Give Republicans Congress and Trump promises you $5,000. That extraordinary bargain raises a question America confronted nearly 90 years ago: how far can government power reach into the voting booth?
Perhaps the Repugnican’s greatest accomplishment has been the normalization of such stultifying corruption that we’re now ranking the varying levels of its criminality. Without uncharacteristically aggressive Democratic response, that could prove to be the most enduring. Has altruism breathed its last?
The problem with the Hatch Act, or any of the hundreds of corruption laws on the books that Trump has violated, is that he rigged the system so that justice will not be inflicted on the MAGAs. Every law enforcement executive in the Federal government is a Trump lickspittle. The AG is not going to prosecute himself or his boss. If somehow convicted, Trump will appeal to his lickspittle Supremes who would almost surely let him and his underlings walk free. Trump would likely pardon the fictional Hannibal Lecter if bribed enough.
It is because the Democrats rarely follow through with draining the swamp that voters have low levels of faith that they will drain Trump's swamp. Trump likely still has a bathroom full of stolen government secret documents, and he was never held accountable. Now Trump is trying to jail his Biden-era prosecutors in revenge. Worse, he appointed two people (Hegseth and Gabbard) who were notorious for blabbing national secrets. When they did blab, nobody did anything about it.
If there is a Blue Wave, we wonder if any corrupt MAGA will be impeached, much less prosecuted for crimes.
While reading this eye-opening article, this thought ran through my head: why aren't you in government Thom? It's people like you that should be running things!
Add this to the list of impeachable offenses, even if there isn’t enough decent senators to convict. The corrupt senators who do not vote to oust this highly criminal president need to be outed so they can explain that record when another batch of them are up for election in 2028. And JD Vance violating the Hatch Act sounds like a two-fer indictment!
Besides, being illegal and immoral, how practical would it be to offer a bribe to vote Republican? Far more voters would be offended by such an offer than would respond to it. And common sense would tell anyone that no such payment would ever be made, considering Trump's history of reneging. How pathetic is it when a party has to stoop to bribery, yet still can't muster any kind policy platform that would appeal to voters' real needs.
Assuming Smitty did this (and he won't), it is my belief that his legal cover is that he did not "influence" votes. He, techinically, is not influencing votes because, as it is being framed, he is going to give this money away to everyone: Republican, Democrats, voters and non-voters. This idiocy would be further exacerbated by a logistical nightmare. Who is eligible? What are the caveats? It's just more distraction.
If that anal orifice really wanted to help Amerikans, he would take that money and put it into feeding the hungry and food insecure, provide housing for the hundreds of thousands that are homeless or, hell's bells, expand access to healthcare.
Brown v. Hartlage (supreme court case-1982). Because Trump’s "$5,000 dividend" proposal is framed as a universal policy change benefiting everyone equally, the Brown precedent shields it as protected political speech rather than an actionable transaction. It establishes that under American election law, promising a broad policy that puts money back into voters' pockets is fully legal, even if critics consider the policy itself unfeasible or irresponsible.
Some people buy lottery tickets for the slim chance they will win some money. Too bad MAGA don't realize their chances of Trump keeping his word are less than winning the lottery.
My recollection is that SCOTUS extended presidential immunity only to "official acts". I question whether solicitation of bribes can be shoehorned into that category.
Once we again have an honest Department of Justice, the prosecutions you mention (plus, hopefully, that of Trump himself) will be decried as "lawfare". Republicans reflexively trot out that term even when actual evidence of criminal acts is at hand. Let them weep and wail all the way to prison.
I'm glad that any number of our stalwarts legal eagles, at least (given the supine behavior of too many in Congress is a national disgrace) are all over this, and that we have solid legal precedents and means of enforcing our existing laws. Trump appears to have lost a few more of his marbles (I don't say morals as he hasn't any) based on this unfolding scandal.
Hatch Act? We don't need no stinking Hatch Act!
Perhaps the Repugnican’s greatest accomplishment has been the normalization of such stultifying corruption that we’re now ranking the varying levels of its criminality. Without uncharacteristically aggressive Democratic response, that could prove to be the most enduring. Has altruism breathed its last?
The problem with the Hatch Act, or any of the hundreds of corruption laws on the books that Trump has violated, is that he rigged the system so that justice will not be inflicted on the MAGAs. Every law enforcement executive in the Federal government is a Trump lickspittle. The AG is not going to prosecute himself or his boss. If somehow convicted, Trump will appeal to his lickspittle Supremes who would almost surely let him and his underlings walk free. Trump would likely pardon the fictional Hannibal Lecter if bribed enough.
It is because the Democrats rarely follow through with draining the swamp that voters have low levels of faith that they will drain Trump's swamp. Trump likely still has a bathroom full of stolen government secret documents, and he was never held accountable. Now Trump is trying to jail his Biden-era prosecutors in revenge. Worse, he appointed two people (Hegseth and Gabbard) who were notorious for blabbing national secrets. When they did blab, nobody did anything about it.
If there is a Blue Wave, we wonder if any corrupt MAGA will be impeached, much less prosecuted for crimes.
While reading this eye-opening article, this thought ran through my head: why aren't you in government Thom? It's people like you that should be running things!
Add this to the list of impeachable offenses, even if there isn’t enough decent senators to convict. The corrupt senators who do not vote to oust this highly criminal president need to be outed so they can explain that record when another batch of them are up for election in 2028. And JD Vance violating the Hatch Act sounds like a two-fer indictment!
Great ideas.
Besides, being illegal and immoral, how practical would it be to offer a bribe to vote Republican? Far more voters would be offended by such an offer than would respond to it. And common sense would tell anyone that no such payment would ever be made, considering Trump's history of reneging. How pathetic is it when a party has to stoop to bribery, yet still can't muster any kind policy platform that would appeal to voters' real needs.
Assuming Smitty did this (and he won't), it is my belief that his legal cover is that he did not "influence" votes. He, techinically, is not influencing votes because, as it is being framed, he is going to give this money away to everyone: Republican, Democrats, voters and non-voters. This idiocy would be further exacerbated by a logistical nightmare. Who is eligible? What are the caveats? It's just more distraction.
If that anal orifice really wanted to help Amerikans, he would take that money and put it into feeding the hungry and food insecure, provide housing for the hundreds of thousands that are homeless or, hell's bells, expand access to healthcare.
Brown v. Hartlage (supreme court case-1982). Because Trump’s "$5,000 dividend" proposal is framed as a universal policy change benefiting everyone equally, the Brown precedent shields it as protected political speech rather than an actionable transaction. It establishes that under American election law, promising a broad policy that puts money back into voters' pockets is fully legal, even if critics consider the policy itself unfeasible or irresponsible.
Trump’s promise is real. We’ve all heard it. It is a violation of the Hatch Act period.
Does anyone seriously believe he will follow through? If we are so effing stupid as to believe he will, we deserve whatever happens…
Sure he'll follow through...as soon as Mexico pays for the wall.
Some people buy lottery tickets for the slim chance they will win some money. Too bad MAGA don't realize their chances of Trump keeping his word are less than winning the lottery.
My recollection is that SCOTUS extended presidential immunity only to "official acts". I question whether solicitation of bribes can be shoehorned into that category.
Once we again have an honest Department of Justice, the prosecutions you mention (plus, hopefully, that of Trump himself) will be decried as "lawfare". Republicans reflexively trot out that term even when actual evidence of criminal acts is at hand. Let them weep and wail all the way to prison.
I'm glad that any number of our stalwarts legal eagles, at least (given the supine behavior of too many in Congress is a national disgrace) are all over this, and that we have solid legal precedents and means of enforcing our existing laws. Trump appears to have lost a few more of his marbles (I don't say morals as he hasn't any) based on this unfolding scandal.