- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 125,579
Yep.
President Trump Thread...
- Thread starter Angrymesscan
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 125,579
BipolarFuk
Demoted
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 11,464
Why Trump Supporters Believe He Is Not Corrupt
Why Trump Supporters Believe He Is Not Corrupt
What the president’s supporters fear most isn’t the corruption of American law, but the corruption of America’s traditional identity.
On Wednesday morning, the lead story on FoxNews.com was not Michael Cohen’s admission that Donald Trump had instructed him to violate campaign-finance laws by paying hush money to two of Trump’s mistresses. It was the alleged murder of a white Iowa woman, Mollie Tibbetts, by an undocumented Latino immigrant, Cristhian Rivera.
On their face, the two stories have little in common. Fox is simply covering the Iowa murder because it distracts attention from a revelation that makes Trump look bad. But dig deeper and the two stories are connected: They represent competing notions of what corruption is.
Cohen’s admission highlights one of the enduring riddles of the Trump era. Trump’s supporters say they care about corruption. During the campaign, they cheered his vow to “drain the swamp” in Washington, D.C. When Morning Consult asked Americans in May 2016 to explain why they disliked Hillary Clinton, the second-most-common answer was that she was “corrupt.” And yet, Trump supporters appear largely unfazed by the mounting evidence that Trump is the least ethical president in modern American history. When asked last month whether they considered Trump corrupt, only 14 percent of Republicans said yes. Even Cohen’s allegation is unlikely to change that.
The answer may lie in how Trump and his supporters define corruption. In a forthcoming book titled How Fascism Works, the Yale philosophy professor Jason Stanley makes an intriguing claim. “Corruption, to the fascist politician,” he suggests, “is really about the corruption of purity rather than of the law. Officially, the fascist politician’s denunciations of corruption sound like a denunciation of political corruption. But such talk is intended to evoke corruption in the sense of the usurpation of the traditional order.”
Fox’s decision to focus on the Iowa murder rather than Cohen’s guilty plea illustrates Stanley’s point. In the eyes of many Fox viewers, I suspect, the network isn’t ignoring corruption so much as highlighting the kind that really matters. When Trump instructed Cohen to pay off women with whom he’d had affairs, he may have been violating the law. But he was upholding traditional gender and class hierarchies. Since time immemorial, powerful men have been cheating on their wives and using their power to evade the consequences.
The Iowa murder, by contrast, signifies the inversion—the corruption—of that “traditional order.” Throughout American history, few notions have been as sacrosanct as the belief that white women must be protected from nonwhite men. By allegedly murdering Tibbetts, Rivera did not merely violate the law. He did something more subversive: He violated America’s traditional racial and sexual norms.
Once you grasp that for Trump and many of his supporters, corruption means less the violation of law than the violation of established hierarchies, their behavior makes more sense. Since 2014, Trump has employed the phrase rule of law nine times in tweets. Seven of them refer to illegal immigration.
Why were Trump’s supporters so convinced that Clinton was the more corrupt candidate even as reporters uncovered far more damning evidence about Trump’s foundation than they did about Clinton’s? Likely because Clinton’s candidacy threatened traditional gender roles. For many Americans, female ambition—especially in service of a feminist agenda—in and of itself represents a form of corruption. “When female politicians were described as power-seeking,” noted the Yale researchers Victoria Brescoll and Tyler Okimoto in a 2010 study, “participants experienced feelings of moral outrage (i.e., contempt, anger, and/or disgust).”
Cohen’s admission makes it harder for Republicans to claim that Trump didn’t violate the law. But it doesn’t really matter. For many Republicans, Trump remains uncorrupt—indeed, anticorrupt—because what they fear most isn’t the corruption of American law; it’s the corruption of America’s traditional identity. And in the struggle against that form of corruption—the kind embodied by Cristhian Rivera—Trump isn’t the problem. He’s the solution.
Why Trump Supporters Believe He Is Not Corrupt
What the president’s supporters fear most isn’t the corruption of American law, but the corruption of America’s traditional identity.
On Wednesday morning, the lead story on FoxNews.com was not Michael Cohen’s admission that Donald Trump had instructed him to violate campaign-finance laws by paying hush money to two of Trump’s mistresses. It was the alleged murder of a white Iowa woman, Mollie Tibbetts, by an undocumented Latino immigrant, Cristhian Rivera.
On their face, the two stories have little in common. Fox is simply covering the Iowa murder because it distracts attention from a revelation that makes Trump look bad. But dig deeper and the two stories are connected: They represent competing notions of what corruption is.
Cohen’s admission highlights one of the enduring riddles of the Trump era. Trump’s supporters say they care about corruption. During the campaign, they cheered his vow to “drain the swamp” in Washington, D.C. When Morning Consult asked Americans in May 2016 to explain why they disliked Hillary Clinton, the second-most-common answer was that she was “corrupt.” And yet, Trump supporters appear largely unfazed by the mounting evidence that Trump is the least ethical president in modern American history. When asked last month whether they considered Trump corrupt, only 14 percent of Republicans said yes. Even Cohen’s allegation is unlikely to change that.
The answer may lie in how Trump and his supporters define corruption. In a forthcoming book titled How Fascism Works, the Yale philosophy professor Jason Stanley makes an intriguing claim. “Corruption, to the fascist politician,” he suggests, “is really about the corruption of purity rather than of the law. Officially, the fascist politician’s denunciations of corruption sound like a denunciation of political corruption. But such talk is intended to evoke corruption in the sense of the usurpation of the traditional order.”
Fox’s decision to focus on the Iowa murder rather than Cohen’s guilty plea illustrates Stanley’s point. In the eyes of many Fox viewers, I suspect, the network isn’t ignoring corruption so much as highlighting the kind that really matters. When Trump instructed Cohen to pay off women with whom he’d had affairs, he may have been violating the law. But he was upholding traditional gender and class hierarchies. Since time immemorial, powerful men have been cheating on their wives and using their power to evade the consequences.
The Iowa murder, by contrast, signifies the inversion—the corruption—of that “traditional order.” Throughout American history, few notions have been as sacrosanct as the belief that white women must be protected from nonwhite men. By allegedly murdering Tibbetts, Rivera did not merely violate the law. He did something more subversive: He violated America’s traditional racial and sexual norms.
Once you grasp that for Trump and many of his supporters, corruption means less the violation of law than the violation of established hierarchies, their behavior makes more sense. Since 2014, Trump has employed the phrase rule of law nine times in tweets. Seven of them refer to illegal immigration.
Why were Trump’s supporters so convinced that Clinton was the more corrupt candidate even as reporters uncovered far more damning evidence about Trump’s foundation than they did about Clinton’s? Likely because Clinton’s candidacy threatened traditional gender roles. For many Americans, female ambition—especially in service of a feminist agenda—in and of itself represents a form of corruption. “When female politicians were described as power-seeking,” noted the Yale researchers Victoria Brescoll and Tyler Okimoto in a 2010 study, “participants experienced feelings of moral outrage (i.e., contempt, anger, and/or disgust).”
Cohen’s admission makes it harder for Republicans to claim that Trump didn’t violate the law. But it doesn’t really matter. For many Republicans, Trump remains uncorrupt—indeed, anticorrupt—because what they fear most isn’t the corruption of American law; it’s the corruption of America’s traditional identity. And in the struggle against that form of corruption—the kind embodied by Cristhian Rivera—Trump isn’t the problem. He’s the solution.
BipolarFuk
Demoted
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 11,464
L.T. Fan
I'm Easy If You Are
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 21,874
All this fuss over Cohen confessing to an illegal campaign fund payment.
First of all something violating the rules of law in this area has to have an element of the campaign and its fund involved. Neither Cohens actions or the monies involved had anything to do with the campaign. Cohen or his attorney was stupid for confessing to this because the proscuetor couldn’t win on a trial outcome because the act involved was separate and had no connection to the campaign. This was a settlement between the parties involved and was ultimately paid by Trumps money.
My guess is Mueller offered a deal of immunity from further proscuetion and a no jail time for the sentence. In turn Cohens testimony as being guilty would go a long way toward influencing
A jury and how they would view Trump. It’s a strategy of putting a confessing party on the stand and naming his co conspirators.
What Trumps legal counsel need to do is have a hearing before a judge and get a ruling on whether the evidence shows it was or wasn’t a campaign connected act.
First of all something violating the rules of law in this area has to have an element of the campaign and its fund involved. Neither Cohens actions or the monies involved had anything to do with the campaign. Cohen or his attorney was stupid for confessing to this because the proscuetor couldn’t win on a trial outcome because the act involved was separate and had no connection to the campaign. This was a settlement between the parties involved and was ultimately paid by Trumps money.
My guess is Mueller offered a deal of immunity from further proscuetion and a no jail time for the sentence. In turn Cohens testimony as being guilty would go a long way toward influencing
A jury and how they would view Trump. It’s a strategy of putting a confessing party on the stand and naming his co conspirators.
What Trumps legal counsel need to do is have a hearing before a judge and get a ruling on whether the evidence shows it was or wasn’t a campaign connected act.
BipolarFuk
Demoted
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 11,464
Where's the real witch hunt?
Where's the real witch hunt?
Where's the real witch hunt?
BipolarFuk
Demoted
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 11,464
L.T. Fan
I'm Easy If You Are
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 21,874
The scorecard on Mueller is skewed. I think he got these folks indicted but the Russian collusion is where the majority of this. Almost all were Russians so tell me how is their indictment part of the Russian collusion when it’s all Russian. Can you collude with yourself? Russian collusion scorecard is almost zero. Russian interference is where the numbers fall for which he wasn’t engaged to do but they don’t belong on this scorecard. These individuals could have easily been indicted by the Justice Department. Mueller has failed on the collusion investigation so find a different scorecard.
BipolarFuk
Demoted
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 11,464
Smitty
DCC 4Life
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 24,097
[MENTION=8]BipolarFan[/MENTION]
Noted Democrat / Hillary and Obama Supporter / Anti-Trump Liberal and Attorney Alan Dershowitz takes you to school here.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/08/22/dershowitz_candidate_entitled_to_pay_hush_money_committed_no_election_crime.html
Alan Dershowitz said the only campaign violation that could have happened is if former Trump attorney Michael Cohen did break a campaign finance law on his own volution and called the situation a "Catch-22" on MSNBC this afternoon.
Noted Democrat / Hillary and Obama Supporter / Anti-Trump Liberal and Attorney Alan Dershowitz takes you to school here.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/08/22/dershowitz_candidate_entitled_to_pay_hush_money_committed_no_election_crime.html
Alan Dershowitz said the only campaign violation that could have happened is if former Trump attorney Michael Cohen did break a campaign finance law on his own volution and called the situation a "Catch-22" on MSNBC this afternoon.
MSNBC HOST: Can I ask about a couple things, Alan? .. You said last night, 'All Cohen has to do is say the president directed me to do it. That's the kind of embellishment people put on a story when they want to avoid dying in prison.' Are you suggesting Cohen lied under oath?
ALAN DERSHOWITZ: Well, we don't know. All we know is what Judge Ellis said.
Judge Ellis said is when you put pressure on somebody like Cohen, there is an incentive to embellish the story and make it better because he's now facing 4 years. So if he comes up with strong evidence against the president that will be reduced to 2 years, 3 years, or 1 year. ...
I have no idea whether Cohen is telling the truth or not, but the interesting thing is, if Cohen is telling the truth it's a catch-22 for the prosecution. Let me lay this out for 60 seconds...
Here's the issue: The president is entitled to pay hush money to anyone he wants during a campaign. There are no restrictions on what a candidate can contribute to his own campaign. So if, in fact, the president directed Cohen to do it as his lawyer and was going to compensate him for it, the president committed no crime. if Cohen did it on his own --
MSNBC HOST: That seems awfully convoluted, Alan.
DERSHOWITZ: -- then Cohen commits the crime.
It's convoluted. The law is convoluted.
MSNBC HOST: Prosecutors have said Michael Cohen broke the law and Michael Cohen says, the president told me to do it. You said last night, as well that you every president breaks the law during an election. Really? Does that make it okay?
DERSHOWITZ: No. I said --
MSNBC HOST: Your quote is every candidate violates election laws when they run for president.
DERSHOWITZ: Let me tell you what I said.
MSNBC HOST: I just told you.
DERSHOWITZ: Candidates violate election laws all the time, go back to any campaign's campaign violations.
MSNBC HOST: But does that make it okay?
DERSHOWITZ: No, it doesn't, but let be very clear.
MSNBC HOST: Isn't that moving the goalposts?
DERSHOWITZ: You're not letting me make my point.
MSNBC HOST: All yours.
DERSHOWITZ: The president doesn't break the law if, as a candidate, he contributes to his own campaign. So if he gave $1 million to two women as hush money, there would be in crime. If he directed his lawyer to do it, and he would compensate the lawyer, he's committed no crime.
The only crime is if a third-party, namely, Cohen, on his own, contributed to a campaign, that would be a campaign contribution. So it is a catch-22 for the prosecution. iI they claim that the president authorized him to do it or directed him to do it, it is not a crime for anybody. If Cohen did it on his own, then it is a crime for Cohen but not the president.
This is going to be a very difficult case for the prosecution to make, precisely because the laws on election are so convoluted.
ALAN DERSHOWITZ: Well, we don't know. All we know is what Judge Ellis said.
Judge Ellis said is when you put pressure on somebody like Cohen, there is an incentive to embellish the story and make it better because he's now facing 4 years. So if he comes up with strong evidence against the president that will be reduced to 2 years, 3 years, or 1 year. ...
I have no idea whether Cohen is telling the truth or not, but the interesting thing is, if Cohen is telling the truth it's a catch-22 for the prosecution. Let me lay this out for 60 seconds...
Here's the issue: The president is entitled to pay hush money to anyone he wants during a campaign. There are no restrictions on what a candidate can contribute to his own campaign. So if, in fact, the president directed Cohen to do it as his lawyer and was going to compensate him for it, the president committed no crime. if Cohen did it on his own --
MSNBC HOST: That seems awfully convoluted, Alan.
DERSHOWITZ: -- then Cohen commits the crime.
It's convoluted. The law is convoluted.
MSNBC HOST: Prosecutors have said Michael Cohen broke the law and Michael Cohen says, the president told me to do it. You said last night, as well that you every president breaks the law during an election. Really? Does that make it okay?
DERSHOWITZ: No. I said --
MSNBC HOST: Your quote is every candidate violates election laws when they run for president.
DERSHOWITZ: Let me tell you what I said.
MSNBC HOST: I just told you.
DERSHOWITZ: Candidates violate election laws all the time, go back to any campaign's campaign violations.
MSNBC HOST: But does that make it okay?
DERSHOWITZ: No, it doesn't, but let be very clear.
MSNBC HOST: Isn't that moving the goalposts?
DERSHOWITZ: You're not letting me make my point.
MSNBC HOST: All yours.
DERSHOWITZ: The president doesn't break the law if, as a candidate, he contributes to his own campaign. So if he gave $1 million to two women as hush money, there would be in crime. If he directed his lawyer to do it, and he would compensate the lawyer, he's committed no crime.
The only crime is if a third-party, namely, Cohen, on his own, contributed to a campaign, that would be a campaign contribution. So it is a catch-22 for the prosecution. iI they claim that the president authorized him to do it or directed him to do it, it is not a crime for anybody. If Cohen did it on his own, then it is a crime for Cohen but not the president.
This is going to be a very difficult case for the prosecution to make, precisely because the laws on election are so convoluted.
Smitty
DCC 4Life
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 24,097
Video here: Can't embed from the MSNBC website.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/08/22/dershowitz_candidate_entitled_to_pay_hush_money_committed_no_election_crime.html
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/08/22/dershowitz_candidate_entitled_to_pay_hush_money_committed_no_election_crime.html
L.T. Fan
I'm Easy If You Are
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 21,874
Been trying to tell BiPo the same thing. I am not a licence attorney but I do have a pre law degree and in addition was a federal Agency Investigation Chief several years but apparently he can’t accept my communication on these matters. Thanks for putting the thing in focus via video coverage.
L.T. Fan
I'm Easy If You Are
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 21,874
Again thank you. That was my response as well. There is no law that says you cannot pay hush momey to something if it is your own money. Once these psuedo hysterics die down the Collusion matter will dry up and the concentration will be trying to find something to keep the Resist Trump movement alive to carry it into the mid term elections. If the Republicans are smart they will get these matters before a federal judge for a ruling. If they do that then The Mueller show will have nothing left to continue investigating. Thr quest now for the Democrats is to keep the masses tuned to their Hysteria mode.
jsmith6919
Honored Member - RIP
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2013
- Messages
- 28,407
- Status