ChiGoose

So far, there is no wire fraud charge. I’m just guessing there might be in the future based on what we know. Trump has a PAC he set up to challenge the 2020 election and received tens of millions of dollars in donations. He seems to have been using that money for other things including paying for his personal attorneys. If he was using the money for things other than what the PAC’s stated purpose was, that would mean that he was inducing people to give him money under fraudulent pretenses. This is what Steve Bannon and the “Build the Wall PAC” people got in trouble for. From what we can tell, the Special Counsel has been asking witnesses about the PAC, so it’s on Smith’s radar. So I guess the questions are: was Trump a careful steward of other people’s money? If not, is there enough evidence to prove he wasn’t?

Smith has brought charges and they do not include incitement. That doesn’t preclude him from bringing more charges though. I still think there’s a decent chance he charges wire fraud but I would be surprised by an incitement charge because it’d be so much harder to prove than the charges he’s already brought.

Would you be ok with a liberal Justice getting the same gifts from rich liberals?

Seems unlikely to me. The Constitution sets the requirements for president and I personally don’t think the charges Trump is currently facing rise to the 14th Amendment’s disqualification clause. Maybe if he ends up being charged with incitement to insurrection but I remain unconvinced that Jack Smith will bring that charge. Also, there’s a really weird and unsettled debate as to whether the President is an “officer of the United States.” So it’s not sure that clause can apply to the president at all.

The world's dumbest and most pathetic person is checking in. Frankly, I don't understand why this site allows people to tag people they have blocked. There's no good faith reason for this. But, I think anyone who has come across this moron understands that's he's severely mentally ill and in need of help that nobody will provide because there's no way that anyone who actually knows him could want to spend any time with him....

Nah. Seems like they’re only indicting people who they have evidence committed crimes.

Ok, well that's not happening now. Would you prefer the government force personal responsibility on people?

Not necessarily. I don't know you and I'm not going to make assumptions about your beliefs. Studies have been done on why people seek elective abortions and the results seem to be fairly consistent. Here is what one such study found: (participants could choose multiple reasons) 40% - Not financially prepared 36% - Not the right time 31% - Partner related reasons 29% - Need to focus on other children 20% - Interferes with future opportunities 19% - Not emotionally or mentally prepared 12% - Health related reasons 12% - Want a better life for the baby than she can provide 7% - Not independent or mature enough for a baby 5% - Influence from family or friends 4% - Don't want a baby Given that list, robust financial support for pregnant mothers combined with easy access to contraceptives to prevent unwanted pregnancies would go a long way to reducing abortions without jeopardizing anyone's health. Since a large number seem to be concerned about finances and opportunities, ensuring financial support and career protection (mandated leave, childcare, etc) would probably help raise the birthrate by helping people who would want more kids but aren't sure they can afford to have them.

True, but addressing the root cause of abortion should be the focus of those looking to reduce or eliminate elective abortions. However, they absolutely refuse to do so and even oppose policies that would address them.

Sure, but you would have to be pretty clear and unambiguous in the language. The problem with heartbeat bills and "life of the mother" as the exceptions is that non-viable pregnancies (that can be dangerous to continue) can still have a heartbeat. Also, mothers can sustain permanent damage that is short of life threatening. The problem is that the people writing these laws aren't experts in medicine and seem to not want to listen to people who are. Which is part of why I would prefer to focus on the root causes of abortion to prevent putting people in the position to begin with.

The beginning of this thread cites several examples of people being denied care until their life is in danger because of these laws. Prior to the laws, the patient and doctor could decide to terminate the non-viable pregnancy. Now the government gets a say and they end up having to wait until the woman is sick enough to treat. Are you saying those are just fake news? Made up?

This is blatantly false.

Nah, the problem is that the GOP is pushing a very unpopular position on the issue, and instead of moderating, is doubling down on it, even to the extent of trying to override the will of the people. The frustrating thing about the abortion issue is that if the GOP wanted to look at root causes (i.e. why people have abortions), they could push for policies to address those issues and the Dems would by and large support those policies. But the GOP opposes addressing the root causes of abortion and instead pushes unpopular laws that harm people. It makes it hard to believe that curbing abortions is really their goal.

So if you or someone you know wants a baby and has been pregnant for 6+ months, only to find the pregnancy is not viable and the doctors recommend termination as the safest option, you think the government should intervene and force them to carry to term even if it makes them ill, results in infertility, or even risks their life?

Because right wingers like to pretend that the word “abortion” means elective abortion when that’s clearly not the case. The treatment for miscarriages and non-viable pregnancies is abortion. So banning third trimester abortions means telling people who want a baby but whose pregnancies are not viable that they have to deliver even if it risks their health and future fertility. The reason liberal oppose those laws is because those laws are stupid as hell and they trust the individuals to navigate that situation without the interference of the government.

The whole third trimester abortions line is such a crock of BS. Bad faith actors like to pretend that the country is rife with people who are pregnant for 8 months without knowing whether or not they want a kid. Third trimester abortions are people who want a kid, probably have a room made and name picked out, but then end up getting devastating news that their pregnancy isn’t viable.

Sure. 40-45% of them trust the GOP right now. More likely that they *stop* supporting the GOP if it turns away from Trumpism.

For some people, democracy is only good so long as it yields the results they want. In the face of a future in which their ideas are rejected, the GOP has opted not to adjust its policies to be more popular, but to instead reject democracy itself.

Turns out that a platform of things that are unpopular to Americans ends up being unpopular with Americans. Who could have thought?

No we don’t. You’re smarter than this.

I feel like it would end up complicating everything. Revoking bail on a former president / current presidential candidate would be a huge story and something that Trump would immediately appeal, which could delay the proceedings. It’s clear that Trump isn’t interested in a strong defense or legal strategy, he just wants to delay until he can get elected and dismiss the case. It’s a unique problem we have never seen before. Revoking his bail gives him another weapon to use for delay and to whip up his supporters. That being said, if he really and truly, unambiguously starts attempting to intimidate witnesses, there may be no other choice.

True. And while there’s no legal basis for treating an ex-president differently than a regular citizen in this context, I can’t say I blame the judge. I would probably do the same thing.

Nah. Seems like they’re only charging him with crimes that they have a lot of evidence that he committed.

Even if he violates the protective order, I imagine the judge is going to be very reluctant to revoke bail. Trump’s going to get a lot of leeway here that wouldn’t be available to people like us. It would probably take something obvious and egregious for that to happen. That being said, if it does happen he won’t be the first person to run for president from jail. And nothing prevents him from running from jail or even winning and serving while in jail (in that event, I imagine his sentence would be suspended for the duration of his term but there’s not much precedent here).

In addition to the Conspiracy to Defraud the US charge that we saw, I’ve been expecting wire fraud charges to come out of this investigation as well. I’m wondering if that’s what they are still looking into.