grand jury probe of Hunter, Jimmy & Sara Biden for real, unconvoluted offenses of tax fraud, $$ laundering & conspiracy”
No one is Above the Law! Not even a sitting president!
No indictments No peace! No justice No peace!
Hillary was above the law many times. Biden is a criminal that exceeds Hillary’s dishonesty. The Biden Crime Family has been above the law for their entire existence.
Trump never exceeded the law, but today we have prosecutors and judges who believe they are above the law and that the ends (their view) justifies the means.
Walk out of a CVS with $949.99 of stuff in California? No penalty
Post memes about Hillary Clinton? 10 years.
America isn’t becoming an anarcho-tyrannical hellhole. It’s already there.
@charliekirk11
Apr 1
You talking about Mackey, who conspired with others to use memes for voter suppression?
The Doug Mackey verdict is completely ridiculous.
The jury doesn’t agree, and they’re the ones who heard the evidence and arguments.
Let’s stop pretending that a conservative or Republican can get a fair trial these days in New York or Washington DC or other deep-blue districts. The fact that almost all Democrats celebrated the Trump indictment shows that the Democratic base has been radicalized.
“Let’s stop pretending that a conservative or Republican can get a fair trial these days in New York or Washington DC or other deep-blue districts” is your opinion, not a fact. My opinion is different than yours.
And one could just as easily argue that the % of Republicans who defend Trump no matter what “shows that the [Republican] base has been radicalized.”
Anonymous – “just an opinion.” The railroading of the J6 protesters, to be followed now by the “round-up” of another 1000 victims (which reminds us of the Stalin purges of the 30’s, which continually rounded up new victims) shows that my opinion is valid and yours is not.
Nope. It’s also an opinion, not a fact, that the J6 protesters who’ve been charged with crimes were “railroaded.” Your opinions are no more “valid” than anyone else’s.
“Your opinions are no more “valid” than anyone else’s.”
ATS, how can you say that. Ed’s facts are almost always on target and his opinions are well thought out and based on the law.
You use every trick in the book to trick people into believing you. That is what makes your opinion invalid. One can’t trust you.
“Your opinions are no more “valid” than anyone else’s.”
Ditto for your opinions about opinions. By your own Sophistical premise, we are free to dismiss your claim without consideration.
Absolutely, my opinions are no more “valid” than anyone else’s. All it requires is distinguishing between facts and opinions. Of course you can dismiss whatever opinions you want, as can anyone else. Dismissing facts, however, is something else.
Sam, based on ATS’s lack of credibility, his opinion cannot be valuable at all.
“one could just as easily argue that the % of Republicans who defend Trump no matte “
You can say that, but the evidence is in the opposite direction. Look at how the Republican Congress treated Trump and how many Republicans treated Trump.
Just a short glance by anyone who is looking in an unbiased will prove that you are a liar. Why don’t people trust you? Because you do not tell the truth.
The jury didn’t do a comparison and sometimes doesn’t know any better. You say you do, but you don’t show it.
ATS, that is because in addition to being a Stalinist type, you are also a Maoist. Not only do you want control in a Stalinist way, you also want to control how people think.
You were converted. That is obvious, but along with your conversion didn’t come sufficient knowledge for you to argue in your favor. That is why you are forced to lie and deceive.
Tell us how Mackey and the leftist who did virtually the same thing earlier differ so that Mackey gets 10 years and the leftist gets a smile.
You are lying and you know it. No ethics, no morals, and no facts.
We here the same things from you over and over again.
Just a friendly reminder, Deli meat is more appealing than Biden.
Ham sandwich, 2024!
Deli Meat I would vote for in preferred order:
Turley’s Blue Plate Special
Chicago Vienna Italian Beef, dunked in Aju
Pastrami and Sauerkraut Ruben
Prosciutto
Filet of Roast Beef
Pastrami
Boar’s Head Genoa Salami
PitCraft Slow Smoked Turkey Breast
Corned Beef Brisket
Roasted Salami
Olive Terrine Loaf
On lightly buttered on toasted Rye.
Cheese – Oh My! where to begin …
Tulsi Baked Hawaiian Sandwich, 2024!
The most distressing thing is that while all these people supposedly are acting for justice because “no one is above the law’, they break laws themselves, have illegal leaks, and a ‘secret’ grand jury chairman does interviews on tv. She isn’t acting like a good citizen but a person excited and thrilled to ‘get him’. Why is no judge or DA concerned at the illegal leaks? or people who run for office not on issues but the promise to put someone in jail and then has to turn the law upside down and backwards to do it and legal system lets it stand. Doesn’t sound or look like justice.
The judicial branch is sworn to do one thing: Assure the dominion of the clear and evident, meaning and intent of the Constitution. The entire communist American welfare state is unconstitutional as are “kangaroo courts,” “show trials” and totally biased and corrupted venues where no such thing as a “fair trial” has any chance of occurring. Justice indeed.
It is illegal to leak *real* information, but it is not illegal to leak *false* information. Which is why we see pathological liars like Adam Schiff, Swallowell, James Clapper, Brennan, Comey, Strozk, etc. all over cable TV lying thru their ugly teeth. Because they continue to get away with it.
Funny we have heard not a peep…or leak….coming from the investigations into the Bidens alleged crimes….investigations that have been dragging on for years and years now.
Funny there are no leaks from Bob Hur, Garland’s special counsel investigating Biden’s handling of classified documents.
Funny how there’s no Dem demonstrators clamoring for “justice” @ the Nemours Bldg in Wilmington, Del, where US Attorney Weiss has been dragging out since 2018 a grand jury probe of Hunter, Jimmy & Sara Biden for real, unconvoluted offenses of tax fraud, $$ laundering & conspiracy.
“We will stop him.”
– Peter Strzok to FBI paramour Lisa Page
___________________________________
“[Obama] wants to know everything we’re doing.”
– Lisa Page to FBI paramour Peter Strzok
___________________________________
“I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office — that there’s no way he gets elected — but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before 40.”
– Peter Strzok to FBI parmour Lisa Page
_________________________________
“People on the 7th floor to include Director are fired up about this [Trump] server.”
– Bill Priestap
___________
“We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”
– Barack Obama
“Legally pathetic!”
– Professor Turley
“Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.”
– James Comey, Director FBI, Investigating Hillary Clinton’s Blatant Crimes, 2016
“It makes me mildly nauseous to think that we might have had some impact on the election.”
“But honestly, it wouldn’t change the decision.”
– James Comey, Director FBI, Investigating Hillary Clinton’s Blatant Crimes, 2016
And then there’s the Biden Crime Family.
Two relevant/useful Just Security compilations:
Survey of Past Criminal Prosecutions for Covert Payments to Benefit a Political Campaign
https://www.justsecurity.org/85745/survey-of-prosecutions-for-covert-payments-to-benefit-campaigns/
Litigation Tracker: Pending Criminal and Civil Cases Against Donald Trump
https://www.justsecurity.org/75032/litigation-tracker-pending-criminal-and-civil-cases-against-donald-trump/
More here: justsecurity.org/tag/donald-trump/
Anonymous, I read your link. So what. There have indeed been prosecutions of campaign finance laws in many states. Just because there have been such prosecutions in the past it doesn’t mean that a payoff of Stormy Daniels was a campaign contribution. Just because there have been such prosecutions it doesn’t speak one way of the other as to Trumps guilt in the matter. You would have us believe that just because violations have been prosecuted in the past that Trump must be automatically guilty. On the one hand you say let the case play out and on the other you insinuate guilt without the benefit of a trial. Witches have been tried before and found guilty so a trial is no longer necessary to prove that a witch is a witch. Anonymous says, lets just move on to the bonfire and dispense with the law. She won’t be satisfied until she hears the flesh sizzle.
Your trolling is so transparent, LOL.
The troll calls an honest person a troll. Interesting but sad because so much of the list is dealing with Anonymous the Stupid who drolls with abandon, lies and tries to deceive.
He is failing, but he has Svelaz on his side. That might seem comforting to have someone who agrees but Svelaz is a heavy weight to carry and you are a light weight in argument.
Anonymous – here are three names not on the list of persons prosecuted criminally for campaign violations: Bill Clinton (1996); Barack Obama (2012); Hillary Clinton (2016).
What were their criminal campaign violations?
Anonymous – where were you in the 1990’s? Bill Clinton’s 1996 campaign collected illegal campaign contributions from China. See L A Times, 4/4/99, Rampal, et al, “Testimony Links Top China Official, Funds for Clinton”. A foreign national was prominently prosecuted for the contributions. I belkeive his name was Johnnie Huang. Obama violated campaign financing laws in both 2008 and 2012. See Politico, 4/19/12, “FEC Audits Obama ’08 Campaign” (. . . failure to report $2,000,000 worth of last minute campaign contributions”); and U S News & World Report, 1/17/13, “Obama Campaign Fined Big for Hiding Donor, Keeping Illegal Contributions,” As for Hillary, it is well known at this point that she hid her funding of the Steele Dossier. Democrats don’t fear campaign violations because they know that they will never be criminally prosecuted.
The campaign and the person are not legally interchangeable. For example, the Obama Campaign was fined $375,000 by the FEC for campaign reporting violations, but you haven’t presented any evidence that Obama himself committed a crime. Same for the two Clintons.
Hillary did not know that her campaign paid for the Steele dossier? Not very likely. Bill Clinton knew nothing of Chinese money? Also, not likely. I believe there were pictures of Clinton with Huang. A campaign is not a real person. Some person must be liable for campaign violations. What Democrats were prosecuted for these violations?
The campaigns were fined, not prosecuted. In contrast, the FEC’s Office of the General Counsel said that Trump had broken the law — https://www.fec.gov/files/legal/murs/7313/7313_28.pdf — but the Republican majority prevented him from even being fined.
So, you admit that the campaigns were only fined. No Democrat was criminally prosecuted for violations (1996, 2008 and 2018) which are far grosser than anything Trump is likely to be charged with. For good measure, I should have mentioned 1992, when Clinton spent an enormous amount of money silencing the so-called Bimbos. Under the Bragg standard, those expenses were also unreported campaign contributions, for which no one even fined.
For some reason, my reply got disconnected from your comment. Second attempt:
“No Democrat was criminally prosecuted for violations”
Right. Pay attention to the difference between *campaigns* and *individual people*. Those *people* weren’t prosecuted because those *people* weren’t responsible for acts by the *campaigns*. In contrast, Trump personally reimbursed Cohen (for paying Daniels hush money, which is one of the crimes — an illegal campaign contribution — that he served time for), and Trump drew the checks on his personal account, along with Trump Org. checks signed by Jr. and Trump’s CFO Weisselberg. The Trump Campaign was not involved.
“far grosser than anything Trump is likely to be charged with.”
Which is grosser is again a matter of opinion.
“I should have mentioned 1992, when Clinton spent an enormous amount of money silencing the so-called Bimbos. Under the Bragg standard, those expenses were also unreported campaign contributions, for which no one even fined.”
You’ll have to be more detailed, as I don’t know what 1992 payoffs you’re talking about. I know about his 1998 payment to Paula Jones, but that was to settle a civil lawsuit, and it was public. It wasn’t a campaign contribution at all, much less an unreported one.
Wrong distinction.
FEC Violations are almost never criminal. It is likely SCOTUS would balk at a criminal pr4osecution for and FEC violation – as frankly campaign finance law is barely constitutional if that.
The only hook the FEC actually has is through matching funds. Any candidate that refuses them is outside of most campaign finance law.
While you are correct hat the campaign and the person are not the same.
Clinton’s 2016 violations were For PERSONAL Actions – Clinton authorized the funding of the Steele Dossier, and she did so deliberately double blind with the result that an actual foreign national was illegally working on a US presidential campaign.
The only Russian Collusion in 2016 was that of Democrats – Clinton.
“The New York indictment of Trump has been widely criticized as politically motivated and legally flawed.”
The indictment is still sealed. People who are criticizing it — including JT — are simply guessing about the contents.
ATS, “simply guessing about its [indictment] contents”
Just as many of us enjoy guessing whether you are a Stanford graduate working in the Richard Jewell Building or in Castra Langley [Praetoria] munching stale donuts while you type chaff into the internet.
Funny to realize that saying “he’s a Stanford graduate” didn’t used to be an ad hominem.
The indictment is still sealed. People who are criticizing it — including JT — are simply guessing about the contents.
But you provide a link that does analysis, without seeing the indictment. Why would you do that? If obvious, by your standard, the content at the links are garbage.
But I did follow one. All were abusing campaign funds. Trump was nothing but a run of the mill NDA. Not a crime.
Neither of the links analyze Bragg’s indictment. Why do you lie so much?
Neither of the links analyze Bragg’s indictment. Why do you lie so much?
Here is the opening sentence in the link you provided. Why are you so stupid?
“The indictment of former President Donald Trump for conduct involving the alleged concealment of hush money payments to benefit a presidential campaign raises the question whether his case is being treated like other cases.”
What part of “alleged” do you not understand?
If Iowan were to allege you are a serial rapist, would that be fine with you?
I am beginning to hope we can rise to the level of a Banana Republic.
Then at least we will pretend that we aren’t Stalinist or Kafkaesque.
Remember the law students in Stanford? Apparently we have the same mentality in the DOJ and among too many federal judges.
Any SANE person would naturally ask themselves: why is the system so dead set against Trump, and relentlessly attacking him? The natural answer is, of course, the system is systemically corrupted. But, they prove this by their very attacks against Trump and any others they perceived as a threat.
The roots of the opposition to Trump lie in the foreign policy establishment and the intelligence agencies, military-industrial complex and related Congressional denizens of the uniparty, together with the financial and commercial interests that promote continued engagement with China and open borders as a source of cheap labor. Trump’s opposition to forever wars, hostility to China, advocacy of reaching an accommodation with Russia, demanding that NATO carry more of the burden and closing the border marked him as a threat to the careers and worldviews of much of the foreign policy governing class. As Tucker Carlson has noted, the fate of Victoria Nuland is emblematic; she promoted one foreign policy fiasco after another from ever higher positions under Clinton, Bush, Obama and Biden. Only Trump kept her out of power. And look at the slate of official warmongers who testified against Trump in favour of Ukraine at the first impeachment.
It remains to be seen if any other Republican, perhaps DeSantis, would have the wisdom, skill and courage to take on these entrenched interests.
Don’t forget the opposition from the mental health community, who recognize Trump as a malignant narcissist who is unfit for office: https://www.adutytowarn.org/
I bet they are having a FIELD day with Biden.
And NOBODY was as big a malignant narcissist than Saint Obama.
No, most (all?) Presidents are narcissists, including Obama, but he’s not a malignant narcissist.
Narcissist, you say?
_______________
“I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky.”
– Bill Clinton, Law License Suspended 5 Years, Multiple Civil Suits by Aggrieved Women Settled/Lost
Narcissist, you say?
JFK, Monster
By Timothy Noah
“I knew that John F. Kennedy was a compulsive, even pathological adulterer, given to taking outlandish risks after he entered the White House. I knew he treated women like whores. And I knew he had more than a few issues with his father about toughness and manliness and all that. But before I read in the newspaper that Mimi Alford’s just-released memoir, Once Upon A Secret: My Affair With President John F. Kennedy And Its Aftermath, described giving Dave Powers a blow job at JFK’s request and in his presence, I didn’t know that Kennedy had an appetite for subjecting those close to him to extreme humiliation.”
“Clinton pays Paula Jones $850,000”
Associated Press
“WASHINGTON (AP) – Paula Jones is awaiting the arrival of an $850,000 cheque from President Clinton, bringing an official end to the four-year saga spurred by her allegations of sexual harassment.”
“FDR and His Women”
“… she was deeply wounded to discover that Franklin had been having an affair with her secretary, Lucy Mercer.”
Bill Clinton as enabled by Hillary Clinton
_______________________________
1. Eileen Wellstone (1969) Allegation: Sexual assault
2. Anonymous female student at Yale University (1972) Allegation: Sexual assault
3. Anonymous female student at the University of Arkansas (1974) Allegation: Sexual assault
4. Anonymous female lawyer (1977) Allegation: Sexual assault
5. Juanita Broaddrick (1978) Allegation: Rape
6. Carolyn Moffet (1979) Allegation: Sexual assault
7. Elizabeth Ward (1983) Allegation: Unclear
8. Sally Perdue (1983) Allegation: Unclear
9. Paula Jones (1991) Allegation: Sexual harassment
10. Sandra Allen James (1991) Allegation: Sexual assault
11. Christy Zercher (1992) Allegation: Sexual assault
12. Kathleen Willey (1993) Allegation: Sexual assault
opposition from the mental health community,
A consensus of all the Drs that examined Trump? Nope. Not a single examination….Just more TDS sufferers. “physician, heal thyself”
Trump is somewhat of a narcissist something in common to all Presidents. He probably resides in the middle of the pack.
If the mental health facility says those things as a diagnosis, it only means they are irresponsible and shouldn’t be practicing in the mental health area.
One of the reasons you might not have an improved psyche is you probably go to one of them. Never go to a psychotherapist that resides significantly on the left. They look at what they think is right and fail to understand the person they are treating. I am saying this in a serious manner. All we have to do is look at how they are willing to mutilate children who have yet to figure out who and what they are.
The roots of opposition to Tump lie in his lack of leadership skills, his narcissism and his lack of character–a chronic, habitual liar, womanizer, serial cheater in marriages, in business transactions, and endless flashy self-promotion. Trump can’t even manage a casino without going bankrupt. He is soundly disliked not just in the US, but abroad. Just look what he did to the US–trashed the successful economy he inherited from Obama, started a trade war with China that backfired badly–shortages of consumer goods and computer chips; botched the pandemic by lying about the seriousness, country mostly shut down for 2 years–school kids couldn’t go to in-person class, businesses, restaurants and stores closed down, no leisure travel because it wasn’t safe, grew the national debt to record levels due to tax breaks mostly benefitting the wealthy, alienated our NATO and EU allies, and spread lies about science, causing people to distrust our public health system. All for his massive ego. Got impeached twice, started an insurrection and is now a criminal defendant.
BETTER RED THAN DEAD
“[We gave you] a [restricted-vote] republic, if you can keep it.”
– Ben Franklin
___________
You couldn’t.
When you finally burn up the Constitution and sign the deed to America over to the Chinese Communist Party, please ask them not to kill us. There seems little point in our superiors, the communists, prosecuting a one-sided war and killing us all when we are giving them the country and all our money. Tell the “woke” navy not to upset the communists and to scuttle its useless ships; it won’t last 5 minutes against Russian and Chinese battle tech. I mean we don’t need to be blown to bits like Ukraine, right? We get it, right? Just take the country the Americans couldn’t keep and leave Americans to scrabble for survival under General Secretary Alvin Bragg’s boot and “Black Book of Communism.”
This right here sums up the Biden admin: https://www.outkick.com/bud-light-makes-trans-tiktok-star-dylan-mulvaney-its-newest-spokesperson/
Ham Sandwich, 2024!
I’d vote for deli meat before Biden!
Transheuser-Busch.
Melpomene and Thalia must be dancing with joy, WHAT DRAMA we are living through. Like any audience there are those wishing Tragedy while Comedy is really the order of the day! What must these fools conducting this Play, think?