Orange Duce

[Farfromgeneva]

Not to get too far off topic here, but I get the impression from talking to a lot of different people, that ultimately, there is a large segment of the population in America that doesn't care what Trump does in his personal life or even, to a degree, his political life, so long as he continues to talk about and "champion" his particular philosophy on how things should be in America--which obviously resonates with a lot of people. In other words, people are more concerned with what he does, the policies he enacts while he's in office as opposed to what he says and does.

Respectfully, you have it backwards. These voters are 1000% times more interested in what he says....and pays ZERO attention to what he does.

Pretty easy to figure this out: quiz them.

1. ask them if our troops hit any new countries (his comment on endless wars), or pulled out of the ones troops were already in
2. ask him what he did about China (standing up to China) and whether our imports from there went up or down.
3. here's a fun trick question: ask them how much Trump cut Federal spending (draining the swamp).
4. ask if he fixing immigration.

From there? I'd bet they can't name the things that Trump DID do. Like the Federal prison reform bill. Or massive tax cuts for the rich. Or three MASSIVE spending bills BEFORE Covid spending hit.

It has NOTHING to do with policy. They want his speeches. They want him to "stick it to the libs"....which to them, also means the press and the DoJ, FBI, etc., even though they were all run by R's and Trump appointees when Trump was there.

Especially the duplicitous pious but not actually as religious as they claim Christian force behind him and guys like Jerry Falwell. Just getting one over on rubes. We’re back to where we began.

[Farfromgeneva]

You must be a Muslim terrorist like Obama. Lemme see your birth certificate!

[Farfromgeneva]

The continued & increasing support for Trump is astonishing (to me). ...this is about more than just Trump.

Yeah it’s about losers who want an easy button vs earning their way in this country.

[a fan]

OPINION
The view from the right on Trump’s conviction

Even conservatives critical of the former president balked at a trial that many of them saw as an abuse of the justice system.

By Carine Hajjar Globe Staff, June 1, 2024

In the hours after former president Donald Trump made history with his 34 felony counts, liberal opinion pages celebrated the conviction as a triumph of the justice system. The New York Times editorial board beamed that the “sordid case” was “proof that the rule of law binds everyone, even former presidents.” They praised Judge Juan Merchan for being “scrupulous in ensuring that Mr. Trump received a fair trial.” The Washington Post editorial board declared that the jury’s decision reminded us that “even the most privileged members of society remain subject to the same essential legal procedures other Americans face,” and warned that Trump’s “ultimate verdict” looms in November.

But while many liberal commentators celebrated the triumph of the system, the reaction in conservative media was quite the opposite. In a rare moment of accord across a fragmented movement, conservatives of all different stripes wrote to lament what they saw as the weaponization of the legal system against a figure that polarizes them as much as he alienates the left.

They weren’t perfectly unified, of course. The MAGA side of the right describes this case apocalyptically. And though an extreme example, Breitbart went so far as to declare to its Instagram followers that Trump’s conviction date fell on the feast day of Joan of Arc, “patron saint of prisoners and hero of patriots.” But sober-minded outlets on the center-right — some of which haven’t been friends of the former president’s — had clear-eyed arguments for why this case wasn’t a triumph but a perversion of justice.

That position was pointedly argued by legal expert Ilya Shapiro in City Journal, a publication known for its market-based, limited-government perspectives. Shapiro called the verdict a “travesty of justice.” “I say this not as a Trump-lover—I don’t love any politician, preferring transactional relationships regarding policy—but as a lover of the rule of law.” Shapiro contends that, feelings for Trump aside, the case was a legal stretch.

National Review (full disclosure: my former employer) sang a similar tune. That outlet has butted heads plenty with the former president, often pointing out how his populist agenda is mostly inconsistent with its traditional, William F. Buckley-style conservatism. But most of the big-name writers were in agreement: This case was politicized, no matter how you feel about Trump. The editors called it a “horrendous” verdict and a “textbook instance of selective prosecution.”

The Wall Street Journal editorial board (another former employer), which has been judicious in both its praise and criticism of the former president, wrote that the case “looks like a legal stretch,” describing it as “a bizarre turducken, with alleged crimes stuffed inside other crimes.” Though it pulled no punches for Trump, describing him as a “cad” and calling him out for denying his sexual relationship with Stormy Daniels, “if implausibly.” But it cautioned readers about the precedent set by this case for a “new destabilizing era of American politics.” “The conviction sets a precedent of using legal cases, no matter how sketchy, to try to knock out political opponents, including former Presidents.”

At The Dispatch, an anti-Trump online publication, the day before the verdict was decided, Nick Catoggio wrote in a newsletter that this case “has always stunk of politics, from the fact that it was held nearly a decade after the events that inspired it to the questionable legal theory on which it’s based to the dubious motives of the lead prosecutor.” Catoggio is far from a MAGA enthusiast. He has often made the classical liberal case for why not to vote for Trump, who he believes will oversee an “authoritarian nightmare” that undermines the norms of the American system even more than Democrats’ current lawfare. He even argues that a vote for Joe Biden is an investment in “keeping a fascist out of power.”

Center-right politicians were similarly disappointed by the conviction. Republican Senator Susan Collins, who’s been sharp in her criticism of the former president, suggested that this case undermines the American system of justice which “prosecutes cases because of alleged criminal conduct regardless of who the defendant happens to be,” but in this case, the opposite occurred. “The district attorney, who campaigned on a promise to prosecute Donald Trump, brought these charges precisely because of who the defendant was,” she wrote in a statement to a reporter for The Hill.

The reactions all call out two central issues with the case: that it was a weak legal argument, and that it was tainted from the beginning by political motivations.

On the merits of the case, they point to Bragg’s obscure and novel use of New York election law to bring forth this conviction. Bragg had to bend over backward to elevate the misdemeanor of falsification of records — for which the statute of limitations had already passed — to a felony, by using an obscure and rarely used New York election law. The Journal described this as a “Russian nesting doll structure” that “defies logic.” Shapiro noted that Bragg had to dig up “decade-old offenses that Bragg himself had previously declined to prosecute” and said that even with a JD and background in legal policy, this case was a head scratcher and likely headed for appeal.

There’s also broad agreement that the circumstances of the case — from the prosecutors to the judge to the venue in which it was held — were politically motivated against Trump, thus undermining the norms of the judicial process. Many have harped about the fact that Merchan is a Biden campaign donor, or the fact that Trump was tried in a deep blue district, or about Bragg’s campaign promises to go after Trump before ever trying the case. And Catoggio’s newsletter criticized president Biden for elevating the issue in his campaign.

The right might not be united on Trump as a leader or on his agenda. In fact, Trump might divide the modern right more than anything else. But for a brief moment, they’ve found unity around a question of law, and that it has been used unfairly against him. And with so many undecided voters this election season — including many anti-Trump Republicans — framing November as a decision between the law and Trump might just backfire.


Carine Hajjar is a Globe Opinion writer. She can be reached at [email protected].

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/06/01/ ... ervatives/

Thing is natl review has veered far from William f Buckley style philosophy so it sort of gives you the off colored biases of this oped real quick when you read that part referencing Buckley and the review here.

Tainted by political motivations doesn’t matter if you broke the law it’s such an idiotic and specious argument no intellectual could posit with a straight face.

Already asked a simple question, and it cuts through this idiotic logic.

The theory posited here, is that it's inherently bad and corrupt to indict a Federal politician and their toadies for breaking laws.

The questions to test this theory are:

1. so why do we EVER investigate Federal politicians? Is the idea here that you HOPE you don't find crimes? Good luck answering this one.

2. why did the FBI look into Hillary's email mess for crimes...she was running for POTUS, remember? And why did these same Republicans cheer that on?

3. why did these same Republicans demand that we look into grift between Hunter and Joe Biden?

4. why did we let the FBI and DoJ go after Hunter in the first place? The theory is that this is an inherently corrupt practice.


These folks NEVER have to discuss or debate or defend these idiotic theories. So they fester into fact in right wing media. Rinse. Repeat.


Where are all my Deep State fans when it comes to Medendez? What happened to the rule that you can't use the FBI to go after a Federal politician? You boys "forget" to complain?

And remember, you chaps have now added the new rule: that a felony conviction of said politician CONFIRMS the presence of an banana republic.


There is no defense for this. And every single Republican with an IQ above room temperature knows it. Gotta tell ya, if I'm Biden? I'd sit down with these Republicans on camera, and ask them all the above questions. And when the Republicans double down? I'd pardon every. single. solitary Democrat that's been convicted of a Federal crime, and tell them "well clearly you think that these convictions are corrupt, so I'm going to do as you say, and let them free......"

Toddler nation. Just so freaking stupid.

[a fan]

Ken Buck was on Maher. I have great respect for him, and agree with, and disagree with many of his policies and ideas. Just as it should be.

He said the Trump conviction sets a precedent.

He forgot that we already went after Bill Clinton. And Nixon. And Hillary for emails. And Hunter and Joe. And Menedez.

And he forgot that in this SPECIFIC case, Cohen already went to jail for the very same rule breaking Trump was found guilty of this week. So this conviction didn't fall from the sky...they started as ALL major cases do: start with the small fish, and work up to the bigger fish.

Boilerplate. This is how we've handled these things for well over 100 years. Nothing new here.

The one thing I do agree with: Trump shouldn't go to jail for these crimes. Let the voters vote him in, as we all know is coming down the pike.....

[a fan]

Not to get too far off topic here, but I get the impression from talking to a lot of different people, that ultimately, there is a large segment of the population in America that doesn't care what Trump does in his personal life or even, to a degree, his political life, so long as he continues to talk about and "champion" his particular philosophy on how things should be in America--which obviously resonates with a lot of people. In other words, people are more concerned with what he does, the policies he enacts while he's in office as opposed to what he says and does.

Respectfully, you have it backwards. These voters are 1000% times more interested in what he says....and pays ZERO attention to what he does.

Pretty easy to figure this out: quiz them.

1. ask them if our troops hit any new countries (his comment on endless wars), or pulled out of the ones troops were already in
2. ask him what he did about China (standing up to China) and whether our imports from there went up or down.
3. here's a fun trick question: ask them how much Trump cut Federal spending (draining the swamp).
4. ask if he fixing immigration.

From there? I'd bet they can't name the things that Trump DID do. Like the Federal prison reform bill. Or massive tax cuts for the rich. Or three MASSIVE spending bills BEFORE Covid spending hit.

It has NOTHING to do with policy. They want his speeches. They want him to "stick it to the libs"....which to them, also means the press and the DoJ, FBI, etc., even though they were all run by R's and Trump appointees when Trump was there.

I do know know that trump wanted to secure the southern border with his big beautiful??? wall. Even his own party couldn't get on board with that. At the end of the day having a fuster cluck at the southern border is what DC desires. Democrats want new potential voters and Republicans want cheap labor and plenty of it. IF Washington DC wanted the border issue fixed it would have been fixed decades ago. As is typical with the melon heads in DC... you can't run for re- election on a problem that has already been fixed.

I've said it before, and i'll say it again: if Trump did what he claimed he'd do? I'd be his biggest fan. Dead serious. I can despise the man, and love the policies: I'm a HUGE Nixon-policy fan....for MOST, but not all, of his big policies.

Trump didn't do ANY of the big things he claimed he'd do.

[cradleandshoot]

Not to get too far off topic here, but I get the impression from talking to a lot of different people, that ultimately, there is a large segment of the population in America that doesn't care what Trump does in his personal life or even, to a degree, his political life, so long as he continues to talk about and "champion" his particular philosophy on how things should be in America--which obviously resonates with a lot of people. In other words, people are more concerned with what he does, the policies he enacts while he's in office as opposed to what he says and does.

Respectfully, you have it backwards. These voters are 1000% times more interested in what he says....and pays ZERO attention to what he does.

Pretty easy to figure this out: quiz them.

1. ask them if our troops hit any new countries (his comment on endless wars), or pulled out of the ones troops were already in
2. ask him what he did about China (standing up to China) and whether our imports from there went up or down.
3. here's a fun trick question: ask them how much Trump cut Federal spending (draining the swamp).
4. ask if he fixing immigration.

From there? I'd bet they can't name the things that Trump DID do. Like the Federal prison reform bill. Or massive tax cuts for the rich. Or three MASSIVE spending bills BEFORE Covid spending hit.

It has NOTHING to do with policy. They want his speeches. They want him to "stick it to the libs"....which to them, also means the press and the DoJ, FBI, etc., even though they were all run by R's and Trump appointees when Trump was there.

I do know know that trump wanted to secure the southern border with his big beautiful??? wall. Even his own party couldn't get on board with that. At the end of the day having a fuster cluck at the southern border is what DC desires. Democrats want new potential voters and Republicans want cheap labor and plenty of it. IF Washington DC wanted the border issue fixed it would have been fixed decades ago. As is typical with the melon heads in DC... you can't run for re- election on a problem that has already been fixed.

I've said it before, and i'll say it again: if Trump did what he claimed he'd do? I'd be his biggest fan. Dead serious. I can despise the man, and love the policies: I'm a HUGE Nixon-policy fan....for MOST, but not all, of his big policies.

Trump didn't do ANY of the big things he claimed he'd do.

Oddly enough many members of his own party didn't help him much.

[a fan]

Not to get too far off topic here, but I get the impression from talking to a lot of different people, that ultimately, there is a large segment of the population in America that doesn't care what Trump does in his personal life or even, to a degree, his political life, so long as he continues to talk about and "champion" his particular philosophy on how things should be in America--which obviously resonates with a lot of people. In other words, people are more concerned with what he does, the policies he enacts while he's in office as opposed to what he says and does.

Respectfully, you have it backwards. These voters are 1000% times more interested in what he says....and pays ZERO attention to what he does.

Pretty easy to figure this out: quiz them.

1. ask them if our troops hit any new countries (his comment on endless wars), or pulled out of the ones troops were already in
2. ask him what he did about China (standing up to China) and whether our imports from there went up or down.
3. here's a fun trick question: ask them how much Trump cut Federal spending (draining the swamp).
4. ask if he fixing immigration.

From there? I'd bet they can't name the things that Trump DID do. Like the Federal prison reform bill. Or massive tax cuts for the rich. Or three MASSIVE spending bills BEFORE Covid spending hit.

It has NOTHING to do with policy. They want his speeches. They want him to "stick it to the libs"....which to them, also means the press and the DoJ, FBI, etc., even though they were all run by R's and Trump appointees when Trump was there.

I do know know that trump wanted to secure the southern border with his big beautiful??? wall. Even his own party couldn't get on board with that. At the end of the day having a fuster cluck at the southern border is what DC desires. Democrats want new potential voters and Republicans want cheap labor and plenty of it. IF Washington DC wanted the border issue fixed it would have been fixed decades ago. As is typical with the melon heads in DC... you can't run for re- election on a problem that has already been fixed.

I've said it before, and i'll say it again: if Trump did what he claimed he'd do? I'd be his biggest fan. Dead serious. I can despise the man, and love the policies: I'm a HUGE Nixon-policy fan....for MOST, but not all, of his big policies.

Trump didn't do ANY of the big things he claimed he'd do.

Oddly enough many members of his own party didn't help him much.

Happens to every President. Part of the deal. Doesn't excuse not getting stuff done......no one gave Obama or Biden or Bush a pass for not getting stuff done.

[Farfromgeneva]

OPINION
The view from the right on Trump’s conviction

Even conservatives critical of the former president balked at a trial that many of them saw as an abuse of the justice system.

By Carine Hajjar Globe Staff, June 1, 2024

In the hours after former president Donald Trump made history with his 34 felony counts, liberal opinion pages celebrated the conviction as a triumph of the justice system. The New York Times editorial board beamed that the “sordid case” was “proof that the rule of law binds everyone, even former presidents.” They praised Judge Juan Merchan for being “scrupulous in ensuring that Mr. Trump received a fair trial.” The Washington Post editorial board declared that the jury’s decision reminded us that “even the most privileged members of society remain subject to the same essential legal procedures other Americans face,” and warned that Trump’s “ultimate verdict” looms in November.

But while many liberal commentators celebrated the triumph of the system, the reaction in conservative media was quite the opposite. In a rare moment of accord across a fragmented movement, conservatives of all different stripes wrote to lament what they saw as the weaponization of the legal system against a figure that polarizes them as much as he alienates the left.

They weren’t perfectly unified, of course. The MAGA side of the right describes this case apocalyptically. And though an extreme example, Breitbart went so far as to declare to its Instagram followers that Trump’s conviction date fell on the feast day of Joan of Arc, “patron saint of prisoners and hero of patriots.” But sober-minded outlets on the center-right — some of which haven’t been friends of the former president’s — had clear-eyed arguments for why this case wasn’t a triumph but a perversion of justice.

That position was pointedly argued by legal expert Ilya Shapiro in City Journal, a publication known for its market-based, limited-government perspectives. Shapiro called the verdict a “travesty of justice.” “I say this not as a Trump-lover—I don’t love any politician, preferring transactional relationships regarding policy—but as a lover of the rule of law.” Shapiro contends that, feelings for Trump aside, the case was a legal stretch.

National Review (full disclosure: my former employer) sang a similar tune. That outlet has butted heads plenty with the former president, often pointing out how his populist agenda is mostly inconsistent with its traditional, William F. Buckley-style conservatism. But most of the big-name writers were in agreement: This case was politicized, no matter how you feel about Trump. The editors called it a “horrendous” verdict and a “textbook instance of selective prosecution.”

The Wall Street Journal editorial board (another former employer), which has been judicious in both its praise and criticism of the former president, wrote that the case “looks like a legal stretch,” describing it as “a bizarre turducken, with alleged crimes stuffed inside other crimes.” Though it pulled no punches for Trump, describing him as a “cad” and calling him out for denying his sexual relationship with Stormy Daniels, “if implausibly.” But it cautioned readers about the precedent set by this case for a “new destabilizing era of American politics.” “The conviction sets a precedent of using legal cases, no matter how sketchy, to try to knock out political opponents, including former Presidents.”

At The Dispatch, an anti-Trump online publication, the day before the verdict was decided, Nick Catoggio wrote in a newsletter that this case “has always stunk of politics, from the fact that it was held nearly a decade after the events that inspired it to the questionable legal theory on which it’s based to the dubious motives of the lead prosecutor.” Catoggio is far from a MAGA enthusiast. He has often made the classical liberal case for why not to vote for Trump, who he believes will oversee an “authoritarian nightmare” that undermines the norms of the American system even more than Democrats’ current lawfare. He even argues that a vote for Joe Biden is an investment in “keeping a fascist out of power.”

Center-right politicians were similarly disappointed by the conviction. Republican Senator Susan Collins, who’s been sharp in her criticism of the former president, suggested that this case undermines the American system of justice which “prosecutes cases because of alleged criminal conduct regardless of who the defendant happens to be,” but in this case, the opposite occurred. “The district attorney, who campaigned on a promise to prosecute Donald Trump, brought these charges precisely because of who the defendant was,” she wrote in a statement to a reporter for The Hill.

The reactions all call out two central issues with the case: that it was a weak legal argument, and that it was tainted from the beginning by political motivations.

On the merits of the case, they point to Bragg’s obscure and novel use of New York election law to bring forth this conviction. Bragg had to bend over backward to elevate the misdemeanor of falsification of records — for which the statute of limitations had already passed — to a felony, by using an obscure and rarely used New York election law. The Journal described this as a “Russian nesting doll structure” that “defies logic.” Shapiro noted that Bragg had to dig up “decade-old offenses that Bragg himself had previously declined to prosecute” and said that even with a JD and background in legal policy, this case was a head scratcher and likely headed for appeal.

There’s also broad agreement that the circumstances of the case — from the prosecutors to the judge to the venue in which it was held — were politically motivated against Trump, thus undermining the norms of the judicial process. Many have harped about the fact that Merchan is a Biden campaign donor, or the fact that Trump was tried in a deep blue district, or about Bragg’s campaign promises to go after Trump before ever trying the case. And Catoggio’s newsletter criticized president Biden for elevating the issue in his campaign.

The right might not be united on Trump as a leader or on his agenda. In fact, Trump might divide the modern right more than anything else. But for a brief moment, they’ve found unity around a question of law, and that it has been used unfairly against him. And with so many undecided voters this election season — including many anti-Trump Republicans — framing November as a decision between the law and Trump might just backfire.


Carine Hajjar is a Globe Opinion writer. She can be reached at [email protected].

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/06/01/ ... ervatives/

Thing is natl review has veered far from William f Buckley style philosophy so it sort of gives you the off colored biases of this oped real quick when you read that part referencing Buckley and the review here.

Tainted by political motivations doesn’t matter if you broke the law it’s such an idiotic and specious argument no intellectual could posit with a straight face.

Already asked a simple question, and it cuts through this idiotic logic.

The theory posited here, is that it's inherently bad and corrupt to indict a Federal politician and their toadies for breaking laws.

The questions to test this theory are:

1. so why do we EVER investigate Federal politicians? Is the idea here that you HOPE you don't find crimes? Good luck answering this one.

2. why did the FBI look into Hillary's email mess for crimes...she was running for POTUS, remember? And why did these same Republicans cheer that on?

3. why did these same Republicans demand that we look into grift between Hunter and Joe Biden?

4. why did we let the FBI and DoJ go after Hunter in the first place? The theory is that this is an inherently corrupt practice.


These folks NEVER have to discuss or debate or defend these idiotic theories. So they fester into fact in right wing media. Rinse. Repeat.


Where are all my Deep State fans when it comes to Medendez? What happened to the rule that you can't use the FBI to go after a Federal politician? You boys "forget" to complain?

And remember, you chaps have now added the new rule: that a felony conviction of said politician CONFIRMS the presence of an banana republic.


There is no defense for this. And every single Republican with an IQ above room temperature knows it. Gotta tell ya, if I'm Biden? I'd sit down with these Republicans on camera, and ask them all the above questions. And when the Republicans double down? I'd pardon every. single. solitary Democrat that's been convicted of a Federal crime, and tell them "well clearly you think that these convictions are corrupt, so I'm going to do as you say, and let them free......"

Toddler nation. Just so freaking stupid.

These same knucklenuts (wonder if this filters or not I made it up) argue that political class is a problem then in the same breath argue the political class shouldn’t have the same legal accountability as other citizens? Say what?

[Farfromgeneva]

OPINION
The view from the right on Trump’s conviction

Even conservatives critical of the former president balked at a trial that many of them saw as an abuse of the justice system.

By Carine Hajjar Globe Staff, June 1, 2024

In the hours after former president Donald Trump made history with his 34 felony counts, liberal opinion pages celebrated the conviction as a triumph of the justice system. The New York Times editorial board beamed that the “sordid case” was “proof that the rule of law binds everyone, even former presidents.” They praised Judge Juan Merchan for being “scrupulous in ensuring that Mr. Trump received a fair trial.” The Washington Post editorial board declared that the jury’s decision reminded us that “even the most privileged members of society remain subject to the same essential legal procedures other Americans face,” and warned that Trump’s “ultimate verdict” looms in November.

But while many liberal commentators celebrated the triumph of the system, the reaction in conservative media was quite the opposite. In a rare moment of accord across a fragmented movement, conservatives of all different stripes wrote to lament what they saw as the weaponization of the legal system against a figure that polarizes them as much as he alienates the left.

They weren’t perfectly unified, of course. The MAGA side of the right describes this case apocalyptically. And though an extreme example, Breitbart went so far as to declare to its Instagram followers that Trump’s conviction date fell on the feast day of Joan of Arc, “patron saint of prisoners and hero of patriots.” But sober-minded outlets on the center-right — some of which haven’t been friends of the former president’s — had clear-eyed arguments for why this case wasn’t a triumph but a perversion of justice.

That position was pointedly argued by legal expert Ilya Shapiro in City Journal, a publication known for its market-based, limited-government perspectives. Shapiro called the verdict a “travesty of justice.” “I say this not as a Trump-lover—I don’t love any politician, preferring transactional relationships regarding policy—but as a lover of the rule of law.” Shapiro contends that, feelings for Trump aside, the case was a legal stretch.

National Review (full disclosure: my former employer) sang a similar tune. That outlet has butted heads plenty with the former president, often pointing out how his populist agenda is mostly inconsistent with its traditional, William F. Buckley-style conservatism. But most of the big-name writers were in agreement: This case was politicized, no matter how you feel about Trump. The editors called it a “horrendous” verdict and a “textbook instance of selective prosecution.”

The Wall Street Journal editorial board (another former employer), which has been judicious in both its praise and criticism of the former president, wrote that the case “looks like a legal stretch,” describing it as “a bizarre turducken, with alleged crimes stuffed inside other crimes.” Though it pulled no punches for Trump, describing him as a “cad” and calling him out for denying his sexual relationship with Stormy Daniels, “if implausibly.” But it cautioned readers about the precedent set by this case for a “new destabilizing era of American politics.” “The conviction sets a precedent of using legal cases, no matter how sketchy, to try to knock out political opponents, including former Presidents.”

At The Dispatch, an anti-Trump online publication, the day before the verdict was decided, Nick Catoggio wrote in a newsletter that this case “has always stunk of politics, from the fact that it was held nearly a decade after the events that inspired it to the questionable legal theory on which it’s based to the dubious motives of the lead prosecutor.” Catoggio is far from a MAGA enthusiast. He has often made the classical liberal case for why not to vote for Trump, who he believes will oversee an “authoritarian nightmare” that undermines the norms of the American system even more than Democrats’ current lawfare. He even argues that a vote for Joe Biden is an investment in “keeping a fascist out of power.”

Center-right politicians were similarly disappointed by the conviction. Republican Senator Susan Collins, who’s been sharp in her criticism of the former president, suggested that this case undermines the American system of justice which “prosecutes cases because of alleged criminal conduct regardless of who the defendant happens to be,” but in this case, the opposite occurred. “The district attorney, who campaigned on a promise to prosecute Donald Trump, brought these charges precisely because of who the defendant was,” she wrote in a statement to a reporter for The Hill.

The reactions all call out two central issues with the case: that it was a weak legal argument, and that it was tainted from the beginning by political motivations.

On the merits of the case, they point to Bragg’s obscure and novel use of New York election law to bring forth this conviction. Bragg had to bend over backward to elevate the misdemeanor of falsification of records — for which the statute of limitations had already passed — to a felony, by using an obscure and rarely used New York election law. The Journal described this as a “Russian nesting doll structure” that “defies logic.” Shapiro noted that Bragg had to dig up “decade-old offenses that Bragg himself had previously declined to prosecute” and said that even with a JD and background in legal policy, this case was a head scratcher and likely headed for appeal.

There’s also broad agreement that the circumstances of the case — from the prosecutors to the judge to the venue in which it was held — were politically motivated against Trump, thus undermining the norms of the judicial process. Many have harped about the fact that Merchan is a Biden campaign donor, or the fact that Trump was tried in a deep blue district, or about Bragg’s campaign promises to go after Trump before ever trying the case. And Catoggio’s newsletter criticized president Biden for elevating the issue in his campaign.

The right might not be united on Trump as a leader or on his agenda. In fact, Trump might divide the modern right more than anything else. But for a brief moment, they’ve found unity around a question of law, and that it has been used unfairly against him. And with so many undecided voters this election season — including many anti-Trump Republicans — framing November as a decision between the law and Trump might just backfire.


Carine Hajjar is a Globe Opinion writer. She can be reached at [email protected].

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/06/01/ ... ervatives/

Thing is natl review has veered far from William f Buckley style philosophy so it sort of gives you the off colored biases of this oped real quick when you read that part referencing Buckley and the review here.

Tainted by political motivations doesn’t matter if you broke the law it’s such an idiotic and specious argument no intellectual could posit with a straight face.

Already asked a simple question, and it cuts through this idiotic logic.

The theory posited here, is that it's inherently bad and corrupt to indict a Federal politician and their toadies for breaking laws.

The questions to test this theory are:

1. so why do we EVER investigate Federal politicians? Is the idea here that you HOPE you don't find crimes? Good luck answering this one.

2. why did the FBI look into Hillary's email mess for crimes...she was running for POTUS, remember? And why did these same Republicans cheer that on?

3. why did these same Republicans demand that we look into grift between Hunter and Joe Biden?

4. why did we let the FBI and DoJ go after Hunter in the first place? The theory is that this is an inherently corrupt practice.


These folks NEVER have to discuss or debate or defend these idiotic theories. So they fester into fact in right wing media. Rinse. Repeat.


Where are all my Deep State fans when it comes to Medendez? What happened to the rule that you can't use the FBI to go after a Federal politician? You boys "forget" to complain?

And remember, you chaps have now added the new rule: that a felony conviction of said politician CONFIRMS the presence of an banana republic.


There is no defense for this. And every single Republican with an IQ above room temperature knows it. Gotta tell ya, if I'm Biden? I'd sit down with these Republicans on camera, and ask them all the above questions. And when the Republicans double down? I'd pardon every. single. solitary Democrat that's been convicted of a Federal crime, and tell them "well clearly you think that these convictions are corrupt, so I'm going to do as you say, and let them free......"

Toddler nation. Just so freaking stupid.

Me Mendes is a massive stain on the Dems. Along with Ted Kennedy and Barney Frank who sat on signature banks board when they failed the Frank in Dodd Frank…

[Farfromgeneva]

Not to get too far off topic here, but I get the impression from talking to a lot of different people, that ultimately, there is a large segment of the population in America that doesn't care what Trump does in his personal life or even, to a degree, his political life, so long as he continues to talk about and "champion" his particular philosophy on how things should be in America--which obviously resonates with a lot of people. In other words, people are more concerned with what he does, the policies he enacts while he's in office as opposed to what he says and does.

Respectfully, you have it backwards. These voters are 1000% times more interested in what he says....and pays ZERO attention to what he does.

Pretty easy to figure this out: quiz them.

1. ask them if our troops hit any new countries (his comment on endless wars), or pulled out of the ones troops were already in
2. ask him what he did about China (standing up to China) and whether our imports from there went up or down.
3. here's a fun trick question: ask them how much Trump cut Federal spending (draining the swamp).
4. ask if he fixing immigration.

From there? I'd bet they can't name the things that Trump DID do. Like the Federal prison reform bill. Or massive tax cuts for the rich. Or three MASSIVE spending bills BEFORE Covid spending hit.

It has NOTHING to do with policy. They want his speeches. They want him to "stick it to the libs"....which to them, also means the press and the DoJ, FBI, etc., even though they were all run by R's and Trump appointees when Trump was there.

I do know know that trump wanted to secure the southern border with his big beautiful??? wall. Even his own party couldn't get on board with that. At the end of the day having a fuster cluck at the southern border is what DC desires. Democrats want new potential voters and Republicans want cheap labor and plenty of it. IF Washington DC wanted the border issue fixed it would have been fixed decades ago. As is typical with the melon heads in DC... you can't run for re- election on a problem that has already been fixed.

I've said it before, and i'll say it again: if Trump did what he claimed he'd do? I'd be his biggest fan. Dead serious. I can despise the man, and love the policies: I'm a HUGE Nixon-policy fan....for MOST, but not all, of his big policies.

Trump didn't do ANY of the big things he claimed he'd do.

Oddly enough many members of his own party didn't help him much.

He was never capable of executing on what he said with or without help.

[Farfromgeneva]

Not to get too far off topic here, but I get the impression from talking to a lot of different people, that ultimately, there is a large segment of the population in America that doesn't care what Trump does in his personal life or even, to a degree, his political life, so long as he continues to talk about and "champion" his particular philosophy on how things should be in America--which obviously resonates with a lot of people. In other words, people are more concerned with what he does, the policies he enacts while he's in office as opposed to what he says and does.

Respectfully, you have it backwards. These voters are 1000% times more interested in what he says....and pays ZERO attention to what he does.

Pretty easy to figure this out: quiz them.

1. ask them if our troops hit any new countries (his comment on endless wars), or pulled out of the ones troops were already in
2. ask him what he did about China (standing up to China) and whether our imports from there went up or down.
3. here's a fun trick question: ask them how much Trump cut Federal spending (draining the swamp).
4. ask if he fixing immigration.

From there? I'd bet they can't name the things that Trump DID do. Like the Federal prison reform bill. Or massive tax cuts for the rich. Or three MASSIVE spending bills BEFORE Covid spending hit.

It has NOTHING to do with policy. They want his speeches. They want him to "stick it to the libs"....which to them, also means the press and the DoJ, FBI, etc., even though they were all run by R's and Trump appointees when Trump was there.

I do know know that trump wanted to secure the southern border with his big beautiful??? wall. Even his own party couldn't get on board with that. At the end of the day having a fuster cluck at the southern border is what DC desires. Democrats want new potential voters and Republicans want cheap labor and plenty of it. IF Washington DC wanted the border issue fixed it would have been fixed decades ago. As is typical with the melon heads in DC... you can't run for re- election on a problem that has already been fixed.

I've said it before, and i'll say it again: if Trump did what he claimed he'd do? I'd be his biggest fan. Dead serious. I can despise the man, and love the policies: I'm a HUGE Nixon-policy fan....for MOST, but not all, of his big policies.

Trump didn't do ANY of the big things he claimed he'd do.

Oddly enough many members of his own party didn't help him much.

Happens to every President. Part of the deal. Doesn't excuse not getting stuff done......no one gave Obama or Biden or Bush a pass for not getting stuff done.

Have you met Luther?

https://youtu.be/-qv7k2_lc0M?si=MvVnnnVueE9K4PsR

[a fan]

Me Mendes is a massive stain on the Dems. Along with Ted Kennedy and Barney Frank who sat on signature banks board when they failed the Frank in Dodd Frank…

Exactly. How is it that non-Republican-Americans WANT our FBi to go after corrupt, law breaking politicians?

To quote Maher: what's wrong with holding our leaders accountable for breaking laws?

When Ken Buck said: we're setting a precedent we're we're now going to have the FBI and prosecutors going after politicians for breaking laws.

Ken, my man....please explain how that's bad? That's what this voter wants, FFS. I thought everyone else in America wanted that, too.

Apparently not.

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

Not to get too far off topic here, but I get the impression from talking to a lot of different people, that ultimately, there is a large segment of the population in America that doesn't care what Trump does in his personal life or even, to a degree, his political life, so long as he continues to talk about and "champion" his particular philosophy on how things should be in America--which obviously resonates with a lot of people. In other words, people are more concerned with what he does, the policies he enacts while he's in office as opposed to what he says and does.

Respectfully, you have it backwards. These voters are 1000% times more interested in what he says....and pays ZERO attention to what he does.

Pretty easy to figure this out: quiz them.

1. ask them if our troops hit any new countries (his comment on endless wars), or pulled out of the ones troops were already in
2. ask him what he did about China (standing up to China) and whether our imports from there went up or down.
3. here's a fun trick question: ask them how much Trump cut Federal spending (draining the swamp).
4. ask if he fixing immigration.

From there? I'd bet they can't name the things that Trump DID do. Like the Federal prison reform bill. Or massive tax cuts for the rich. Or three MASSIVE spending bills BEFORE Covid spending hit.

It has NOTHING to do with policy. They want his speeches. They want him to "stick it to the libs"....which to them, also means the press and the DoJ, FBI, etc., even though they were all run by R's and Trump appointees when Trump was there.

I know folks who were very happy with some of the things he DID while in office, and didn't care about his stupid tweets and/or his stupid comments and/or the other idiotic or sordid stuff he did and said.

Your response is an absolutely perfect modern day example of this:

[PizzaSnake]

Can't remember the last time I watched any of the morning "news" shows but I did this morning.
Cohen was outstanding on GMA, he echoed my opinion of Trump, absolutely nailed it. How those
millions upon millions see this slimy shyster as the man they want for their president is truly
disappointing, pre Trump I never realized who so many of my fellow citizens really are.
I've gotta wonder if Trump is still tired of winning. Millions upon millions in fines from lost cases,
34X convicted felon. The man's been making his bed for a lifetime, it's now time to lie down in it.
Oh, but you can still vote for him to be the face of your country.

... why did the rural mid-west folks during the depression root for the bank robbers?

“Social control is never perfect, and so many norms and people exist that there are always some people who violate some norms. In fact, Émile Durkheim (1895/1962), a founder of sociology discussed in Chapter 1 “Sociology and the Sociological Perspective”, stressed that a society without deviance is impossible for at least two reasons. First, the collective conscience (see Chapter 1 “Sociology and the Sociological Perspective”) is never strong enough to prevent all rule breaking. Even in a “society of saints,” such as a monastery, he said, rules will be broken and negative social reactions aroused. Second, because deviance serves several important functions for society ( which we discuss later in this chapter), any given society “invents” deviance by defining certain behaviors as deviant and the people who commit them as deviants. Because Durkheim thought deviance was inevitable for these reasons, he considered it a normal part of every healthy society.”

https://open.lib.umn.edu/sociology/chap ... -deviance/

See I’m super f**kin high value to society!

[a fan]

Not to get too far off topic here, but I get the impression from talking to a lot of different people, that ultimately, there is a large segment of the population in America that doesn't care what Trump does in his personal life or even, to a degree, his political life, so long as he continues to talk about and "champion" his particular philosophy on how things should be in America--which obviously resonates with a lot of people. In other words, people are more concerned with what he does, the policies he enacts while he's in office as opposed to what he says and does.

Respectfully, you have it backwards. These voters are 1000% times more interested in what he says....and pays ZERO attention to what he does.

Pretty easy to figure this out: quiz them.

1. ask them if our troops hit any new countries (his comment on endless wars), or pulled out of the ones troops were already in
2. ask him what he did about China (standing up to China) and whether our imports from there went up or down.
3. here's a fun trick question: ask them how much Trump cut Federal spending (draining the swamp).
4. ask if he fixing immigration.

From there? I'd bet they can't name the things that Trump DID do. Like the Federal prison reform bill. Or massive tax cuts for the rich. Or three MASSIVE spending bills BEFORE Covid spending hit.

It has NOTHING to do with policy. They want his speeches. They want him to "stick it to the libs"....which to them, also means the press and the DoJ, FBI, etc., even though they were all run by R's and Trump appointees when Trump was there.

I know folks who were very happy with some of the things he DID while in office, and didn't care about his stupid tweets and/or his stupid comments and/or the other idiotic or sordid stuff he did and said.

Your response is an absolutely perfect modern day example of this:

Not even close!

I'm not asking about some intentionally obscure speech or policy...which is what the snobby aristocrat is doing in this clip.

I'm asking SIMPLE POLICY questions that are DIRECTLY related to Trump's very specific campaign planks that he said over and over and over and over.

For the folks you're telling me told you in person that they like the policies he executed? Name them. Just a few would suffice.

And for those folks? Ask them my above questions. See what they say. Especially ask them about the massive spending bills pre-Covid. I'd be stunned if any of them noticed that he did that. Happy to be corrected.




I, too, liked PLENTY of small things Trump did. And I just named one: Federal prison reform. I also thought Trump would use our military as a toy: I'm THRILLED he didn't. I also like that Trump gave Covid-related powers to each State's Governors, and didn't Federalize the rules and responses...which he could have EASILY done. I could name plenty more.

Edit to add: ask those same folks to name a few policies that Biden and Obama had that they liked. If they can't name any? There's your clue that policy isn't all that important, and they're supporting the person (or the letter R or D), not the policy.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Not to get too far off topic here, but I get the impression from talking to a lot of different people, that ultimately, there is a large segment of the population in America that doesn't care what Trump does in his personal life or even, to a degree, his political life, so long as he continues to talk about and "champion" his particular philosophy on how things should be in America--which obviously resonates with a lot of people. In other words, people are more concerned with what he does, the policies he enacts while he's in office as opposed to what he says and does.

Respectfully, you have it backwards. These voters are 1000% times more interested in what he says....and pays ZERO attention to what he does.

Pretty easy to figure this out: quiz them.

1. ask them if our troops hit any new countries (his comment on endless wars), or pulled out of the ones troops were already in
2. ask him what he did about China (standing up to China) and whether our imports from there went up or down.
3. here's a fun trick question: ask them how much Trump cut Federal spending (draining the swamp).
4. ask if he fixing immigration.

From there? I'd bet they can't name the things that Trump DID do. Like the Federal prison reform bill. Or massive tax cuts for the rich. Or three MASSIVE spending bills BEFORE Covid spending hit.

It has NOTHING to do with policy. They want his speeches. They want him to "stick it to the libs"....which to them, also means the press and the DoJ, FBI, etc., even though they were all run by R's and Trump appointees when Trump was there.

I know folks who were very happy with some of the things he DID while in office, and didn't care about his stupid tweets and/or his stupid comments and/or the other idiotic or sordid stuff he did and said.

Your response is an absolutely perfect modern day example of this:

I know at least one more.

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

Not to get too far off topic here, but I get the impression from talking to a lot of different people, that ultimately, there is a large segment of the population in America that doesn't care what Trump does in his personal life or even, to a degree, his political life, so long as he continues to talk about and "champion" his particular philosophy on how things should be in America--which obviously resonates with a lot of people. In other words, people are more concerned with what he does, the policies he enacts while he's in office as opposed to what he says and does.

Respectfully, you have it backwards. These voters are 1000% times more interested in what he says....and pays ZERO attention to what he does.

Pretty easy to figure this out: quiz them.

1. ask them if our troops hit any new countries (his comment on endless wars), or pulled out of the ones troops were already in
2. ask him what he did about China (standing up to China) and whether our imports from there went up or down.
3. here's a fun trick question: ask them how much Trump cut Federal spending (draining the swamp).
4. ask if he fixing immigration.

From there? I'd bet they can't name the things that Trump DID do. Like the Federal prison reform bill. Or massive tax cuts for the rich. Or three MASSIVE spending bills BEFORE Covid spending hit.

It has NOTHING to do with policy. They want his speeches. They want him to "stick it to the libs"....which to them, also means the press and the DoJ, FBI, etc., even though they were all run by R's and Trump appointees when Trump was there.

I know folks who were very happy with some of the things he DID while in office, and didn't care about his stupid tweets and/or his stupid comments and/or the other idiotic or sordid stuff he did and said.

Your response is an absolutely perfect modern day example of this:

Not even close!

I'm not asking about some intentionally obscure speech or policy...which is what the snobby aristocrat is doing in this clip.

I'm asking SIMPLE POLICY questions that are DIRECTLY related to Trump's very specific campaign planks that he said over and over and over and over.

For the folks you're telling me told you in person that they like the policies he executed? Name them. Just a few would suffice.

And for those folks? Ask them my above questions. See what they say. Especially ask them about the massive spending bills pre-Covid. I'd be stunned if any of them noticed that he did that. Happy to be corrected.

I, too, liked PLENTY of small things Trump did. And I just named one: Federal prison reform. I also thought Trump would use our military as a toy: I'm THRILLED he didn't. I also like that Trump gave Covid-related powers to each State's Governors, and didn't Federalize the rules and responses...which he could have EASILY done. I could name plenty more.

Edit to add: ask those same folks to name a few policies that Biden and Obama had that they liked. If they can't name any? There's your clue that policy isn't all that important, and they're supporting the person (or the letter R or D), not the policy.

Whether they are right or wrong or know the specifics is irrelevant—that’s what I’ve heard a number of people say, and bottom line—that’s what they believe--they like the things he DID while he was in office. Period.

I wouldn’t ask folks these questions you’re suggesting I ask. That’s not me. When folks are holding forth about Trump or Biden, or whomever—I listen. I’ve learned that trying to have a face-to-face discussion about politicians and political issues is a frickin minefield. No more surprise explosions for me please—thank you very much.

It’s well nigh impossible to get folks to change their mind about politics anyway. So I don’t waste my time. I shared my observations at the beginning of this thread. Ain’t tryin to proselytize me nobody.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Not to get too far off topic here, but I get the impression from talking to a lot of different people, that ultimately, there is a large segment of the population in America that doesn't care what Trump does in his personal life or even, to a degree, his political life, so long as he continues to talk about and "champion" his particular philosophy on how things should be in America--which obviously resonates with a lot of people. In other words, people are more concerned with what he does, the policies he enacts while he's in office as opposed to what he says and does.

Respectfully, you have it backwards. These voters are 1000% times more interested in what he says....and pays ZERO attention to what he does.

Pretty easy to figure this out: quiz them.

1. ask them if our troops hit any new countries (his comment on endless wars), or pulled out of the ones troops were already in
2. ask him what he did about China (standing up to China) and whether our imports from there went up or down.
3. here's a fun trick question: ask them how much Trump cut Federal spending (draining the swamp).
4. ask if he fixing immigration.

From there? I'd bet they can't name the things that Trump DID do. Like the Federal prison reform bill. Or massive tax cuts for the rich. Or three MASSIVE spending bills BEFORE Covid spending hit.

It has NOTHING to do with policy. They want his speeches. They want him to "stick it to the libs"....which to them, also means the press and the DoJ, FBI, etc., even though they were all run by R's and Trump appointees when Trump was there.

I know folks who were very happy with some of the things he DID while in office, and didn't care about his stupid tweets and/or his stupid comments and/or the other idiotic or sordid stuff he did and said.

Your response is an absolutely perfect modern day example of this:

Not even close!

I'm not asking about some intentionally obscure speech or policy...which is what the snobby aristocrat is doing in this clip.

I'm asking SIMPLE POLICY questions that are DIRECTLY related to Trump's very specific campaign planks that he said over and over and over and over.

For the folks you're telling me told you in person that they like the policies he executed? Name them. Just a few would suffice.

And for those folks? Ask them my above questions. See what they say. Especially ask them about the massive spending bills pre-Covid. I'd be stunned if any of them noticed that he did that. Happy to be corrected.

I, too, liked PLENTY of small things Trump did. And I just named one: Federal prison reform. I also thought Trump would use our military as a toy: I'm THRILLED he didn't. I also like that Trump gave Covid-related powers to each State's Governors, and didn't Federalize the rules and responses...which he could have EASILY done. I could name plenty more.

Edit to add: ask those same folks to name a few policies that Biden and Obama had that they liked. If they can't name any? There's your clue that policy isn't all that important, and they're supporting the person (or the letter R or D), not the policy.

Whether they are right or wrong or know the specifics is irrelevant—that’s what I’ve heard a number of people say, and bottom line—that’s what they believe--they like the things he DID while he was in office. Period.

I wouldn’t ask folks these questions you’re suggesting I ask. That’s not me. When folks are holding forth about Trump or Biden, or whomever—I listen. I’ve learned that trying to have a face-to-face discussion about politicians and political issues is a frickin minefield. No more surprise explosions for me please—thank you very much.

It’s well nigh impossible to get folks to change their mind about politics anyway. So I don’t waste my time. I shared my observations at the beginning of this thread. Ain’t tryin to proselytize me nobody.

It’s been posited here that the more the media and the judicial system comes down on Trump, it makes more people support him. That seems to suggest that people change their minds about him. Believe his 35% base is unchanged no matter what Trump says or does and no matter what the media or critics say or do. I agree with you on that.

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

ANALYSIS
What now? Here’s what Trump’s conviction means for the election.
By James Pindell Globe Staff, May 30, 2024


Former president Donald Trump’s conviction on all 34 charges in a Manhattan courtroom was watched around the globe not just for the historic novelty of it all, but also for the potential implications for the presidential race, just over five months away.
Here is the bottom line: The direct implications are murky at best.

To state the obvious, it is better to be President Biden after the verdict than Trump, who now must worry about sentences and a likely appeal process. No one wants to be found guilty of a felony.

That said, the 2024 presidential race will offer Americans the same option as in the last two presidential contests to elect Trump, a man the world knows has a deeply flawed moral compass. He has been married three times, relished having affairs, has filed for bankruptcy on his businesses six times, settled with the government over racial discrimination, bragged about committing sexual assault against women, and admitted to not being a particularly good father.

Voters in 2016 knew all that and elected him anyway. In 2020, he was nearly reelected again with voters aware of the allegations that he paid off a porn star to cover up an affair. Republican voters in every state so far have voted to nominate him even after learning he had been indicted in four separate criminal cases.

In other words, while Trump’s guilty verdict is historic and somber, all that is likely to directly change are television ads that can accurately declare him “Felon Don” or some similar label. That and Trump will likely raise a boatload of money as his base gets furious at what they see as an unfair political prosecution.

As for the voters who are still up for grabs, their decision will likely rest on other matters. After all, the economy, border security, and abortion rights are the top issues in the campaign. Other issues factored larger in the last two elections so why wouldn’t they this time?

More interestingly, a Marquette Law School national poll last week found that if acquitted, Trump would lead Biden by 6 percentage points. If Trump were convicted, Biden would lead by 5 points.

Trump potentially faces three other criminal trials, including allegations he attempted to interfere with the 2020 presidential election in Georgia, that he aimed to prevent Congress from doing its job on Jan. 6, 2021, and that he stole classified materials.

In the New York case, Trump faced 34 charges of falsifying business records related to buying the silence of Stormy Daniels, a porn star who claimed she had consensual sex with Trump while he was married. Trump claimed he didn’t authorize the payment and denied he had sex with her.
Democrats had high hopes that Trump’s hush-money trial, though not the most damning of the four cases against him, would mark a turning point in the presidential race.

Meanwhile, Biden could showcase presidential accomplishments while fund-raising nationwide with his Cabinet. For undecided voters, Democrats believed the politics were clear — they needed a win.

But after seven unprecedented weeks of a former president on trial while running again, it didn’t work out that way. Trump maintained a slim national lead over Biden and in key swing states, according to polls. Trump’s campaign had even raised more money than Biden did for the first time in April, even though he was confined to a courtroom for most of the month.

The race has been stuck for months, and even a criminal trial dominating cable news for nearly two months didn’t change that. In fact, as the jury deliberated, stories highlighted the Republican Party coalescing behind Trump while Democrats worried about Biden’s prospects.

Since the trial began, Trump’s lead in key swing states hasn’t diminished, but in the case of Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Georgia, Trump’s apparent support has grown, though within the polling margin of error.

The trial, debates, and conventions are all moments for possible momentum shifts. (Of course, surprises could still emerge in the final five months.)

As such, the Biden campaign has circled June 27 on the calendar, the date of the first debate with Trump. Maybe something huge will happen then. Or, as is the case of so many news developments that didn’t change the race’s polling, maybe not.

James Pindell can be reached at [email protected]. Follow him @jamespindell and on Instagram @jameswpindell.


https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/05/30/ ... lated_Link