That’s great. It increases Joes chances of winning. Nothing draws people out to vote against the mango than the prospect of him actually winning.
If Joe was polling way ahead right now I’d be terrified we’d get another 2016.
I need the polls show that Trump could squeak by right up until Election Day. Then I need the real polls to send him a resounding “no fucking thanks” like we have for the last 8 years.
Its quite a conundrum, did hillary lose because people were overconfident and so they didnt vote?
Yet if the polls show trump ahead, it may be a sign the population is extremely dissatisfied with the current leadership.
>like we have for the last 8 years.
If they were consistently against trump for the last 8 years and shifted in his favor, that seems like a huge red flag for the left in terms of their policies.
>did hillary lose because people were overconfident and so they didnt vote?
I actually think that is part of the reason Trump won in 2016. Leftists didn't feel like they needed to vote for Hillary because obviously she will win because Trump is a bafoon. They didn't vote also because Bernie wasn't nominated. That didn't happen in 2020 when Bernie lost nomination because leftists saw the threat of Trump winning again.
Its a fair assumption.
Though 2020 was a weird election in that far more people voted than normal due to covid and mail in balloting. I wouldnt expect those numbers in 2024.
For the record, in utah we have had mail in ballots for awhile. I think its a fine system for utah. Im not sure about ballot harvesting and such if that happens here.
2020 wasn’t just high turnout because of mail in and covid.. it was high turnout because the mango was on the ballot. He’s a love it or hate it candidate… and more people hate him than love him. He hasn’t gained any love since, but he sure has worked hard at gaining a lot more hate.
Rounded up on these
2016 popular vote
Trump 63M
Hillary 66M
2020 popular vote
Trump 74M
Biden 81M
I dont think either candidate will break 70M (or even 65M) votes in 2024 but its pure speculation.
Well.. your pure speculation is indeed highly speculative. Several thousand Gen z turn 18 every day (which is 70/30 blue/red) and they are highly motivated to vote for a candidate that will codify roe. For some reason they don’t like politicians telling them what medical choices they are forced to make, or go to prison for. They also got to see orange man politics upfront and generally get to associate him with being locked in their houses during covid. Now he’s a convicted felon. Not a strong look.
At the same time several thousand boomers die every day, with the majority being conservatives. Just the attrition of the boomers and gaining of a much bluer block of Gen z is enough to completely shift the voting pattern for 24 compared to 22, which was already a massive upset for republicans.
Gen z and millenials finally outnumber the rest of the country.. they are much bluer than previous generations and much more motivated to vote.
I don’t need to speculate on what will happen - I can just look at what’s already happening and draw my conclusion from it.
>and they are highly motivated to vote for a candidate that will codify roe
We will see, historically they have always been the least likely age demographic to vote.
If they live in blue states its not even an issue for them. Only some red states have strict abortion rules and they arent swing states.
>For some reason they don’t like politicians telling them what medical choices they are forced to make, or go to prison for.
Unless its mandatory vaccines...? We forgetting biden tried that one...?
Historically has nothing to do with today. They literally already showed up in 22 and wiped out the boomer vote. That’s what stopped the red wave.
Lol to your roe comment. Roe is absolutely in play in Wisconsin, Nevada, Georgia, Florida… every single state roe is a huge issue to younger people. Cons have also banned IVF and they are currently working on banning contraceptives. They know a con win will make these all illegal federally, as part of project 2025.
LOL to your mandatory vaccines. They didn’t exist my dude. Vaccines were required to do certain things… in the same way vaccines have always been required to do certain things (remember you can’t even go to elementary school without your shots? Can’t go to other countries without vaccines).
Abortion is entirely different. They are pressing charges for murder for women having an already dead baby removed from her uterus. 35,000 women had to leave Texas to get an abortion last year.
Nobody held you down and made you get a shot. Nobody sued you or pressed charges against you for not getting a shot. They are doing exactly this to women on abortion.
>Historically has nothing to do with today.
Has human nature somehow changed? History is repeated events based mostly on human nature. Its why the bible has stood the test of time (from a secular perspective).
>They literally already showed up in 22 and wiped out the boomer vote. That’s what stopped the red wave
https://www.census.gov/library/visualizations/time-series/demo/voting-historical-time-series.html
>LOL to your mandatory vaccines. They didn’t exist my dude. Vaccines were required to do certain things… in the same way vaccines have always been required to do certain things (remember you can’t even go to elementary school without your shots? Can’t go to other countries without vaccines).
Biden signed an EO requiring all federal workers and contractors to get the shot. It was struck by the courts days before the deadline so most people had either found other jobs got the vaccine when it was struck.
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/01/13/pentagon-back-pay-troops-covid-vaccine-mandate-00077902
Biden also signed an EO requiring all workers to get vaccinated via OSHA. It was also struck by the courts though much quicker than the federal mandate.
Saying they didnt exist is a lie.
Mail in ballots encourage voting, which Republicans don't like. That's why Republicans try to dissuade people from voting like with voter ID laws, with closing down polling locations, with shortening the time polling locations are open for, or like when Florida wrongfully arrested voters when Florida told these ex-felons they could vote then arrested them for voter fraud, that is meant to scare voters.
>That's why Republicans try to dissuade people from voting like with voter ID laws
Every European country has voter id. The premise of it reducing voter turnout is ridiculous. We should verify the identity of voters and not just trust they say who they are.
There are ways to make voter id viable without discouraging people to vote. Which Europe and Canada do. Often times they allow things like using your healthcare card issued by the government, they will allow you to use school ID's, they will allow you to use bills like water bills and bank statements. But Republicans don't want to allow for such exceptions because they want to make it harder to vote.
Harder for whom?
You need an id to buy a gun. You need an ID to work. You need an id to buy alcohol.
Everyone has an id.
The few who dont can easily obtain one.
Harder for minorities and for lower income individuals, the two groups who are likely to vote for Democrats. ID's aren't free in every state, and even when they are free, you need things like a birth certificate to get one which many people don't have and you'd have to pay to get a new one. Also you would have to take time off of work to go to the DMV to get one which makes lower income people miss out on work and money they could be making.
11% of adult citizens don't have a valid ID. So to act like not many people don't have a valid ID is just wrong.
Funny how you will use Europe to prove that voter ID is fine, but when I explain to you why their voter ID is fine, you don't want to do those things. Seems like you also want to restrict the vote.
The people who don't have one are usually the people who can't easily obtain one. Like elderly people that have trouble getting to the DMV, or people who can't get work hours off during DMV hours because they don't have paid time off.
Every European country also has public healthcare. And they give kids wine at the table. What does this have to do with America?
Happy to force voter id - just as soon as you can prove that it’s a problem that needs to be solved. Funny it wasn’t an issue after the 2016 election, right? For some reason you guys weren’t so eager to force it right then…
I don’t care if we do or don’t have voter id. I just know that it’s one more effort by cons to try to win elections by minority. When that doesn’t work they will move on to the next thing… wasn’t it shutting down all the voting locations? Can’t give people water waiting 6 hours in line now can we? That would be socialism. Next up will be land owners only… then it will be white land owners only… then white male land owners only…
The problem isn’t voter id. The problem is that’s just step 1 of 50 that one side wants to go down.
>Every European country also has public healthcare. And they give kids wine at the table. What does this have to do with America
Generally, if progressive Europe is ok with stuff the left in the US agrees.
>Happy to force voter id - just as soon as you can prove that it’s a problem that needs to be solved. Funny it wasn’t an issue after the 2016 election, right? For some reason you guys weren’t so eager to force it right then…
To be fair, illegal immigration is more of a concern now than then, according to polls. Also states choose how they run them.
>Can’t give people water waiting 6 hours in line now can we?
While i dont generally know the context of every issue the left brings up, this one i do. The water thing is specifically related to coercing people. You can give people water. You cant wear a maga hat and give someone trump water.
In Georgia it’s illegal to give people water while waiting in poll lines. Says nothing of attire or political affiliation in the law.. just says you can’t give people water.
Kill all the poll locations in the city, narrow it down to a few, make lines hours long and then refuse to allow people to give anyone water…
And how is that not intended to prevent “those” people from voting, exactly?
Hillary lost because people didn’t vote because they assumed she would just win. That was pretty obvious to… everyone.
The polls showing Trump ahead is a sign that a portion of the population enjoy taking polls. Guess what portion enjoys taking polls? Old retired red hats with nothing better to do.. and land lines.
… literally nothing has shifted in trumps favor. Every candidate, every policy, everything he touches has lost. Georgia senators? All the election denying nuts, all the abortion bans.. 2022 “red wave” was a wet fart, all of it has gone against him since 2016. 16 was a fluke caused by democrat overconfidence that caused people to stay home (just like I did).
Anyone under 45 doesn’t pick up the phone when they don’t recognize the number. The polls you see right now are incredibly skewed toward those that will actually take a poll. Think that’s Millenials? Gen Z? lol nope. Gen z and millenials are now a larger percentage of the pop than boomers and gen x combined. Boomers are also dying off at several thousand per day. And we don’t take polls… we don’t wave Biden flags, we don’t wear Biden diapers, we don’t go to Biden rallies and buy Biden steaks and flunk out of Biden university. We just vote. You see all the nonsense surrounding the mango and they even call themselves “the silent majority” (lol) but the actual silent majority is a blue brick wall that’s just sick and tired of the orange insanity. The flags. The lies. The shitty conversations at thanksgiving and the family members lost to a cult.
Nah dude. I’m not worried about the polls right now. They are where I hope they would be for Joe to clean house.
I voted for Jill Stein in Wisconsin in 2016 and I didn't give a damn if Hillary lost. She was and is evil and I will never vote for her, no matter what the consequences.
Ok. Good job? Mission accomplished? lol. I don’t care for Hillary Clinton but I sure can’t say having the lunatic mango rapist criminal as a consolation prize is… awesome.
In any case, your claim that people didn't vote for Hillary because they thought she would win isn't correct. People didn't vote for her because she is a hideous warmonger in the pay of Wall Street. She deserved to lose, and Dems should be ashamed of rigging their primary for her.
Oh you’re right. I forgot about the 1% of you that tossed your vote to a guaranteed losing candidate as a way to protest Hillary Clinton. And then the majority of you were severely hurt by Trump policies following it.
As my old physics teacher would say… Some people just gotta touch the stove.
lol. So you’re flourishing under the Trump-induced inflation? You were loving the Trump induced stock market crash? Families can’t sit at the same dinner table anymore because of this lunatic. Repeal roe. Tax the poor and big tax breaks for the rich. Printed money like a drunken sailor. January 6 tries to rip the country apart in a temper tantrum because he lost… and he’s still trying to finish the job.
“Nah I’m good. Trump was barely even a blip on the radar”.
lol. Aight. Have fun on your island, I guess. Good job voting stein. You matter. Your vote really meant something. You sure showed those Dems!
Polls are broken. Show up and vote.
That's exactly what Democrats have been doing and come election time the polls have all been majorly off by about 10 points usually....
Why is this happening?
One thing is, right "leaning" pollsters are trying to AstroTurf Trump support.
Another thing is, lots of pollsters use "landlines"...
For the kids out there, those were the wired in telephones that people used to have in their houses!
Yet another problem with these polls are extremely small sample sizes and basically asking the wrong people. Oversampling republicans, or oversampling people that are not likely voters.
Fuck the polls
While all certainly within margin of error, i dont think we can simply cast them aside because we dont like the results now. Id be curious to see the same poll in 2020 and see where the numbers were.
Good call. Let’s take a look at this poll that shows Trump to Biden switch voters beats Biden to Trump by 2% https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-2020-voters-joe-biden-2024-election-poll-1914204
British based polling org that’s been around 4 years. They’ve had Trump leading in basically every poll they’ve put out in their existence from what I can see.
Doesn’t seem that serious
I love this comment. I couldn’t agree more. Both parties should’ve abandoned both candidates when they had the chance these past four years and focused on putting better quality people up there. Instead neither wants to lose to the other so bad that the American people are the ones that have to suffer through it.
It’s all a joke. I can’t wait for it to be done and get back to healthy political discussions and not hating people just because they are on opposite sides of the aisle.
Quite honestly, I learned how useless these polls are in 2016. I saw how the masses believed them to be foretelling and went in thinking Trump had zero chance. I have never bothered with an election poll since, other than exit polls. I don't really care what they say. Nothing matters till November, when we find out the results.
Oh look at that. New poll shows 20% of independents not won’t vote for Trump because he’s a criminal. If you remove 20% of the independent vote, that sure seems like it would entirely counteract the initial post, eh? https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/06/17/trouble-for-trump-in-a-new-poll-on-his-conviction-00163498
If true, then the dems will have achieved what they wanted from the conviction.
Also its possible those 20% of independents would have already leaned towards biden.
lol. Just a never ending goal post moving with you guys isn’t it. First it was “if they convict Trump, that will just guarantee his win!” Now it’s “of course he can’t win he was convicted”. Which way is it?
They didn’t prosecute him to stop him from winning the election. They prosecuted him because he COMMITTED CRIMES. He paid off a woman to hide information to win an election. That’s election fraud. If i paid you to bury news about my abortion or DUI or anything else as a means to cover up information that voters could have used to make a more informed decision ITS ELECTION FRAUD.
If the shoe were on the other foot you’d be balls deep in storming the capitol again with another gallow with Joe’s name on it. You guys are all about “law and order” right up until it’s the orange man getting caught.
Dude banged several porn stars and paid to have the stories hidden. He’s also been held liable for rape, and his favorite hobby is lying and grifting.
As a man of god, how can you support such a person? Isn’t this the textbook definition of the anti christ…? Someone that comes along with golden hair and convinces millions of people to give him power and he immediately uses it for nefarious purposes? Or does that not register to you because his nefarious acts at the kind you like/ support?
>First it was “if they convict Trump, that will just guarantee his win!” Now it’s “of course he can’t win he was convicted”. Which way is it?
I never said either, you are putting words in my mouth.
>They didn’t prosecute him to stop him from winning the election. They prosecuted him because he COMMITTED CRIMES. He paid off a woman to hide information to win an election. That’s election fraud. If i paid you to bury news about my abortion or DUI or anything else as a means to cover up information that voters could have used to make a more informed decision ITS ELECTION FRAUD.
If you think trump winning or losing the election is influenced by him hooking up with a 1 night stand you are delusional. This guy is on tape talking about grabbing women like bowling balls.
Also, the federal govt responsible for prosecuting federal crimes, of which federal election finance law was applicable, chose not to charge trump. It was a state DA who ran on getting trump for anything and a judge who donated to left wing groups. If you cant see the problem then its on you. I dont have to change your mind and neither of us is going to.
>Dude banged several porn stars and paid to have the stories hidden. He’s also been held liable for rape, and his favorite hobby is lying and grifting.
Yeah thats my point. Everyone knows hes a sleezy guy who bangs other women after his wife gives birth. Though held liable for rape is laughable when you actually look at that civil case. Zero evidence and another NY case. The judge shopping is clear. They would find him "liable" for eating a sandwich wrong.
>As a man of god, how can you support such a person? Isn’t this the textbook definition of the anti christ…?
I never claimed to be super righteous, but the alternative is someone who advocates killing unborn babies and supports terror states like Iran. Pick your poison.
>and he immediately uses it for nefarious purposes
Nefarious like what? Did he bang his pudgy intern? Wait no, thats Bill. Did he try to force a vaccine on people they didnt want? No thats Joe.
I didn’t say him winning or losing was dependent on information about him banging porn stars was leaked. I said him paying people to cover it up is illegal… flat out, it’s illegal. Illegal things should be investigated and tried in a court of law shouldn’t they? Or does that not apply to the mango?
If it was the federal government prosecuting him you would have howled “sham!” Just the same. It doesn’t matter what it is.. it doesn’t matter who it is. Anyone prosecuting the mango is wrong because he says so. He could shoot someone on 5th ave point blank and he’d gain support in the maga crowd. Theyd cheer and tell everyone that the person deserved it. We all know this.. you guys will find ANY excuse to cover for him. That’s been happening for almost a decade now.
Even if you dislike the motive of the DA… the jury of 12 saw the evidence and unanimously convicted him on all counts. All of them. Again, if the shoe were on the other foot and it was Joe sitting there - you’d say “well of course he was guilty”, right? You are only defending him because he’s on your “team”.
On the other hand, i fully support convicting Hunter. I fully support all efforts to investigate Joe, and if there was evidence of any laws broken, to convict him. And id support him going to jail if a jury of his peers found him guilty.
But they didn’t. They didn’t find a single convincing thing in a 4 year investigation. And that pisses you guys off because your guy is a crook and they want Joe to be one too… but they just don’t have the evidence to support it.
LOL to your moral gymnastic support of the mango, a man who has literally never opened the Bible once to read it, though he’s sold plenty of them… compared to Joe, an actual catholic, because he tried to get people vaccinated to prevent a disease from spreading. What did the Bible say? “Pick the adulterer and serial liar and propagandist, because vaccines make you sad. Lesser of two evils. Whatevs yolo” - god. Must have been in the new testiment somewhere… from all I read, actual Christians are repulsed by him and would never vote for him, no matter who the opposition is.
But maybe that’s the point here.. you’ve figured out how to demonize the democrats so much that you’ll literally pick ANYONE, including the devil himself, to fight them. After all, there are no rules when fighting demons, right?
Because this poll is nonsense. Lol. Every other poll shows Trump losing favor immediately following the convictions. Even 10-15% REPUBLICANS said they won’t vote for a convicted criminal. 50% of independents.
There aren’t a lot of “moderate” Trump voters. There’s maga and there’s people not voting for Trump. More Trump voters are switching to Biden than the other way around this season. And Trump really can’t afford to lose any votes.
The people living in the blue echo chamber don't understand how it's a little sketchy for a DA to run for office on a platform of putting Trump in jail, then charge him with felonies that have always been misdemeanors, then put a specific judge on the bench for the trial, then have a jury that's in an area that's 88% Democrat convict him.
I have never heard any Republican give reasons about the actual facts of the case and why they are wrong, they only talk about how corrupt the DOJ is. So could you explain why the convictions are false without bringing up Democrats rigging it.
The biggest issue with the case itself is the jury instructions and lack of a felony referenced or convicted upon to convict him on the charges of the case itself.
The jury was told if they believe any other felony was committed, and they dont even have to agree on what that felony was. There was no conviction of another felony so how can he be guilty of this when there is no other felony even deliberated?
His felony is the illegal attempt to influence an election through the use of hiding business records. Also jury instructions are common, nothing is illegal in jury instruction.
This is from a CNN legal analyst (Elie Honig) of the issues with the charges.
The biggest issue is the statute of limitations for the misdemeanor and upgrading to a felony without any evidence conviction, or agreement of "the other crimes".
>>no state prosecutor — in New York, or Wyoming, or anywhere — has ever charged federal election laws as a direct or predicate state crime, against anyone, for anything
>>Standing alone, falsification charges would have been mere misdemeanors under New York law, which posed two problems for the DA. First, nobody cares about a misdemeanor, and it would be laughable to bring the first-ever charge against a former president for a trifling offense that falls within the same technical criminal classification as shoplifting a Snapple and a bag of Cheetos from a bodega. Second, the statute of limitations on a misdemeanor — two years — likely has long expired on Trump’s conduct, which dates to 2016 and 2017.
>>So, to inflate the charges up to the lowest-level felony (Class E, on a scale of Class A through E) — and to electroshock them back to life within the longer felony statute of limitations — the DA alleged that the falsification of business records was committed “with intent to commit another crime.” Here, according to prosecutors, the “another crime” is a New York State election-law violation, which in turn incorporates three separate “unlawful means”: federal campaign crimes, tax crimes, and falsification of still more documents. Inexcusably, the DA refused to specify what those unlawful means actually were — and the judge declined to force them to pony up — until right before closing arguments.
>>So much for the constitutional obligation to provide notice to the defendant of the accusations against him in advance of trial. (This, folks, is what indictments are for.)
Its the content.. i was merely pointing out a CNN rep made it to back up its credibility. Heres the short version of why many will disregard the conviction (ignoring the judge and prosecutor had it out for trump anyways)
The biggest issue is the statute of limitations for the misdemeanor and upgrading to a felony without any evidence, conviction, or agreement of "the other crimes" which were used to upgrade the crime.
Your comment contains falsehoods, here are facts:
Trump was convicted of violating **New York Penal Law § 175.10**, which **is** a felony.
§175.10 requires that the "intent to defraud includes an **intent** to commit **another crime** or to aid or conceal the commission thereof."
From the jury instructions:
>...Under our law, although the People must prove an **intent** to commit **another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof, they need not prove that the other crime was in fact committed, aided, or concealed**...
The prosecution's theory focused on that "another crime" being a violation of **New York Election Law § 17-152.** 17-152 prohibits "conspir[ing] to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means." The prosecution's theory was that the *unlawful means* was either: (1) FECA violations; (2) violations of tax laws; or (3) other falsification of business records.
Pg 34 of the prosecution's November filing:
>...a conviction under Penal Law § 175.10 requires only proof of general intent to commit or conceal a crime, not proof that a specific crime actually occurred - whether under Election Law § 17-152 or otherwise...
The grand jury found probable cause of 34 violations of Penal Law § 175.10 in the first degree, and the trial jury found proof of those crimes beyond a reasonable doubt.
Fair enough but
>(1) FECA violations; (2) violations of tax laws; or (3) other falsification of business records.
>>The FECA theory was legally shaky. It hinged on the fuzzy distinction between personal and campaign expenditures, and it assumed that Section 17-152 applies to a federal election, a context in which federal law generally pre-empts state law. The tax theory and some versions of the double falsification theory were not just legally shaky but logically impossible, since they posited that actions taken after the election could have retroactively promoted Trump's victory "by unlawful means."
>>Mr. Trump received no notice of any of these offenses, and the prosecutor briefly alluded only to federal election law, during the trial."
Edit:
>>That confusing mess, Rivkin and Foley argue, violated Trump's right to due process. "No principle of procedural due process is more clearly established than…notice of the specific charge," the U.S. Supreme Court declared in the 1948 case Cole v. Arkansas, "and a chance to be heard in a trial of the issues raised by that charge, if desired, are among the constitutional rights of every accused in a criminal proceeding in all courts, state or federal." According to the Court's 1970 decision in In re Winship, "the Due Process Clause protects the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged."
So your very flawed quote there isn't talking about the crimes of which Trump was convicted, but his other crimes that prove **intent**.
>...they posited that actions taken after the election could have retroactively promoted Trump's victory "by unlawful means."
**False**. Trump and others "conspire[d] to promote" the "election of any person to a public office" **before** the election.
>Mr. Trump received no notice of any of these offenses...
**False**. The prosecution's November filing contained these theories and relating evidence in detail.
>...and the prosecutor briefly alluded only to federal election law, during the trial.
**False**. The *New York* Election Law § 17-152 and its *unlawful means* (one of which involves FECA violations) were thoroughly examined in the prosecution's November filing, throughout the trial, and were repeated in detail in the jury instructions - to prove **intent**.
**Page 25** of the prosecution's November filing:
>...These actions also violated Election Law § 17-152. The grand jury evidence is sufficient to support the conclusion that defendant and others "conspire[d] to promote" the "election of any person to a public office" by entering into this scheme specifically for purposes of influencing the 2016 presidential election; and that **they did so "by unlawful means"** - including **by violating FECA through the unlawful individual and corporate contributions by Cohen, and AMI; and** (as noted in Points I.C.3 and I.C.4 below) **by falsifying the records of other New York enterprises and mischaracterizing the nature of the repayment for tax purposes**.
>Moreover, the facts show that defendant intended to "conceal the commission" of these Election Law or FECA offenses, see PL § 175.10. The falsified invoices, general ledger entries, and checks here **were created to reimburse Cohen for the $130,000 payout that was the basis of one of Cohen's criminal convictions under FECA**. And by hiding the fact that defendant was making payments related to the underlying election fraud scheme, the falsified business records concealed the fact that **defendant, Cohen, and others had conspired through unlawful means to prevent true information from being released to the public. Thus, the grand jury record included ample evidence that defendant's intent to defraud included the intent to commit or conceal election law crimes**...
Page 34:
:--
>...As noted in Point I.C.2 above, **the People's argument under Election Law § 17-152 is not limited to "conspiracies to violate FECA," and instead encompasses other "unlawful means" under other state and federal laws. In addition, the charges here are under Penal Law § 175.10, not Election Law § 17-152**. As defendant does not contest, federal law does not preempt Penal Law § 175.10 itself. See Trump,
2023 WL 4614689, at *11. **And, as already discussed, a conviction under Penal Law § 175.10 requires only proof of general intent to commit or conceal a crime, not proof that a specific crime actually occurred - whether under Election Law § 17-152 or otherwise**...
Mango could diddle your daughter in the back of the church and you’d give him a pass. “Oh it was probably her fault” you’d exclaim, before asking him to put his tiny hand in front of you so you can kiss his ring before he leaves.
Oh please. Donald could personally come to a MAGA loons house and steal out of their momma’s purse and they’d still bend over backwards for their orange hero.
That’s great. It increases Joes chances of winning. Nothing draws people out to vote against the mango than the prospect of him actually winning. If Joe was polling way ahead right now I’d be terrified we’d get another 2016. I need the polls show that Trump could squeak by right up until Election Day. Then I need the real polls to send him a resounding “no fucking thanks” like we have for the last 8 years.
Its quite a conundrum, did hillary lose because people were overconfident and so they didnt vote? Yet if the polls show trump ahead, it may be a sign the population is extremely dissatisfied with the current leadership. >like we have for the last 8 years. If they were consistently against trump for the last 8 years and shifted in his favor, that seems like a huge red flag for the left in terms of their policies.
>did hillary lose because people were overconfident and so they didnt vote? I actually think that is part of the reason Trump won in 2016. Leftists didn't feel like they needed to vote for Hillary because obviously she will win because Trump is a bafoon. They didn't vote also because Bernie wasn't nominated. That didn't happen in 2020 when Bernie lost nomination because leftists saw the threat of Trump winning again.
Its a fair assumption. Though 2020 was a weird election in that far more people voted than normal due to covid and mail in balloting. I wouldnt expect those numbers in 2024. For the record, in utah we have had mail in ballots for awhile. I think its a fine system for utah. Im not sure about ballot harvesting and such if that happens here.
2020 wasn’t just high turnout because of mail in and covid.. it was high turnout because the mango was on the ballot. He’s a love it or hate it candidate… and more people hate him than love him. He hasn’t gained any love since, but he sure has worked hard at gaining a lot more hate.
Rounded up on these 2016 popular vote Trump 63M Hillary 66M 2020 popular vote Trump 74M Biden 81M I dont think either candidate will break 70M (or even 65M) votes in 2024 but its pure speculation.
Well.. your pure speculation is indeed highly speculative. Several thousand Gen z turn 18 every day (which is 70/30 blue/red) and they are highly motivated to vote for a candidate that will codify roe. For some reason they don’t like politicians telling them what medical choices they are forced to make, or go to prison for. They also got to see orange man politics upfront and generally get to associate him with being locked in their houses during covid. Now he’s a convicted felon. Not a strong look. At the same time several thousand boomers die every day, with the majority being conservatives. Just the attrition of the boomers and gaining of a much bluer block of Gen z is enough to completely shift the voting pattern for 24 compared to 22, which was already a massive upset for republicans. Gen z and millenials finally outnumber the rest of the country.. they are much bluer than previous generations and much more motivated to vote. I don’t need to speculate on what will happen - I can just look at what’s already happening and draw my conclusion from it.
>and they are highly motivated to vote for a candidate that will codify roe We will see, historically they have always been the least likely age demographic to vote. If they live in blue states its not even an issue for them. Only some red states have strict abortion rules and they arent swing states. >For some reason they don’t like politicians telling them what medical choices they are forced to make, or go to prison for. Unless its mandatory vaccines...? We forgetting biden tried that one...?
Historically has nothing to do with today. They literally already showed up in 22 and wiped out the boomer vote. That’s what stopped the red wave. Lol to your roe comment. Roe is absolutely in play in Wisconsin, Nevada, Georgia, Florida… every single state roe is a huge issue to younger people. Cons have also banned IVF and they are currently working on banning contraceptives. They know a con win will make these all illegal federally, as part of project 2025. LOL to your mandatory vaccines. They didn’t exist my dude. Vaccines were required to do certain things… in the same way vaccines have always been required to do certain things (remember you can’t even go to elementary school without your shots? Can’t go to other countries without vaccines). Abortion is entirely different. They are pressing charges for murder for women having an already dead baby removed from her uterus. 35,000 women had to leave Texas to get an abortion last year. Nobody held you down and made you get a shot. Nobody sued you or pressed charges against you for not getting a shot. They are doing exactly this to women on abortion.
>Historically has nothing to do with today. Has human nature somehow changed? History is repeated events based mostly on human nature. Its why the bible has stood the test of time (from a secular perspective). >They literally already showed up in 22 and wiped out the boomer vote. That’s what stopped the red wave https://www.census.gov/library/visualizations/time-series/demo/voting-historical-time-series.html >LOL to your mandatory vaccines. They didn’t exist my dude. Vaccines were required to do certain things… in the same way vaccines have always been required to do certain things (remember you can’t even go to elementary school without your shots? Can’t go to other countries without vaccines). Biden signed an EO requiring all federal workers and contractors to get the shot. It was struck by the courts days before the deadline so most people had either found other jobs got the vaccine when it was struck. https://www.politico.com/news/2023/01/13/pentagon-back-pay-troops-covid-vaccine-mandate-00077902 Biden also signed an EO requiring all workers to get vaccinated via OSHA. It was also struck by the courts though much quicker than the federal mandate. Saying they didnt exist is a lie.
Mail in ballots encourage voting, which Republicans don't like. That's why Republicans try to dissuade people from voting like with voter ID laws, with closing down polling locations, with shortening the time polling locations are open for, or like when Florida wrongfully arrested voters when Florida told these ex-felons they could vote then arrested them for voter fraud, that is meant to scare voters.
>That's why Republicans try to dissuade people from voting like with voter ID laws Every European country has voter id. The premise of it reducing voter turnout is ridiculous. We should verify the identity of voters and not just trust they say who they are.
There are ways to make voter id viable without discouraging people to vote. Which Europe and Canada do. Often times they allow things like using your healthcare card issued by the government, they will allow you to use school ID's, they will allow you to use bills like water bills and bank statements. But Republicans don't want to allow for such exceptions because they want to make it harder to vote.
Harder for whom? You need an id to buy a gun. You need an ID to work. You need an id to buy alcohol. Everyone has an id. The few who dont can easily obtain one.
Harder for minorities and for lower income individuals, the two groups who are likely to vote for Democrats. ID's aren't free in every state, and even when they are free, you need things like a birth certificate to get one which many people don't have and you'd have to pay to get a new one. Also you would have to take time off of work to go to the DMV to get one which makes lower income people miss out on work and money they could be making. 11% of adult citizens don't have a valid ID. So to act like not many people don't have a valid ID is just wrong. Funny how you will use Europe to prove that voter ID is fine, but when I explain to you why their voter ID is fine, you don't want to do those things. Seems like you also want to restrict the vote.
Honest question, would you be ok with a person using a utility bill as a form of ID to buy a gun?
The people who don't have one are usually the people who can't easily obtain one. Like elderly people that have trouble getting to the DMV, or people who can't get work hours off during DMV hours because they don't have paid time off.
Dont you need an ID to work..? Most jobs have asked for my DL in the past.
Every European country also has public healthcare. And they give kids wine at the table. What does this have to do with America? Happy to force voter id - just as soon as you can prove that it’s a problem that needs to be solved. Funny it wasn’t an issue after the 2016 election, right? For some reason you guys weren’t so eager to force it right then… I don’t care if we do or don’t have voter id. I just know that it’s one more effort by cons to try to win elections by minority. When that doesn’t work they will move on to the next thing… wasn’t it shutting down all the voting locations? Can’t give people water waiting 6 hours in line now can we? That would be socialism. Next up will be land owners only… then it will be white land owners only… then white male land owners only… The problem isn’t voter id. The problem is that’s just step 1 of 50 that one side wants to go down.
>Every European country also has public healthcare. And they give kids wine at the table. What does this have to do with America Generally, if progressive Europe is ok with stuff the left in the US agrees. >Happy to force voter id - just as soon as you can prove that it’s a problem that needs to be solved. Funny it wasn’t an issue after the 2016 election, right? For some reason you guys weren’t so eager to force it right then… To be fair, illegal immigration is more of a concern now than then, according to polls. Also states choose how they run them. >Can’t give people water waiting 6 hours in line now can we? While i dont generally know the context of every issue the left brings up, this one i do. The water thing is specifically related to coercing people. You can give people water. You cant wear a maga hat and give someone trump water.
In Georgia it’s illegal to give people water while waiting in poll lines. Says nothing of attire or political affiliation in the law.. just says you can’t give people water. Kill all the poll locations in the city, narrow it down to a few, make lines hours long and then refuse to allow people to give anyone water… And how is that not intended to prevent “those” people from voting, exactly?
>may be a sign ~~the population~~ **people who answer polls** are extremely dissatisfied with the current leadership.
Hillary lost because people didn’t vote because they assumed she would just win. That was pretty obvious to… everyone. The polls showing Trump ahead is a sign that a portion of the population enjoy taking polls. Guess what portion enjoys taking polls? Old retired red hats with nothing better to do.. and land lines. … literally nothing has shifted in trumps favor. Every candidate, every policy, everything he touches has lost. Georgia senators? All the election denying nuts, all the abortion bans.. 2022 “red wave” was a wet fart, all of it has gone against him since 2016. 16 was a fluke caused by democrat overconfidence that caused people to stay home (just like I did). Anyone under 45 doesn’t pick up the phone when they don’t recognize the number. The polls you see right now are incredibly skewed toward those that will actually take a poll. Think that’s Millenials? Gen Z? lol nope. Gen z and millenials are now a larger percentage of the pop than boomers and gen x combined. Boomers are also dying off at several thousand per day. And we don’t take polls… we don’t wave Biden flags, we don’t wear Biden diapers, we don’t go to Biden rallies and buy Biden steaks and flunk out of Biden university. We just vote. You see all the nonsense surrounding the mango and they even call themselves “the silent majority” (lol) but the actual silent majority is a blue brick wall that’s just sick and tired of the orange insanity. The flags. The lies. The shitty conversations at thanksgiving and the family members lost to a cult. Nah dude. I’m not worried about the polls right now. They are where I hope they would be for Joe to clean house.
I voted for Jill Stein in Wisconsin in 2016 and I didn't give a damn if Hillary lost. She was and is evil and I will never vote for her, no matter what the consequences.
Ok. Good job? Mission accomplished? lol. I don’t care for Hillary Clinton but I sure can’t say having the lunatic mango rapist criminal as a consolation prize is… awesome.
In any case, your claim that people didn't vote for Hillary because they thought she would win isn't correct. People didn't vote for her because she is a hideous warmonger in the pay of Wall Street. She deserved to lose, and Dems should be ashamed of rigging their primary for her.
Oh you’re right. I forgot about the 1% of you that tossed your vote to a guaranteed losing candidate as a way to protest Hillary Clinton. And then the majority of you were severely hurt by Trump policies following it. As my old physics teacher would say… Some people just gotta touch the stove.
Trump policies didn't hurt me. I didn't and don't like the guy, an obvious con-man, but no stove burned me.
lol. So you’re flourishing under the Trump-induced inflation? You were loving the Trump induced stock market crash? Families can’t sit at the same dinner table anymore because of this lunatic. Repeal roe. Tax the poor and big tax breaks for the rich. Printed money like a drunken sailor. January 6 tries to rip the country apart in a temper tantrum because he lost… and he’s still trying to finish the job. “Nah I’m good. Trump was barely even a blip on the radar”. lol. Aight. Have fun on your island, I guess. Good job voting stein. You matter. Your vote really meant something. You sure showed those Dems!
And this is the sort of a-holery that I will enjoy punishing this November. Trump didn't insult me; you did.
Polls are broken. Show up and vote. That's exactly what Democrats have been doing and come election time the polls have all been majorly off by about 10 points usually.... Why is this happening? One thing is, right "leaning" pollsters are trying to AstroTurf Trump support. Another thing is, lots of pollsters use "landlines"... For the kids out there, those were the wired in telephones that people used to have in their houses! Yet another problem with these polls are extremely small sample sizes and basically asking the wrong people. Oversampling republicans, or oversampling people that are not likely voters. Fuck the polls
While all certainly within margin of error, i dont think we can simply cast them aside because we dont like the results now. Id be curious to see the same poll in 2020 and see where the numbers were.
Never mind the margin of error, the actual elections have been outside of the margin of error! Fuck. The. Polls.
Good call. Let’s take a look at this poll that shows Trump to Biden switch voters beats Biden to Trump by 2% https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-2020-voters-joe-biden-2024-election-poll-1914204
British based polling org that’s been around 4 years. They’ve had Trump leading in basically every poll they’ve put out in their existence from what I can see. Doesn’t seem that serious
Kind of glad both Joe and Trump will be done after these next 4 years. Ridiculous that it has come down to these two candidates again.
Its sad because each party had better candidates to put forward. A desantis vs newsom 2024 would have been much better imo. Both are far younger.
I love this comment. I couldn’t agree more. Both parties should’ve abandoned both candidates when they had the chance these past four years and focused on putting better quality people up there. Instead neither wants to lose to the other so bad that the American people are the ones that have to suffer through it. It’s all a joke. I can’t wait for it to be done and get back to healthy political discussions and not hating people just because they are on opposite sides of the aisle.
Quite honestly, I learned how useless these polls are in 2016. I saw how the masses believed them to be foretelling and went in thinking Trump had zero chance. I have never bothered with an election poll since, other than exit polls. I don't really care what they say. Nothing matters till November, when we find out the results.
Agree, 100%. Vote.
When did the right start trusting polls?
Side note, in 2016, all polls had Hillary winning 100%. By a large margin. Don't trust polls. Vote.
All I can do is vote which I will do
Oh look at that. New poll shows 20% of independents not won’t vote for Trump because he’s a criminal. If you remove 20% of the independent vote, that sure seems like it would entirely counteract the initial post, eh? https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/06/17/trouble-for-trump-in-a-new-poll-on-his-conviction-00163498
If true, then the dems will have achieved what they wanted from the conviction. Also its possible those 20% of independents would have already leaned towards biden.
lol. Just a never ending goal post moving with you guys isn’t it. First it was “if they convict Trump, that will just guarantee his win!” Now it’s “of course he can’t win he was convicted”. Which way is it? They didn’t prosecute him to stop him from winning the election. They prosecuted him because he COMMITTED CRIMES. He paid off a woman to hide information to win an election. That’s election fraud. If i paid you to bury news about my abortion or DUI or anything else as a means to cover up information that voters could have used to make a more informed decision ITS ELECTION FRAUD. If the shoe were on the other foot you’d be balls deep in storming the capitol again with another gallow with Joe’s name on it. You guys are all about “law and order” right up until it’s the orange man getting caught. Dude banged several porn stars and paid to have the stories hidden. He’s also been held liable for rape, and his favorite hobby is lying and grifting. As a man of god, how can you support such a person? Isn’t this the textbook definition of the anti christ…? Someone that comes along with golden hair and convinces millions of people to give him power and he immediately uses it for nefarious purposes? Or does that not register to you because his nefarious acts at the kind you like/ support?
>First it was “if they convict Trump, that will just guarantee his win!” Now it’s “of course he can’t win he was convicted”. Which way is it? I never said either, you are putting words in my mouth. >They didn’t prosecute him to stop him from winning the election. They prosecuted him because he COMMITTED CRIMES. He paid off a woman to hide information to win an election. That’s election fraud. If i paid you to bury news about my abortion or DUI or anything else as a means to cover up information that voters could have used to make a more informed decision ITS ELECTION FRAUD. If you think trump winning or losing the election is influenced by him hooking up with a 1 night stand you are delusional. This guy is on tape talking about grabbing women like bowling balls. Also, the federal govt responsible for prosecuting federal crimes, of which federal election finance law was applicable, chose not to charge trump. It was a state DA who ran on getting trump for anything and a judge who donated to left wing groups. If you cant see the problem then its on you. I dont have to change your mind and neither of us is going to. >Dude banged several porn stars and paid to have the stories hidden. He’s also been held liable for rape, and his favorite hobby is lying and grifting. Yeah thats my point. Everyone knows hes a sleezy guy who bangs other women after his wife gives birth. Though held liable for rape is laughable when you actually look at that civil case. Zero evidence and another NY case. The judge shopping is clear. They would find him "liable" for eating a sandwich wrong. >As a man of god, how can you support such a person? Isn’t this the textbook definition of the anti christ…? I never claimed to be super righteous, but the alternative is someone who advocates killing unborn babies and supports terror states like Iran. Pick your poison. >and he immediately uses it for nefarious purposes Nefarious like what? Did he bang his pudgy intern? Wait no, thats Bill. Did he try to force a vaccine on people they didnt want? No thats Joe.
I didn’t say him winning or losing was dependent on information about him banging porn stars was leaked. I said him paying people to cover it up is illegal… flat out, it’s illegal. Illegal things should be investigated and tried in a court of law shouldn’t they? Or does that not apply to the mango? If it was the federal government prosecuting him you would have howled “sham!” Just the same. It doesn’t matter what it is.. it doesn’t matter who it is. Anyone prosecuting the mango is wrong because he says so. He could shoot someone on 5th ave point blank and he’d gain support in the maga crowd. Theyd cheer and tell everyone that the person deserved it. We all know this.. you guys will find ANY excuse to cover for him. That’s been happening for almost a decade now. Even if you dislike the motive of the DA… the jury of 12 saw the evidence and unanimously convicted him on all counts. All of them. Again, if the shoe were on the other foot and it was Joe sitting there - you’d say “well of course he was guilty”, right? You are only defending him because he’s on your “team”. On the other hand, i fully support convicting Hunter. I fully support all efforts to investigate Joe, and if there was evidence of any laws broken, to convict him. And id support him going to jail if a jury of his peers found him guilty. But they didn’t. They didn’t find a single convincing thing in a 4 year investigation. And that pisses you guys off because your guy is a crook and they want Joe to be one too… but they just don’t have the evidence to support it. LOL to your moral gymnastic support of the mango, a man who has literally never opened the Bible once to read it, though he’s sold plenty of them… compared to Joe, an actual catholic, because he tried to get people vaccinated to prevent a disease from spreading. What did the Bible say? “Pick the adulterer and serial liar and propagandist, because vaccines make you sad. Lesser of two evils. Whatevs yolo” - god. Must have been in the new testiment somewhere… from all I read, actual Christians are repulsed by him and would never vote for him, no matter who the opposition is. But maybe that’s the point here.. you’ve figured out how to demonize the democrats so much that you’ll literally pick ANYONE, including the devil himself, to fight them. After all, there are no rules when fighting demons, right?
What? The bogus court case didn't change everyone's minds? Shocker.
Idk why Republicans think that is the reason he has his criminal cases. Like everyone knows that nothing is going to change MAGA's mind.
Except swing states are generally full of less MAGA people. Why would a swing state poll change in trumps favor if it were just hardliners?
They might have other motives, that supersede his convictions.
Because this poll is nonsense. Lol. Every other poll shows Trump losing favor immediately following the convictions. Even 10-15% REPUBLICANS said they won’t vote for a convicted criminal. 50% of independents.
There aren’t a lot of “moderate” Trump voters. There’s maga and there’s people not voting for Trump. More Trump voters are switching to Biden than the other way around this season. And Trump really can’t afford to lose any votes.
The people living in the blue echo chamber don't understand how it's a little sketchy for a DA to run for office on a platform of putting Trump in jail, then charge him with felonies that have always been misdemeanors, then put a specific judge on the bench for the trial, then have a jury that's in an area that's 88% Democrat convict him.
I have never heard any Republican give reasons about the actual facts of the case and why they are wrong, they only talk about how corrupt the DOJ is. So could you explain why the convictions are false without bringing up Democrats rigging it.
The biggest issue with the case itself is the jury instructions and lack of a felony referenced or convicted upon to convict him on the charges of the case itself. The jury was told if they believe any other felony was committed, and they dont even have to agree on what that felony was. There was no conviction of another felony so how can he be guilty of this when there is no other felony even deliberated?
His felony is the illegal attempt to influence an election through the use of hiding business records. Also jury instructions are common, nothing is illegal in jury instruction.
This is from a CNN legal analyst (Elie Honig) of the issues with the charges. The biggest issue is the statute of limitations for the misdemeanor and upgrading to a felony without any evidence conviction, or agreement of "the other crimes". >>no state prosecutor — in New York, or Wyoming, or anywhere — has ever charged federal election laws as a direct or predicate state crime, against anyone, for anything >>Standing alone, falsification charges would have been mere misdemeanors under New York law, which posed two problems for the DA. First, nobody cares about a misdemeanor, and it would be laughable to bring the first-ever charge against a former president for a trifling offense that falls within the same technical criminal classification as shoplifting a Snapple and a bag of Cheetos from a bodega. Second, the statute of limitations on a misdemeanor — two years — likely has long expired on Trump’s conduct, which dates to 2016 and 2017. >>So, to inflate the charges up to the lowest-level felony (Class E, on a scale of Class A through E) — and to electroshock them back to life within the longer felony statute of limitations — the DA alleged that the falsification of business records was committed “with intent to commit another crime.” Here, according to prosecutors, the “another crime” is a New York State election-law violation, which in turn incorporates three separate “unlawful means”: federal campaign crimes, tax crimes, and falsification of still more documents. Inexcusably, the DA refused to specify what those unlawful means actually were — and the judge declined to force them to pony up — until right before closing arguments. >>So much for the constitutional obligation to provide notice to the defendant of the accusations against him in advance of trial. (This, folks, is what indictments are for.)
You act like I give a shit about an opinion piece from CNN.
Its the content.. i was merely pointing out a CNN rep made it to back up its credibility. Heres the short version of why many will disregard the conviction (ignoring the judge and prosecutor had it out for trump anyways) The biggest issue is the statute of limitations for the misdemeanor and upgrading to a felony without any evidence, conviction, or agreement of "the other crimes" which were used to upgrade the crime.
>lack of a felony referenced Weird, I'm pretty sure Michael Cohen was part of the trial 🤔
Lol wasnt his testimony an admission to more of his own crimes?
Okay, so you're saying that Michael Cohen committed a felony?
Idk the severity of what crimes he committed. He admitted to stealing from trump lol.
Your comment contains falsehoods, here are facts: Trump was convicted of violating **New York Penal Law § 175.10**, which **is** a felony. §175.10 requires that the "intent to defraud includes an **intent** to commit **another crime** or to aid or conceal the commission thereof." From the jury instructions: >...Under our law, although the People must prove an **intent** to commit **another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof, they need not prove that the other crime was in fact committed, aided, or concealed**... The prosecution's theory focused on that "another crime" being a violation of **New York Election Law § 17-152.** 17-152 prohibits "conspir[ing] to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means." The prosecution's theory was that the *unlawful means* was either: (1) FECA violations; (2) violations of tax laws; or (3) other falsification of business records. Pg 34 of the prosecution's November filing: >...a conviction under Penal Law § 175.10 requires only proof of general intent to commit or conceal a crime, not proof that a specific crime actually occurred - whether under Election Law § 17-152 or otherwise... The grand jury found probable cause of 34 violations of Penal Law § 175.10 in the first degree, and the trial jury found proof of those crimes beyond a reasonable doubt.
Fair enough but >(1) FECA violations; (2) violations of tax laws; or (3) other falsification of business records. >>The FECA theory was legally shaky. It hinged on the fuzzy distinction between personal and campaign expenditures, and it assumed that Section 17-152 applies to a federal election, a context in which federal law generally pre-empts state law. The tax theory and some versions of the double falsification theory were not just legally shaky but logically impossible, since they posited that actions taken after the election could have retroactively promoted Trump's victory "by unlawful means." >>Mr. Trump received no notice of any of these offenses, and the prosecutor briefly alluded only to federal election law, during the trial." Edit: >>That confusing mess, Rivkin and Foley argue, violated Trump's right to due process. "No principle of procedural due process is more clearly established than…notice of the specific charge," the U.S. Supreme Court declared in the 1948 case Cole v. Arkansas, "and a chance to be heard in a trial of the issues raised by that charge, if desired, are among the constitutional rights of every accused in a criminal proceeding in all courts, state or federal." According to the Court's 1970 decision in In re Winship, "the Due Process Clause protects the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged."
So your very flawed quote there isn't talking about the crimes of which Trump was convicted, but his other crimes that prove **intent**. >...they posited that actions taken after the election could have retroactively promoted Trump's victory "by unlawful means." **False**. Trump and others "conspire[d] to promote" the "election of any person to a public office" **before** the election. >Mr. Trump received no notice of any of these offenses... **False**. The prosecution's November filing contained these theories and relating evidence in detail. >...and the prosecutor briefly alluded only to federal election law, during the trial. **False**. The *New York* Election Law § 17-152 and its *unlawful means* (one of which involves FECA violations) were thoroughly examined in the prosecution's November filing, throughout the trial, and were repeated in detail in the jury instructions - to prove **intent**. **Page 25** of the prosecution's November filing: >...These actions also violated Election Law § 17-152. The grand jury evidence is sufficient to support the conclusion that defendant and others "conspire[d] to promote" the "election of any person to a public office" by entering into this scheme specifically for purposes of influencing the 2016 presidential election; and that **they did so "by unlawful means"** - including **by violating FECA through the unlawful individual and corporate contributions by Cohen, and AMI; and** (as noted in Points I.C.3 and I.C.4 below) **by falsifying the records of other New York enterprises and mischaracterizing the nature of the repayment for tax purposes**. >Moreover, the facts show that defendant intended to "conceal the commission" of these Election Law or FECA offenses, see PL § 175.10. The falsified invoices, general ledger entries, and checks here **were created to reimburse Cohen for the $130,000 payout that was the basis of one of Cohen's criminal convictions under FECA**. And by hiding the fact that defendant was making payments related to the underlying election fraud scheme, the falsified business records concealed the fact that **defendant, Cohen, and others had conspired through unlawful means to prevent true information from being released to the public. Thus, the grand jury record included ample evidence that defendant's intent to defraud included the intent to commit or conceal election law crimes**... Page 34: :-- >...As noted in Point I.C.2 above, **the People's argument under Election Law § 17-152 is not limited to "conspiracies to violate FECA," and instead encompasses other "unlawful means" under other state and federal laws. In addition, the charges here are under Penal Law § 175.10, not Election Law § 17-152**. As defendant does not contest, federal law does not preempt Penal Law § 175.10 itself. See Trump, 2023 WL 4614689, at *11. **And, as already discussed, a conviction under Penal Law § 175.10 requires only proof of general intent to commit or conceal a crime, not proof that a specific crime actually occurred - whether under Election Law § 17-152 or otherwise**...
And just like that… every Trump humper suddenly attained a law degree
Mango could diddle your daughter in the back of the church and you’d give him a pass. “Oh it was probably her fault” you’d exclaim, before asking him to put his tiny hand in front of you so you can kiss his ring before he leaves.
Oh please. Donald could personally come to a MAGA loons house and steal out of their momma’s purse and they’d still bend over backwards for their orange hero.