If we're being totally honest I've started using the word "unbecoming" because of the line in "Gravity's Gone" by Drive-by Truckers "Don't ever let em tell you sayin' what you want is unbecoming"
I'd be truly surprised if he *wasn't* trying to pull off some shady dealings to cheat his way through his trial.
I do not understand how anyone, anywhere is willing to give the rotting meat sack even the slightest benefit of the doubt.
A- itās *probably* more nuanced than just a cash for lies setup.
B- in his supporters minds, heās fighting basically a holy war, or rather has had a holy way foisted upon him, by forces of evil in this country. He is fighting in a completely rigged system, and if he loses, nothing stands in the way of these forces- so *ANYTHING* he does is justified- this is a matter of survival.
C- because the system is āso riggedā, good faith is no longer required. Would you keep rolling the dice and going to right squares in a game of monopoly if you were watching 2 other players steal from the bank without even attempting to hide it? Of course not, the rules wouldnāt matter anymore, all that would count is the outcome.
D- of course itās all nonsense, but thatās the āhowā they give him support despite all these stories.
It is the middle ground between light and shadow, between science and superstition, and it lies between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge. This is the dimension of imagination. It is an area which we call the Twilight Zone.
It all stems from entitlement and privilege. They simply cannot fathom that they could lose fair and square, so it *must* be rigged, and their opponents *must* be cheating. And if that's true, then why play fair at all?
At his core he's a thirty-four time convicted felonious fascist turd that raped his wife, E. Jean Carrol and underage children among many others.
*With all that implies.*
> I do not understand how anyone, anywhere is willing to give the rotting meat sack even the slightest benefit of the doubt.
well, his supporters are rotting (aka corrupt) meat
Trump tries to do the almost impossible: be a politician who gets a federal RICO charge.
RICO only comes into play when there are two or more specific āpredicateā crimes and that list of crimes is carefully tailored by the members of Congress to not apply to shady stuff that politicians do. BUT there are a few things on the list, like witness tampering, that Trump seems stupid enough to commit and put himself into the situation of bringing federal RICO charges upon himself.
I think the second paragraph probably explains why a news organization might be hesitant to go there:
> Barbara McQuade, a former U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan, told ProPublica witness tampering is often difficult to prove because the gimmick is often not done explicitly. But the trend could assist prosecutors in their efforts to call into question the credibility of witnesses testifying in Trumpās defense for his innumerable legal battles.
It's a lot harder to prove/defend a claim that they are being bribed, than the claim that they are trial witnesses who are being rewarded. I think the inference is totally fair, but I can understand why legal might want to leave it as an inference for the reader to draw rather than an explicit claim.
It's yahoo's quasi-reblogging of a propublica piece titled, "Multiple Trump Witnesses Have Received Significant Financial Benefits From His Businesses, Campaign"
https://www.propublica.org/article/donald-trump-criminal-cases-witnesses-financial-benefits
>Steven Cheung, a spokesperson for Trumpās campaign, questionably asserted in a statement to ProPublica that āthe 2024 Trump campaign is the most well-run and professional operation in political history.ā
The word "questionably" doing a *lot* of work in that sentence!
One of the more obviously annoying characteristics of "Trump talk" is exaggeration. Everything about Donald has to be the best there ever was, and everything about his enemies has to be the worst there ever was.
[At least the United Nations had the sense to laugh right at his face](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nIhBZqZBmQ) when he pulled that nonsense in front of them.
Thank you! This is a masterpiece š If whoever made this is listening, can you PLEASE make some follow ups? Pretty please š
Big editā¦just discovered there is a series! TY and there goes the next few hours of my day
So, who'd win in a golf-off: Propaganda Kim Jong Un, or Propaganda Trump?
Reminder: Kim claimed to have shot 11 holes in one, with a score of -38 on his first attempt to golf ever.
So much power that he was impeached, twice. So much power he lost a civil trial AND a criminal trial. So much power that he has yet to do anything against any political rival. He couldn't even stop the election certification. trump is a chump.
Trump has power but there's enough people around that keep the worst in check (but not things that align with project 2025 etc.) The people that have power are the people Trump owes tremendously for keeping his house of cards slightly standing.
He's got that pre-crash Ricky Bobby mindset. Hasn't had the heart to heart with daddy about the "if you ain't first, you're last" lifestyle. It will come surely.
Clarification: USA is one of the 5 permanent members of the UN security council, while the other 10 seats rotate between other countries. The General Assembly does not have rotating membership. It has a permanent spot for every country that cannot be revoked unless that country willingly chooses not to participate in the UN. They won't kick you out even if you threaten to nuke your neighbors, because creating a forum for other countries to negotiate the dictators out of nuking their neighbors is basically the whole point of the UN.
There is really only one independently governed country without a UN seat: Taiwan. China exerts a lot of political pressure on other countries to prevent its recognition, and this is also not helped by the fact that some Taiwanese politicians also don't want to be recognized as an independent country either, because they wish to be recognized as the legitimate government of China again. Essentially both China and Taiwan claim that the other country is an occupied territory which should be rightfully restored to them. China wins this debate in the UN because they have vastly more economic and diplomatic influence than Taiwan does. Trade with China is a huge deal for economies across the world.
It's crazy how everyone in Trump's orbit starts talking like him, lol. Any other normal person on planet earth would have said something like "We run a professional and clean operation here." Not "We're the professionaliest times infinity!"
Honestly, the fact that even "questionably" is used shows just how wild the claim is- I feel like most (respectable) news places don't tend to add a descriptor like "questionably" to a claim. Of course, ProPublica probably gave less of a shit given that they were sent a cease and desist letter, which they promptly ignored.
> Trumpās attorney, David Warrington, sent ProPublica a cease-and-desist letter demanding this article not be published. The letter warned that if the outlet and its reporters ācontinue their reckless campaign of defamation, President Trump will evaluate all legal remedies.ā
I love how other news outlets and aggregators cite ProPublica as if they've uncovered a great story.
Everyone here should subscribe to ProPublica right now. Send them a few ducats and enjoy the feeling of supporting actual journalism.
I went ahead and clicked on the link to the actual article that Yahoo was kind enough to provide and I'm glad I did. They even quoted the stupid little cease and desist Convicted Felon Donald Trump sent them. That was quite nice. I like this organization.
They're the ones that wrote the article that really nailed Clarence Thomas. How, you ask? By tracking photos of Clarence Thomas in the special polo shirts that Harlan Crowe always buys everyone he takes on billionaire group vacations. (Seriously.)
> Send them a few ducats and enjoy the feeling of supporting actual journalism.
This is what I think of every time my wife yells at me to throw out 5 unread New Yorkers
I feel you. I didnāt realize this was such a thing until there was a visual gag on The Good Place about it.
Bonus points: getting the New Yorker subscription as your gift for being a sustaining contributor to NPR
They're a 501(c).
If you disable JavaScript, their site doesn't suck (unless you use dark mode, then it'll fuck your eyes till you get headaches).
They even offer full stories in their RSS feed.
Do I really have to explain that my comment was sarcasm? After everything he has put this country through? I still have to put an "/s" in my post? Seriously? Is that where we are now?
"This is all very forgiveable"
Is what all the Pastors, Preachers, and Priests will sermonize next Sunday to their Holy-Roller Christian Republicans needing evermore rationalization to convince themselves that God wants them to vote for liars, traitors, cons, and morally bankrupt Conservative politicians.
You're giving them too much credit. It's not a moral issue for them because they don't even believe any of it happened. They believe the whole thing is a made up politically hit job. It's hard to compete with the version of events that happened vs. Their mental image of Donald Trump. The image wins every time for them.
Not impossible, but anyone who isn't a total idiot could get away with this. Just don't put it down on paper or text. Everything is verbal. Typical mob boss shit.
The actual writers of the article make this pretty clear. Convenient timing mixed with "you're a fantastic employee and this is being recognized by us" mixed with not coming from Trump himself makes this stupidly hard to actually go after legally
It should be easy to defend against if there is a paper trail of putting candidates forward for promotion, annual reviews, contract (re)negotiation, etc. You don't get five or six figures dropped on you out of the blue.Ā
If that info isn't there, then...yeah.
Depends. If some of it is recorded via texts or email or audio recording then that could be solid proof. Or if you have testimony from say 6 people in a row who all say that before they testified an agent for Trump talked to them and offered them a bribe, that could be enough.
"upon an agreement or understanding that the testimony of such witness will thereby be influenced."
> AGREEMENT means a mutual agreement between a witness and a person who confers, or offers or agrees to confer, any benefit upon such witness, that such witness's testimony in an action or proceeding will thereby be influenced.2
> UNDERSTANDING means at least a unilateral perception or belief by a person that a witnessās testimony in an action or proceeding will be influenced by that personās conferring, offering to confer, or agreeing to confer a benefit upon that witness.3
Agreement likely does not exist, though given that there are 9 witness, "understanding" may be plausible on account of the pattern.
>Another employee got a $2 million severance package barring him from voluntarily cooperating with law enforcement.
If I remember correctly, Allen Weisselberg (former Trump Org CFO), had a similar stipulation in his severance package.
I really have zero idea how something like that can possibly be legal. The others there's at least some plausible deniability for, but I don't have any idea how on earth barring someone from cooperating with law enforcement investigation is possibly legal. Any organization putting that sort of stipulation in their contracts at all seems like it would immediately make a jury wary of trusting them if they were ever at trial if the topic came up, I'd think.
I guess "voluntarily" would be the operative word there? The way it's framed makes it seem similar to an NDA. Don't talk unless legally compelled to do so.
Even that should be very legally questionable, imo. Similar to how under most contract law, you can't contract for illegal actions.
"If you know we did something illegal, you can't talk to prosecutors about it unless you're subpoenaed" seems like it should be an immediately invalid contract term on it's face.
I am no lawyer but a contract paying someone to not voluntarily cooperate with law enforcement seems legally suspect.
Also if the person wanted to, all they would need to do is, through their own lawyer, make it clear that they would be eager to talk given anything that reads like a legal order to do so. I imagine it's not the first time that someone told investigators, essentially, "seriously I am happy to talk but I need cover from you, help me help you."
The argument is whether the purpose was to influence the witness. They all had pre existing relationships with Trump and his organizations, which is why they are witnesses in the first place. The question is whether these benefits were to influence their testimony (traceable to Trump), or for some other legitimate business reason (e.g. good job performance, etc.).
Hopefully thereās some good evidence and someoneās giving details to the DOJ. Iām seeing comments that this is hard to pin on trump with the way he does things mobster like. For example, give someoneās daughter a job but donāt explicitly say āhey keep your mouth shut and Iāll do thisā or doubling several peopleās salaries āfor doing a good jobā but leaving out the āby not talking to prosecutorsā part.
Itās been obvious what trumps been up to. Itās why everyone gets their own different lawyer right before they flip. His CFO got a nice payout to lie and sit in prison. I really hope someone tacks this crime on somewhere.
Bribing witnesses is illegal. This looks ALOT like bribing witnesses, it gives the appearance of bribing witnesses and I just watched a video of how I could be fired from my job for doing such a thing. Whether it could be proven to be bribery in a court of law requires a higher degree of proof, but if there is any recording or if any of these people are willing to testify that they were receiving benefits because of their beneficial testimony, then Trump will be back in court in NY for more felony charges.
"President Trump is a businessman,ā Sondland said later. āWhen a businessman is about to sign a check to someone who owes him something, the businessman asks that person to pay up before signing the check."
That was a defense of the Ukraine shakedown.
Crazy how already agreed upon military equipment by Congress and court room proceedings *arent* businesses or business deals. I really dont give a fuck how they try to claim "everything is just business" with this guy and if anything, actions like these are just strengthening my stance of being anti-unbridled capitalism.
I'm not anti capitalism but it's getting out of hand and needs to be reined back in
The difference between regulated capitalism and unregulated capitalism is like the difference between liberty and anarchy. The former leads to a healthy economy and the latter to corruption and financial crisis.
>and financial crisis.
And environmental. A town melted to the ground in Ohio because of deregulation with trains. Another in Michigan had and has its water supply *still* screwed up to this day. All over Appalachia, people have been driven from their land because of slag runoffs.
It seems the only time I hear about regulation being "necessary" from one Party is when it's only about renewable energy sources or preventing certain people from voting
I work in insurance. I used to work for someone just like Trump. He would spend every waking hour looking for ways to subterfuge the restrictions set by the regulators (DOI). Eventually they caught up to him and shut his insurance company down. Nearly 100 million dollars of insurance money that was needed to pay claims is gone. Individuals injured and properties destroyed with no insurance payments, and insured's businesses declaring bankruptcy because they can't pay the damages all for one man's ego. Removing regulation is like defunding the police, and we all know how the Republicans feel about that.
Capitalism is a horse. Left to its own devices, a horse will have a great time running around and frolicking, but it will break your fence and destroy your grass while doing so.
If you want to get any meaningful work out of a horse, you need to exercise control. You need to put reins on it.
No one is saying they aren't actionable. Bribing witnesses is extremely difficult to prove though, and prosecutors have a duty to the people and to the state to not bring charges against someone if they feel there is a high likelihood that they will not prevail in court.
All that to say, there could be an investigation ongoing, or about to begin.
> Barbara McQuade, a former U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan, told ProPublica witness tampering is often difficult to prove because the gimmick is often not done explicitly.
It doesn't seem that hard. Just call out the facts on each witness. Juries aren't dumb, they can connect the dots.
Shouldn't a headline about this read, "Team trump is bribing key trial witnesses"?
Paying off witnesses in his trial for paying off a pornstar
Actually this is for the Georgia case
Oh so it's much worse
Nothing like conspiring to get out of a RICO case. š
Bug brain move.
Donāt be mean to the bugs.
But how else will I do my part and earn citizenship?
Iām doing my part!
Would you like to know more?
Service guarantees citizenship.
Its worked before.Ā
We've had first RICO but what about second RICO?
I donāt think he knows about 2nd RICO, Pip.
Double secret RICO
How many times do we have to teach you this lesson, old man!?
Elevenses?
I believe thatās Uncle Rico.
Used to be able to throw a pig skin a quarter mile.
"They'll never see it coming!"
"Like the *late, great* Alphonse Capone."
Does the phrase "it isn't the crime, its the cover up that gets you" mean anything to you?
Taking notes, during a criminal conspiracy, I hear is worse.
Paying off witnesses in a separate case after just being convicted of paying off a pornstar is pretty unbecoming for a presidential candidate also
āUnbecomingā is darling ā¦ want my daughterās #? Sheās a doctor
Lmao I'm married. Wish it was this simple when I was on the market thoš¤£. I've got an above average sized... vocabulary š¤£
I think it's particularly funny because Michelle Obama's book was titled Becoming.
If we're being totally honest I've started using the word "unbecoming" because of the line in "Gravity's Gone" by Drive-by Truckers "Don't ever let em tell you sayin' what you want is unbecoming"
Would you say you are a cunning linguist?
I wouldn't go that far about myself but I do enjoy one from time to time.
So is Zoidberg and no one wants his number.
I wonder if he's reporting the payments as a campaign expense š¤
Legal expense ... on top of the campaign write-off!
His videos hurt to watch, so it's a genuine cam-pain expense.
and still losing the case.
Business expensing* trial witnesses
Tbf did anyone expect anything less?
I'd be truly surprised if he *wasn't* trying to pull off some shady dealings to cheat his way through his trial. I do not understand how anyone, anywhere is willing to give the rotting meat sack even the slightest benefit of the doubt.
A- itās *probably* more nuanced than just a cash for lies setup. B- in his supporters minds, heās fighting basically a holy war, or rather has had a holy way foisted upon him, by forces of evil in this country. He is fighting in a completely rigged system, and if he loses, nothing stands in the way of these forces- so *ANYTHING* he does is justified- this is a matter of survival. C- because the system is āso riggedā, good faith is no longer required. Would you keep rolling the dice and going to right squares in a game of monopoly if you were watching 2 other players steal from the bank without even attempting to hide it? Of course not, the rules wouldnāt matter anymore, all that would count is the outcome. D- of course itās all nonsense, but thatās the āhowā they give him support despite all these stories.
It is the middle ground between light and shadow, between science and superstition, and it lies between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge. This is the dimension of imagination. It is an area which we call the Twilight Zone.
It all stems from entitlement and privilege. They simply cannot fathom that they could lose fair and square, so it *must* be rigged, and their opponents *must* be cheating. And if that's true, then why play fair at all?
At his core, he's a New York real estate developer. With all that implies.
At his core he's a thirty-four time convicted felonious fascist turd that raped his wife, E. Jean Carrol and underage children among many others. *With all that implies.*
> I do not understand how anyone, anywhere is willing to give the rotting meat sack even the slightest benefit of the doubt. well, his supporters are rotting (aka corrupt) meat
Trump tries to do the almost impossible: be a politician who gets a federal RICO charge. RICO only comes into play when there are two or more specific āpredicateā crimes and that list of crimes is carefully tailored by the members of Congress to not apply to shady stuff that politicians do. BUT there are a few things on the list, like witness tampering, that Trump seems stupid enough to commit and put himself into the situation of bringing federal RICO charges upon himself.
So do the people who knowingly get the bribes become part of the RICO conspiracy? And get charged?
I think the second paragraph probably explains why a news organization might be hesitant to go there: > Barbara McQuade, a former U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan, told ProPublica witness tampering is often difficult to prove because the gimmick is often not done explicitly. But the trend could assist prosecutors in their efforts to call into question the credibility of witnesses testifying in Trumpās defense for his innumerable legal battles. It's a lot harder to prove/defend a claim that they are being bribed, than the claim that they are trial witnesses who are being rewarded. I think the inference is totally fair, but I can understand why legal might want to leave it as an inference for the reader to draw rather than an explicit claim.
But being honest about such is "anti-Trump". And we can't have any of that.
It's yahoo's quasi-reblogging of a propublica piece titled, "Multiple Trump Witnesses Have Received Significant Financial Benefits From His Businesses, Campaign" https://www.propublica.org/article/donald-trump-criminal-cases-witnesses-financial-benefits
> Shouldn't a headline about this read, "Team trump is bribing key trial witnesses"? No because that would be bait for a defamation lawsuit.
Isn't there something going to the Supreme Court to decide if accepting a "gift" *after* performing a service is a quid pro quo?
Yes, it should. Bullshit headline trying to spin for damage control
But then how would we know that it's a bombshell report?
>Steven Cheung, a spokesperson for Trumpās campaign, questionably asserted in a statement to ProPublica that āthe 2024 Trump campaign is the most well-run and professional operation in political history.ā The word "questionably" doing a *lot* of work in that sentence!
One of the more obviously annoying characteristics of "Trump talk" is exaggeration. Everything about Donald has to be the best there ever was, and everything about his enemies has to be the worst there ever was. [At least the United Nations had the sense to laugh right at his face](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nIhBZqZBmQ) when he pulled that nonsense in front of them.
> One of the more obviously annoying characteristics of "Trump talk" is... he plays an invisible accordion while talking.
And loves to jerk off the air ghosts when dancing.
he pulls flags out of his nose while talking.
Someone needs to do a mashup of one of his more egregious speeches with an accordion overlay
[Enjoy!](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S65jqrHQi_c)
Thank you! This is a masterpiece š If whoever made this is listening, can you PLEASE make some follow ups? Pretty please š Big editā¦just discovered there is a series! TY and there goes the next few hours of my day
I almost died laughing the first time I saw that ! This is a masterpiece.
How have I never seen this before?!
š
So, who'd win in a golf-off: Propaganda Kim Jong Un, or Propaganda Trump? Reminder: Kim claimed to have shot 11 holes in one, with a score of -38 on his first attempt to golf ever.
Kim actually has power. trump only thinks he does.
> Kim actually has power. trump only thinks he does. We will revisit this question again after 5 Nov 2024.... and to be safe, after 21 January 2025
Even when trump was in office, he didn't hold the power that Kim still has. I don't believe Kim was impeached, let alone twice.
Or the whole felony convictions. But, has the World Court gone after Kim Jong Un?
RemindMe! January 21st, 2025
RemindMe! November 6th, 2024
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
So much power that he was impeached, twice. So much power he lost a civil trial AND a criminal trial. So much power that he has yet to do anything against any political rival. He couldn't even stop the election certification. trump is a chump.
Trump has power but there's enough people around that keep the worst in check (but not things that align with project 2025 etc.) The people that have power are the people Trump owes tremendously for keeping his house of cards slightly standing.
Both are only useful idiots who think they have power, but really they are playing with plastic car keys while the adults run the show.Ā
https://golf.com/news/behind-kim-jong-ils-famous-round-of-golf/?amp=1
He can out-cheat donny?
It's not cheating if you are the one writing the rules.
It's easy to get a score of -38 in golf when you don't understand the scoring.
He's got that pre-crash Ricky Bobby mindset. Hasn't had the heart to heart with daddy about the "if you ain't first, you're last" lifestyle. It will come surely.
Why the everloving fuck was he giving a speech like that at the UN?
It was a speech at the UN General Assembly. He was the president of the US and the US is one of the 5 permanent members at the Assembly.
Yeah, none of what you posted is untrue. It is the CONTENT that is the WTF.
He just recycled his protectionist US-centered rally speech.
Clarification: USA is one of the 5 permanent members of the UN security council, while the other 10 seats rotate between other countries. The General Assembly does not have rotating membership. It has a permanent spot for every country that cannot be revoked unless that country willingly chooses not to participate in the UN. They won't kick you out even if you threaten to nuke your neighbors, because creating a forum for other countries to negotiate the dictators out of nuking their neighbors is basically the whole point of the UN. There is really only one independently governed country without a UN seat: Taiwan. China exerts a lot of political pressure on other countries to prevent its recognition, and this is also not helped by the fact that some Taiwanese politicians also don't want to be recognized as an independent country either, because they wish to be recognized as the legitimate government of China again. Essentially both China and Taiwan claim that the other country is an occupied territory which should be rightfully restored to them. China wins this debate in the UN because they have vastly more economic and diplomatic influence than Taiwan does. Trade with China is a huge deal for economies across the world.
It's the telltale sign he's a conman, even if you knew nothing else about him.
It's crazy how everyone in Trump's orbit starts talking like him, lol. Any other normal person on planet earth would have said something like "We run a professional and clean operation here." Not "We're the professionaliest times infinity!"
Honestly, the fact that even "questionably" is used shows just how wild the claim is- I feel like most (respectable) news places don't tend to add a descriptor like "questionably" to a claim. Of course, ProPublica probably gave less of a shit given that they were sent a cease and desist letter, which they promptly ignored. > Trumpās attorney, David Warrington, sent ProPublica a cease-and-desist letter demanding this article not be published. The letter warned that if the outlet and its reporters ācontinue their reckless campaign of defamation, President Trump will evaluate all legal remedies.ā
Remember that time Trump sued a media outlet for defamation and won? Yeah me neither.
Questionably is a very polite word.
āThe agreement included a clause preventing Weisselberg from cooperating with investigators unless forced to do so.ā Sounds like a bribe to me.
Yeah and the crappy, cheap pizza place has the Worldās Best Pizza.
I love how other news outlets and aggregators cite ProPublica as if they've uncovered a great story. Everyone here should subscribe to ProPublica right now. Send them a few ducats and enjoy the feeling of supporting actual journalism.
I went ahead and clicked on the link to the actual article that Yahoo was kind enough to provide and I'm glad I did. They even quoted the stupid little cease and desist Convicted Felon Donald Trump sent them. That was quite nice. I like this organization.
They're good. You can read their stuff for free, but a few $$ is good for the world.
Thanks, I donated to them based on your recommendation
If you sign up for their newsletter, you get...actual news. It's pretty great.
Actual news is *so* last decade!
Thx. Donated due to your recommendation also.
They're the ones that wrote the article that really nailed Clarence Thomas. How, you ask? By tracking photos of Clarence Thomas in the special polo shirts that Harlan Crowe always buys everyone he takes on billionaire group vacations. (Seriously.)
ProPublica also has the best non-profit explorer out there. Very helpful if you want to check on the financials of a non-profit you're involved in.
They also partner with local papers to do great work, like the Texas Tribune.
> Send them a few ducats and enjoy the feeling of supporting actual journalism. This is what I think of every time my wife yells at me to throw out 5 unread New Yorkers
I feel you. I didnāt realize this was such a thing until there was a visual gag on The Good Place about it. Bonus points: getting the New Yorker subscription as your gift for being a sustaining contributor to NPR
Link to the actual article: https://www.propublica.org/article/donald-trump-criminal-cases-witnesses-financial-benefits (fuck Yahoo)
r/propublica
They have consistently conducted high quality, investigative journalism in the past few years.
Subscribed, thanks!
I only have shekels, will that be a problem?
What is ProPublica gonna do with ~~Romulans~~ Cardassians?
Romulans? Donāt you mean Cardassian?
Eeek, you're right. That's what I get for trying to be funny while lying in bed with a cold!
They're a 501(c). If you disable JavaScript, their site doesn't suck (unless you use dark mode, then it'll fuck your eyes till you get headaches). They even offer full stories in their RSS feed.
seems like Donald's get ripped off to me. but whatevs
He ain't paying - Never does
True, but these arenāt direct payouts. They all got massive job āpromotions.ā
Bribery isn't just greenbacks.
Brilliant strategy.
Actually it seems like he might have made a mistake by allowing this to become public... /s
AYYYYYYYY YOU GOT ME
š
<3
So itās like the opposite of a hush money payment?
It's a Gush Money payment.
>Gush Money I love this. Thank you.
History repeats itself as farce!
Sort of a shrieking money payment, if you will.
If they were brilliant, it wouldn't be in the news.
Do I really have to explain that my comment was sarcasm? After everything he has put this country through? I still have to put an "/s" in my post? Seriously? Is that where we are now?
No. r/fuckthes. If people donāt get it then so be it
Who is Thes and why do you want to fuck him?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thes_One Heās a good looking dude. Who wouldnāt?
The problem is that without tone or knowing these commenters itās difficult to know if someone is being serious or sarcastic.
"This is all very forgiveable" Is what all the Pastors, Preachers, and Priests will sermonize next Sunday to their Holy-Roller Christian Republicans needing evermore rationalization to convince themselves that God wants them to vote for liars, traitors, cons, and morally bankrupt Conservative politicians.
right wing "christians" aren't christian
***For sure!!!*** [*This is fine!*](https://www.dictionary.com/e/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/this-is-fine.png)
You're giving them too much credit. It's not a moral issue for them because they don't even believe any of it happened. They believe the whole thing is a made up politically hit job. It's hard to compete with the version of events that happened vs. Their mental image of Donald Trump. The image wins every time for them.
Not at my church-
Criminals behave like criminals.
[Always and forever.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tXVK7fh-kI&ab_channel=HeatwaveVEVO) *sigh...* Unfortunately...
What is the legal argument for or against these ābenefitsā?
In NY: https://www.nycourts.gov/judges/cji/2-PenalLaw/215/215-00%28a%29.pdf
So, time to drag his ass back to court in his orange prison jumpsuit?
Seems impossible to prove? Am I wrong?
Not impossible, but anyone who isn't a total idiot could get away with this. Just don't put it down on paper or text. Everything is verbal. Typical mob boss shit.
The actual writers of the article make this pretty clear. Convenient timing mixed with "you're a fantastic employee and this is being recognized by us" mixed with not coming from Trump himself makes this stupidly hard to actually go after legally
Absolutely fascinating.
The article says usually these are hard to prove but there's a pattern here of 9 different witnesses.
It should be easy to defend against if there is a paper trail of putting candidates forward for promotion, annual reviews, contract (re)negotiation, etc. You don't get five or six figures dropped on you out of the blue.Ā If that info isn't there, then...yeah.
Depends. If some of it is recorded via texts or email or audio recording then that could be solid proof. Or if you have testimony from say 6 people in a row who all say that before they testified an agent for Trump talked to them and offered them a bribe, that could be enough.
āany benefitā
"upon an agreement or understanding that the testimony of such witness will thereby be influenced." > AGREEMENT means a mutual agreement between a witness and a person who confers, or offers or agrees to confer, any benefit upon such witness, that such witness's testimony in an action or proceeding will thereby be influenced.2 > UNDERSTANDING means at least a unilateral perception or belief by a person that a witnessās testimony in an action or proceeding will be influenced by that personās conferring, offering to confer, or agreeing to confer a benefit upon that witness.3 Agreement likely does not exist, though given that there are 9 witness, "understanding" may be plausible on account of the pattern.
>Another employee got a $2 million severance package barring him from voluntarily cooperating with law enforcement. If I remember correctly, Allen Weisselberg (former Trump Org CFO), had a similar stipulation in his severance package. I really have zero idea how something like that can possibly be legal. The others there's at least some plausible deniability for, but I don't have any idea how on earth barring someone from cooperating with law enforcement investigation is possibly legal. Any organization putting that sort of stipulation in their contracts at all seems like it would immediately make a jury wary of trusting them if they were ever at trial if the topic came up, I'd think.
I guess "voluntarily" would be the operative word there? The way it's framed makes it seem similar to an NDA. Don't talk unless legally compelled to do so.
Even that should be very legally questionable, imo. Similar to how under most contract law, you can't contract for illegal actions. "If you know we did something illegal, you can't talk to prosecutors about it unless you're subpoenaed" seems like it should be an immediately invalid contract term on it's face.
I am no lawyer but a contract paying someone to not voluntarily cooperate with law enforcement seems legally suspect. Also if the person wanted to, all they would need to do is, through their own lawyer, make it clear that they would be eager to talk given anything that reads like a legal order to do so. I imagine it's not the first time that someone told investigators, essentially, "seriously I am happy to talk but I need cover from you, help me help you."
The argument is whether the purpose was to influence the witness. They all had pre existing relationships with Trump and his organizations, which is why they are witnesses in the first place. The question is whether these benefits were to influence their testimony (traceable to Trump), or for some other legitimate business reason (e.g. good job performance, etc.).
I look forward to the 2029 trial for this.
That's assuming the hamberders don't get him before then.
Hopefully thereās some good evidence and someoneās giving details to the DOJ. Iām seeing comments that this is hard to pin on trump with the way he does things mobster like. For example, give someoneās daughter a job but donāt explicitly say āhey keep your mouth shut and Iāll do thisā or doubling several peopleās salaries āfor doing a good jobā but leaving out the āby not talking to prosecutorsā part. Itās been obvious what trumps been up to. Itās why everyone gets their own different lawyer right before they flip. His CFO got a nice payout to lie and sit in prison. I really hope someone tacks this crime on somewhere.
CFOās son and ex daughter-in-law got some hefty perks as well, iirc. https://www.yahoo.com/news/trumps-cfos-ex-daughter-law-211626645.html
This seems like a big deal. Is this a big deal? IANAL
Bribing witnesses is illegal. This looks ALOT like bribing witnesses, it gives the appearance of bribing witnesses and I just watched a video of how I could be fired from my job for doing such a thing. Whether it could be proven to be bribery in a court of law requires a higher degree of proof, but if there is any recording or if any of these people are willing to testify that they were receiving benefits because of their beneficial testimony, then Trump will be back in court in NY for more felony charges.
"President Trump is a businessman,ā Sondland said later. āWhen a businessman is about to sign a check to someone who owes him something, the businessman asks that person to pay up before signing the check." That was a defense of the Ukraine shakedown.
Crazy how already agreed upon military equipment by Congress and court room proceedings *arent* businesses or business deals. I really dont give a fuck how they try to claim "everything is just business" with this guy and if anything, actions like these are just strengthening my stance of being anti-unbridled capitalism. I'm not anti capitalism but it's getting out of hand and needs to be reined back in
The difference between regulated capitalism and unregulated capitalism is like the difference between liberty and anarchy. The former leads to a healthy economy and the latter to corruption and financial crisis.
>and financial crisis. And environmental. A town melted to the ground in Ohio because of deregulation with trains. Another in Michigan had and has its water supply *still* screwed up to this day. All over Appalachia, people have been driven from their land because of slag runoffs. It seems the only time I hear about regulation being "necessary" from one Party is when it's only about renewable energy sources or preventing certain people from voting
I work in insurance. I used to work for someone just like Trump. He would spend every waking hour looking for ways to subterfuge the restrictions set by the regulators (DOI). Eventually they caught up to him and shut his insurance company down. Nearly 100 million dollars of insurance money that was needed to pay claims is gone. Individuals injured and properties destroyed with no insurance payments, and insured's businesses declaring bankruptcy because they can't pay the damages all for one man's ego. Removing regulation is like defunding the police, and we all know how the Republicans feel about that.
Capitalism is a horse. Left to its own devices, a horse will have a great time running around and frolicking, but it will break your fence and destroy your grass while doing so. If you want to get any meaningful work out of a horse, you need to exercise control. You need to put reins on it.
Love your comment. A lot is 2 words.
Charge him with witness tampering. Itās incredible!
MOBSTER.
wow
corruption incarnate
NALāI canāt find anything online explaining why these findings arenāt actionable. Give a fella a hand, here?
No one is saying they aren't actionable. Bribing witnesses is extremely difficult to prove though, and prosecutors have a duty to the people and to the state to not bring charges against someone if they feel there is a high likelihood that they will not prevail in court. All that to say, there could be an investigation ongoing, or about to begin.
š¤
> Barbara McQuade, a former U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan, told ProPublica witness tampering is often difficult to prove because the gimmick is often not done explicitly. It doesn't seem that hard. Just call out the facts on each witness. Juries aren't dumb, they can connect the dots.
Unless you get witnesses, evidence or people flipping, itās pretty difficult.