I’m not following this closely but I see “hired in ‘21” and “took trips in ‘22 and ‘23”.
Is there an allegation that they were romantically involved before he was hired? That seems like it would be really bad, but otherwise I’m finding it hard to get too worked up about it.
It’s just so dumb. Trump rapes people and brags about it but it’s all pearl clutching the other way
Doesn’t matter how many lawyers she is fucking trump did it
I mean the timing here is going to matter, but this seems at worst to be nepotism, and at best to be that she developed a relationship with a subordinate. Neither of these is great, but it’s not exactly rank corruption either.
Now add the allegations they took vacations to Napa and Aruba together while she is paying him taxpayer money to work for her. That’s pretty bad! Obviously this has no bearing on Trump’s level of guilt but it’s an amazingly bad look and has the chance to derail the prosecution of one of the most important fucking cases in American history, so if the allegations are true then fuck her for being so dumb and reckless.
Sure but they are prosecuting Trump! Gotta imagine state governments have pretty strict rules on not doing any that stuff.
This like a once in a century legal situation to arguably be fighting for American democracy itself as a local prosecutor. You gotta do what it takes, sell all your belongings and sleep in your office if you have to. Like what the hell people.
Like obviously it’s a completely different situation but look at what Zelensky did when his country under attack and he hunkered down in his office with body armor and is out taking selfie in a war zone the next morning. Optics matter.
No, yeah, it completely sucks, I agree. Trump’s skating on everything and going to be the next president, and it’s a lot of small shit like this that is the reason for that.
If the hiring was before the relationship began then the money becomes his money when it is paid to him as salary and is no longer the governments. This is probably not the best look but you are believing what the conservatives are saying, which is a bullshit sensationalist view.
Yeah, that’s what I was getting at as it was either at worst, nepotism (which is light corruption), and at best, she had a relationship with a subordinate (which is problematic / borderline sexual harassment issues) but it’s not corruption.
Why is nobody even looking at the headlines before weighing in on this? EDIT: maybe I’m not looking clearly enough, I guess the accusation is it started before he was hired but don’t think there a smoking gun for that yet
I said “while she is paying him taxpayer money” instead of “with taxpayer money” for a reason. Yes it’s slightly less scandalous, but still looks really really bad! You don’t have to buy into the sensationalist conservative view to see that it looks terrible.
I think you guys that are trying to downplay this are looking it from the wrong point of view. What actually happened doesn’t matter; the media is going to skewer her and possibly give state-level Georgia conservatives the cover they need to kill the investigation. That’s really bad!
Right, like as far as I know any local/state government is not going to be pleased if any government employee had an undisclosed relationship with a contractor they were directly supervising/paying/whatever. This just like basic your a public servant you have to act a certain way stuff
Oh, yeah, no I completely agree that the GA case is likely dead in the water now.
I’m not saying it isn’t bad, I’m saying it isn’t as bad as the conservatives are saying it is. And none of it is implying that there was anything improper with the case itself, only the players. Unfortunately, that is probably going to be enough to delay movement on the case until after the election, which is unfortunate.
None of these cases were ever going to trial before the election. There are just too many friendly judges to Trump who are more than willing to let the process get delayed out past the election for the federal cases, and for the GA case that was never going to trial before the election anyway. Then, once he gets reelected, it won’t matter anyway, he’ll have his hand-picked AG dismiss all the federal ones.
25 historians wrote an amicus brief (pdf) about their view on ballot disqualification; they don’t aim to answer whether Trump did insurrection but they land squarely on the opinion that the 14th amendment applies to the President and is self-executing. Not that his holds any sway, obviously, but this makes it extra funny when SCOTUS conservatives make up their own historical research that flies completely in the face of what actual experts on the subject have to say.
Highlights:
For historians, contemporary evidence from the
decision-makers who sponsored, backed, and voted for
the 14th Amendment is most probative. Analysis of this
evidence demonstrates that decision-makers crafted
Section 3 to cover the President and to create an enduring
check on insurrection, requiring no additional action from
Congress.
Other evidence demonstrates that implementation
of Section 3 did not require additional acts of Congress.
No former Confederate instantly disqualified from
holding office under Section 3 was disqualified by an
act of Congress. In seeking to quash his indictment for
treason, Jefferson Davis argued that he was already
punished through his automatic disqualification to hold
public office under Section 3, which “executes itself …
It needs no legislation on the part of Congress to give it
effect.”
lol this is amazing stuff
—-
Kaplan, who has represented clients in high-profile cases against Trump, including E. Jean Carroll, said on an episode of the “George Conway Explains it All (to Sarah Longwell)” podcast recorded Thursday that she rejected the former president’s request that they work through a lunch break because he believed the deposition was “a waste of my time.”
“And then you could kind of see the wheel spinning in his brain. You could really almost see it,” Kaplan told Republican strategist Sarah Longwell and conservative attorney George Conway, a longtime Trump critic. “And he said, ‘Well, you’re here in Mar-a-Lago. What do you think you’re going to do for lunch? Where are you going to get lunch?’”
Kaplan said she told him that his attorneys had “graciously offered to provide” her team with lunch — a common civil practice between opposing legal teams.
“At which point there was a huge pile of documents, exhibits, sitting in front of him, and he took the pile and he just threw it across the table. And stormed out of the room,” Kaplan shared, adding that Trump specifically yelled at his lawyer Alina Habba for providing them lunch.
“He really yelled at Alina for that. He was so mad at Alina,” she said.
Kaplan continued: “He came back in and he said, ‘Well, how’d you like the lunch?’ And I said, ‘Well, sir, I had a banana. You know, I can never really eat when I’m taking testimony.’ And he said, ‘Well, I told you,’ — it was kind of charming. He said, ‘I told you, I told them to make you really bad sandwiches, but they can’t help themselves here. We have the best sandwiches.’”
The cruelty is the point.
I can guarantee the food at mar a lago is absolute dogshit at all times.
LMAO LAW
