Select Page

Trump Will be the Personification of American Politics for a Looong Time

Trump Will be the Personification of American Politics for a Looong Time

If you think the baseless Trump/Russian conspiracy narrative droned on for much too long, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet.  The various court cases involving President Trump will be on the front burner of national political news for years – yes, years – to come.  For networks like MSNBC, it means one-sided propaganda coverage 24/7.

Trump is currently facing three – and perhaps soon to be four – criminal indictments –plus a few civil cases.  It is neither my desire nor role to play Trump’s defense counsel in the court-of- public-opinion.  Nor am I joining the left-wing media’s prosecutorial teams.  My purpose is to analyze Trump’s cases and his political potential in an objective manner.

To review a bit of history, I have already expressed my opinion that the so-called Documents Case poses the greatest risk of a conviction.  I do not see that one resulting in more than a fine.   I cannot imagine that the documents case will give Trump any jail time.  

In terms of the Campaign Finance Case, I think he has a very good chance of an acquittal.  And even a conviction in that case would result in a fine – no jail time.  I see Trump blowing those off – win or lose — without any negative impact on his political plans and objectives.  In fact, so far, they seem to have helped him expand his strength in the GOP primaries and in the 2024 General Election.

The January 6 Case and the Georgia Case are essentially the same. The fact that they are being pursued in tandem gives credence to claims that Trump is the subject of political prosecution.  That is because in most cases in which there are two jurisdictional interests – federal or local – one usually takes the lead and the other drops out.

Obviously, the case that will get the greatest attention over the next year or so, is the federal case being pursued by Special Counsel Jack Smith relating to the 2020 election.  He has so far indicted Trump on four counts – conspiracy to defraud the United States; conspiracy to impede a congressional proceeding; conspiracy against the right to vote; and obstruction of an official proceeding.   Can we assume that Smith is done indicting Trump?  There are also potential future indictments against the alleged co-conspirators.  It usually takes more than one person to commit a criminal conspiracy.

If there are no more indictments of Trump in the January 6 Case, Smith is taking a pass on indicting Trump on culpability for inciting the Capitol Hill riot.  This is interesting since that is what the left has been clamoring for the most.  They want Trump to be charged with “seditious conspiracy,” inciting a riot.  A lot of the anti-Trump media is wrongfully claiming that the indictments deal with Trump’s culpability in inciting the rioting.  So, far, not so.

So, why no indictment on the charges that have been proffered against Trump in the media for the past couple years?  I would assume that it is because Smith does not believe he can get a conviction on those charges – or there is more to come.  If Smith issues a superseding indictment, you can be sure there will be no trial commencing before the 2024 presidential election.

While the media prosecutors in the court-of-public-opinion had determined that Trump is guilty of all these charges – and more – they are not as easily proven in a real court-of-law.  Smith and the other prosecutors are going to have to get a unanimous decision against the threshold of “reasonable doubt.”

But … will any of these cases be tried and concluded before the 2024 presidential election?  Most of the legal analysts on both sides are dubious.  With the issuance of the superseding indictment in the Documents Case – and the complexity of dealing with classified evidence — it is now more likely that the trial in the Documents Case will have to be put off until after the election.  It is increasingly likely that the January 6 Case will go beyond November of 2024.  There will be enormous pressure to not put the Georgia Case ahead of the January 6 Case – and there has not even been an indictment in the Georgia Case as of this moment.  Running the Georgia Case ahead of the January 6th Case could have a negative impact on the prosecution of the latter.

So, what does the legal, political and media landscape look like between now and the 2024 presidential election?  My prediction is divisive chaos and conservation.  The left-wing media will be slamming Trump, the Republican Party and GOP voters with one-sided hyperbolic reporting on a 24/7 endless loop.  They will continue their role as prosecutor, judge and jury in the court-of-public-opinion in keeping with their propaganda approach.  You will find no counterpoint, no balance and no legitimate defense arguments on MSNBC.  Just an accelerated pounding of the drums of propaganda.  The more conservative media, such as FOX, will mount the defense in the court-of-public-opinion.

What will the impact of the indictment and left-wing fearmongers have on Trump’s political fortunes?  That is the imponderable question at the moment.  So far, the media attacks on Trump appear to have helped him gain support in the GOP primaries – and arguably in the General Election.

And should Trump get convicted on any of the charges, there will be those appeals up to the Supreme Court.  This thing might not be over by the 2028 presidential election.

Contrary to my earliest predictions, I have now come to the belief that Trump is the odds-on favorite to win the Republican nomination – despite the court cases, or maybe because of them.  That does not make me happy – and I will still not vote for Trump in the Florida primary.

I am also surprised that – at least according to the polls – Trump is doing so well in a race against Biden.  He is slightly behind in some polls.  Slightly ahead in others.  Essentially, after all the indictments and attacks in the media, Trump is still a very viable candidate – and could return to the Oval Office in January of 2025.  

The current polls and that prospect seem to have Biden and Democrat leaders totally crazed in bewilderment and disbelief.  They do not understand why it is happening – so they cannot figure out how to stop it.

There will be lot of twists and turns over the course of the next year and three months.  The worst part for the American public is that we are going to have to endure all the repetitious propaganda.  Partisan speculation will rule – as meaningless as it will be.  If only we could be Rip Van Winkle for the coming days.

The one thing seems painfully clear.  It is unlikely that there will be any definitive conclusion to anything dealing with Trump for at least a year.  The long national nightmare created by the two sides is far from over.  In the meantime, my job will require me to respond and opine. Arrrgh!  I would rather spend time watching a movie channel.

So, there ‘tis.

About The Author

Larry Horist

So, there ‘tis… The opinions, perspectives and analyses of businessman, conservative writer and political strategist Larry Horist. Larry has an extensive background in economics and public policy. For more than 40 years, he ran his own Chicago based consulting firm. His clients included such conservative icons as Steve Forbes and Milton Friedman. He has served as a consultant to the Nixon White House and travelled the country as a spokesman for President Reagan’s economic reforms. Larry professional emphasis has been on civil rights and education. He was consultant to both the Chicago and the Detroit boards of education, the Educational Choice Foundation, the Chicago Teachers Academy and the Chicago Academy for the Performing Arts. Larry has testified as an expert witness before numerous legislative bodies, including the U. S. Congress, and has lectured at colleges and universities, including Harvard, Northwestern and DePaul. He served as Executive Director of the City Club of Chicago, where he led a successful two-year campaign to save the historic Chicago Theatre from the wrecking ball. Larry has been a guest on hundreds of public affairs talk shows, and hosted his own program, “Chicago In Sight,” on WIND radio. An award-winning debater, his insightful and sometimes controversial commentaries have appeared on the editorial pages of newspapers across the nation. He is praised by audiences for his style, substance and sense of humor. Larry retired from his consulting business to devote his time to writing. His books include a humorous look at collecting, “The Acrapulators’ Guide”, and a more serious history of the Democratic Party’s role in de facto institutional racism, “Who Put Blacks in That PLACE? -- The Long Sad History of the Democratic Party’s Oppression of Black Americans ... to This Day”. Larry currently lives in Boca Raton, Florida.

25 Comments

  1. frank stetson

    Horist claims objectivity and then says: “Trump is currently facing three – and perhaps soon to be four – criminal indictments”

    Later that day…..
    1. “the so-called Documents Case …”
    2. “In terms of the Campaign Finance Case….”
    3. “The January 6 Case.”
    4. “and the Georgia case” (not charged, so not counted)
    5. “Obviously, the case that will get the greatest attention over the next year or so, is the federal case being pursued by Special Counsel Jack Smith relating to the 2020 election. “

    Isn’t that four cases, plus the Georgia case if charged?

    Just kiddin Mr Horist, even if you name these a Horist of a different color, it’s 3, potentially four. But based on your description of the charges, you do not seem objective, IMO. Just want you to see, I did read, I did comprehend, you just are not consistent in your labeling.

    • larry Horist

      Framk Stetson … Sorry, you did not comprehend. I objectively gave the cases without judging them other than the potential severity. You lose on that point. Also I mention four CRIMINAL cases. Your 3 and 5 is essentially the same case — although there may be more charges. And I made a distinction from civil cases and criminal cases. Yes, you did read, but you miscomprehended. Also, your responses are not only inaccurate, they are rather petty. Perhaps you need to stop trying so hard to be the consistent contrarian.

      • frank stetson

        You can dish out the humor, snarky it may be, but take it: HELL NO.

        It was just a joke due to your labeling the cases in such an interesting fashion.

        But for the great Horist —– it’s the reader, not the writer, almost everytime.

        Chillax.

        “Just kiddin Mr Horist, ”

        And OK, — you win. Congrats on your victory.

        • larry Horist

          Often when you get caught saying something untrue, you resort to saying it was a joke. I still do not know what you mean by labeling the case in such “an interesting fashion.”

          • frank stetson

            Horist says: “Often when you get caught saying something untrue, you resort to saying it was a joke. ”

            after reading and fully comprehending, comprehending being his greatest lambast of others, he fully comprehended: “Just kiddin Mr Horist, even if you name these a Horist of a different color, it’s 3, potentially four” twice……

            ““an interesting fashion.”
            Interesting: “arousing curiosity or interest; holding or catching the attention.
            “an interesting debate”

            Fashion: “a manner of doing something.
            “the work is done in a rather casual fashion”

            I trust you are able to comprehend those definitions although next time you should look them up yourself.

            What I meant, simply stated, was I had not witnessed that nomenclature used before and while I can not say it was right or wrong, I did find it interesting. Nothing more complicated than that.

  2. frank stetson

    Horist claims objectivity and then says: “If you think the baseless Trump/Russian conspiracy narrative droned on for much too long” Drone on, perhaps. Baseless, never. I find this to be not objective at all as Mr. Horist continues to drone on with this partisan rhetoric that is anything but objective, IMO.

    Some facts:
    The FBI was justified in opening its investigation into ties between the Trump presidential campaign and Russia and did not act with political bias, the Justice Department’s internal watchdog declared in 2019. And then the FBI began fixing all the errors the watchdog found. The FBI indeed made mistakes, jumped the gun without appropriate evidence to begin the investigation, but the investigation would and should have been done.

    Though Mueller did not charge Team Trump aides with conspiring with Russia to rig the election, he testified, via his report, that he had evidence that Russia interfered massively in the election with the purpose to benefit Trump’s campaign, trash Hillary, and where the Trump campaign welcomed the efforts and never discouraged them in ANY meeting they had with the Russians. And they had a boatload of meetings. Well before the election. All reasons that an investigation was warranted.

    Barr declared there was spying on the Trump campaign by Democrats and hired hotshot Durham a few weeks post the Mueller report. Never found the spying except perhaps by the Russian spies Team Trump kept meeting with, giving election and voter polling data to them as well. Team Trump meeting with Russian spies. Another reason that they should have investigated.

    Four years later, under Biden who let the Republican requested anti-Mueller investigation continue, Durham took three or four years to determine that the FBI acted too hastily and relied on unconfirmed intelligence when it launched the Trump-Russia investigation. Brilliant! He said the FBI had no information about confirmed contacts between Trump and Russia claiming investigators had “confirmation bias,” discounting the leads they were following. Durham highlighted the failure of the FBI to corroborate any dossier allegations which it relied heavily on. This 2023 revelation was a duplicate of the 2019 FBI Watchdog Report that had been addressed in the previous 4 years Durham got paid to repeat them.

    Still, I say money well spent to confirm the confirmation bias confirmed previously by the FBI Watchdog.

    The bottom line: Durham brought no cases at or after the report’s conclusion. Most everything he found was fixed years before after the FBI Watchdog report in 2019 as Durham himself noted. During his tenure, Durham coughed up three prosecutions: two he lost by jury, the third was handed to him by Justice and resulted in parole. Nothing Durham did disputed core findings by Mueller that Russia interfered with the 2016 election massively with the encouragement of Team Trump and all those contacts and meetings; over 140 of them. That’s 140 contacts/meetings, many with Russian spies.

    Muller produced more than two dozen criminal cases, including against a half-dozen Trump associates resulting in 34 being charged, plus 3 companies concluding in 8 guilty pleas, and one trial conviction. Most of Team Trump criminals were pardoned by the Don. It’s good to be King.

    Muller’s conclusions, in his own words, to PBS: “If we had had confidence that the president clearly didn’t commit a crime, we would have said so. We didn’t, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime.” “There was insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy.” As I have stated here before, that’s not a screaming exoneration which Mueller indicated he would provide, if he could. His report speaks for itself and is, in his words, his testimony.

    Bottom line: FBI was sloppy in starting the investigation. The investigation, albeit a rocky start, is valid. There was smoke, but not enough fire to bring a case as conspiracy could not be proved, but the Russians meddled, and the Trump campaign encouraged it. They even gave the Russians US voting and polling data. Good enough to investigate. Over 140 Team Trump contacts with Russians, many being spies, BEFORE the election when few candidates, or their team, meet with ANY foreigners. More smoke than 20 phone calls over a decade by Biden and I say: get a special prosecutor for that one. While Durham was necessary balm to the Republican burn, he found no new news. You may feel better, but I still say: what was going on with those 140 contacts with the Russians? Come on, it just does not pass the sniff test. It still smells. Perhaps Team Trump lies, perhaps they just did not “seal the deal,” with the Russians, whatever —- they could not be caught. But they did meet. And meet. And meet again with Russians, Russian spies, too. The investigation was warranted. Always will be.

    • larry Horist

      Frank Stetson … Again you are having trouble with the English language. Mueller made it very clear that “no America” conspired with Russian interference in the 2016 election. The fact that Mueller said Russians did meddle in the election is not the same issue. Yes, the meddled, but not with any help from Trump or his campaign. According to the follow up report, the FBI investigation was not properly launched even though Mueller found no political bias in the improper actions of the FBI. The three years of Dem accusations and left-wing media reports were …. bs.

      • frank Stetson

        I do comprehend Mueller’s words. I just don’t believe your spin on said words: “If we had had confidence that the president clearly didn’t commit a crime, we would have said so. We didn’t, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime.” “There was insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy.”

        To which I added: “As I have stated here before, that’s not a screaming exoneration which Mueller indicated he would provide, if he could. His report speaks for itself and is, in his words, his testimony.”

        Where’s your source of Mueller saying: “no America” conspired with Russian interference in the 2016 election.” Brilliant, although since you are so, so snarky, I must repeat your own words: “Again you are having trouble with the English language.” But, please, where is your source of Mueller saying what you said he said.

        “Yes, the meddled, but not with any help from Trump or his campaign” says Horist when, as I indicated earlier, Mueller and Durham both reported: “Nothing Durham did disputed core findings by Mueller that Russia interfered with the 2016 election massively with the encouragement of Team Trump and all those contacts and meetings; over 140 of them. That’s 140 contacts/meetings, many with Russian spies.” Team Trump even gave the Russians voting information considered strategically secret. Mueller just couldn’t nail them. Thanks for confirming what I have been trying to get you to accept. Mission accomplished!

        “According to the follow up report, the FBI investigation was not properly launched even though Mueller found no political bias in the improper actions of the FBI.” I could be wrong here, but I do not think Mueller reported on FBI bias. That was the FBI Watchdog Report of 2019, followed by Durham’s expensive sequel which said the exact same thing in 2023 but made you feel better about it. By that time, as I noted, the FBI had supposedly put processes in place to rectify the problems.

        Not sure this clarifies given the original stands unedited and sound.

        • larry Horist

          Frank Stetson … Are you really that addle brained? Is it comprehension or confusion. I shall enlighten you … and it is not spin. When Mueller spoke of not bringing charges, it was on the Obstruction of Justice issue. He listed several actions that might be interpreted as Obstruction, but not enough evidence to make the charge. He passed that decision to the DOJ and after review by senior officials they determined that there was not enough there there to charge Obstruction End of that. Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Do you understand the meaning of those words. They are a bedrock of our justice system.

          Mueller’s statement that if they knew Trump did not commit OBSTRUCTION, they would have said so. That was on the Obstruction charge. … not the conspiracy charge. In other words, Mueller saw some things that could be construed as obstruction, but not enough to charge Trump, in his opinion … or he would have charged. He kicked the decision to his bosses at the DOJ — and they decided. Personally, I though it was a dereliction of his duty to punt. He should have called obstruction issue one way or the other. But he left others to decide what he could not — and they decided. Case closed.

          In terms of conspiring with Russia in the meddling in the 2016 election, Mueller CLEARLY stated that no one — including Trump campaign — were involved in the Russian meddling. That is not to say that the Russians did not meddle, just that they did not get help from Trump or any other American. That was the finding in the Report. On that issue, Mueller made a clear and definitive decision. No criminal conspiracy. That is not my spin, but Mueller’s determination. I know you and others like to resurrect the case in the court-of-public-opinion by misrepresenting the facts and creating a false narrative. But the facts speak for themselves. You opinion is all spin. And none of your self-righteous proclamation can change that fact.

  3. frank stetson

    Enough fun with the three, no – four, no – five cases, and OMG, that’s not objective. Beyond that, nice job Mr. Horist. I can not argue your points, your “IMO’s,” all good. But I do have another viewpoint.

    My take:
    While the cases will drag past the election, a number of the initial judgements will come before it, IMO. Trials commence in the Spring so unless Trump decides to delay, they will complete well before the election. Appeals, if launched, will last years. Chances are he will be convicted, of something, but not everything, but enough. Pretty sure of that. And while the Florida judge is a wild card, NY and DC look like experienced no nonsense players, tough but fair, and not taking shit on delays. Unless Trump can clux it up with delays, these things will commence in the Spring, plenty time to conclude before elections.

    I really doubt he will get jail time. He was President, hopefully all will remember and respect the office, not to mention the circus having Secret Service doing jailtime as well. House arrest would be interesting, most Americans would consider that heaven to live in Mar A Lockhimup. That’s OK by me, basically what happened to Nixon. Hell, pardon him there, I don’t care.

    Remember, the court timing is partly due to Trump choices. When he announced so early, prosecutors tightened down the screws trying to edge prosecutions in before the election hoping to conclude six months before the election. He pretty much opened the window as to time. Silly Trump to force their hands by announcing. Mr. Smith has constructed the cases to be very narrow, very specific, with a minimum of defendants with timing in mind. The other cases Horist mentions may still come, perhaps even after the election, but for this round it’s a tight schedule and tight cases. And please note that when I say “Trump is toast” that everyone is innocent until proven guilty, I really can not conclude toast, but based on the indictment, the evidence we know, all that we don’t know, IMO, some of these look very much like probable guilty on at least one of the charges. It’s like 78 felonies across three jurisdictions: so far. So far.

    The January 6th case (which Horist wrongly states as being the same as Georgia) is four Federal Charges. Two for disruption of Congress’ certification; that along is much bigger than Georgia. A fraud scheme across the entire US and denying Americans right to vote and have your voted counted which may be more Georgia like, except in scale. The only possibility of this not concluding before the election is Trump and his choices to delay. Is he toast: it’s an unusual charge, time will tell. No court date but the Judge is hell bent for leather to get this scheduled, so expect plenty of time to conclude before election if Trump does not use his typical delay tactics.

    The Classified Documents Case with 32 counts, a May trial date, and he is toast on one or more counts unless the judge goes sideways. Should conclude before election but has a Trump-appointed novice judge making concessions to Trump already, being corrected, sanctioned, and still going sideways with rulings and opinions so who knows, unless she is replaced, which she should be, not be being Trump appointed, but for being a novice and making inexperienced mistakes left and right.

    The Hush Money Case where Cohen already guilty and Trump is unindicted co-conspirator number 1 with 34 felony counts against him. Trial set for March, Trump is toast on one or more charges and will conclude before election given the March trial date unless Trump chooses to delay OR the fact, they “upgraded” to felonies bogs them down.

    The Georgia case is an investigation still, racketeering has be noted, other codefendants have been noted, but until it’s filed, don’t have a clue.

    Trump entered the 2024 race earlier than any other candidate in modern times. We know why, he can do with the money, but it also probably had the opposite effect of attempting to squeeze indictments and trials in before the vote which is what occurred. Be careful what you ask for. And yes, he will attempt appeals all the way to the Trump Supreme Court which will drag out well beyond the election.

    Don’t matter: we all know who he is, the only question is whether you like it or not. Many do still love and respect indicted Trump, and so much more the pity. Many still believe the election was rigged in a meaningful way and discount Trump trying to rig it.
    Before it’s all done, we will adjudicate the big lie, and determine who the liars are. As long as Trump continues to get your money, we will continue down this inevitable path to one or more convictions. If the money dries up, he will plead out. This is the entertainment you are paying for. Watching and supporting a man who already is a adjudicated sex abuser and defamation artist who was also noted recently by a NY judge, based on the evidence, as a “digital rapist,” (that’s fingers, not the internet), by a NY judge in Trump’s attempt to appeal EJ Carroll. Trump was shot down in flames, again. IOW, the judge was saying that the big man got her alone, slammed her up against the wall, and then put his hand up her dress, creeped under her panties, and shoved it into her vagina until penetration was achieved. That’s what the judge said, in court, under perjury. No objections from Trump, our one-time President. That’s what Trump told us before on that tape so many years ago that many thought “braggadocio.” or “locker room talk.” Apparently they were wrong not to believe Trump when he said: I can grab em by the pussy, they let me. So, digital rapist, sex abuser, charity defrauder, student defrauder, tax cheat, business records cheat, and soon to add hush money – classified document probably, and then the rest — maybe, is the guy you want to be President for you and your kids. Nope, I will take Biden in a heartbeat, put this guy in the rowboat with Hunter and tell them to row out that way until they get some family values.

  4. larry Horist

    Frank Stetson … Good God! Are you incapable of getting it right? I never put the Georgia case and the January 6 case in the same bin. I was combining the two issues being handled by Smith — although the Georgia case is an offspring of the Smith case. I separated the federal investigation into January 6 and the George case because one is federal and the other is state based. And again to droned on and on on over your litany of Trump issues — many of which have nothing to do with this commentary. You comments are getting to be less about education and more about regurgitation.

    • frank stetson

      Horist complains “I never put the Georgia case and the January 6 case in the same bin.”

      as his article exclaims: “The January 6 Case and the Georgia Case are essentially the same. ”

      Reader poll: is this proof of my poor reading comprehension skills or something else? (feel free to guess what that might be :>)

      • larry Horist

        Frank Stetson …. You try too hard. Both the January 6 case and the Georgia case deal with efforts to overturn the stated results. but they are not in the same bin because one is federal and one is state. You are not good with subtilty. Reader poll: Maybe something else … deliberate deception … obsessive contrarianism … confusion. You problem may be all of the above.

        • frank stetson

          Horist claims: “The January 6 Case and the Georgia Case are essentially the same. ”
          and
          ” they are not in the same bin because one is federal and one is state.”

          And one is Georgia and one is DC. One is a date and the other a state. Both are for the same guy.

          Fact is you said what you said no matter what you meant.

  5. Darren

    Frank, the thing to remember here is even you could be President if you have the DOJ, FBI in your pocket.
    See, any clown can win if they have all the Cards.

    • frank stetson

      So Trump had four years. He had Barr at DOJ. The FBI was run by a Republican. It’s a Trump Supreme Court. What was his problem? Deep State? Italian Space Satellites? Hunter?

      Why would he fare better next time? Anything change with the guy?

      Digital rapist, sex abuser, charity defrauder, student defrauder, tax cheat, business records cheat, and soon to add hush money – classified document probably, and then the rest Is the guy you want to be President for you and your kids. I can choose Biden in a New York minute.

  6. Tom

    I don’t know how anyone else feels but as for me, between the Trump indictments and the Biden crime family, I am getting politically numb!

    Larry, good try at being objective about Trump’s chances. IMO You achieved it about 60% and sounded like a Trump defense lawyer 40% of the time – which is much better than your previous post on Trump where you attributed his asinine and illegal withholding of military aid for Ukraine as being held up for a small favor. Our memories are different on that one, as I remember Congress having to get involved to order the release of the aide. As far as Conservative Right versus Liberal Left, well there you were about as objective as I am when I talk about my ex wives.

    Frank, many good counter points nicely sprinkled within comments that were longer than Larry’s original post, but interesting. I hope your prophecies come true and Trump is tried in several of these cases before the general election. You may think Biden has a better chance than Trump at being re-elected, but Joe Manchin may sprinkle some sand in the Biden machine gears.

    Personally, as an Independent/Unaffiliated voter, I hope Manchin runs for POTUS. I am very much feeling like I need an escape hatch from this Biden-Trump nightmare! If Manchin can pull Independents together, and pull in the new independents and other party moderates that right now are disgusted with their parties on both sides, he could very well pull off (or maybe squeak out) a win. And if he does not win, he will force Biden’s loss. Right now the Dems do not appear to have a “plan B” to Biden and the GOP really has no answer to Trump. May God have mercy on us all!!!

    • larry Horist

      Tom … You seem to be among those who think anything other than unrelenting vilification of Trump and complete belief that he has no defense in a court of law represents a defense. As I note … I was NOT providing an exoneration of Trump on any of the charges, but merely pointing the differences in the court cases — their strength and weaknesses. The fact that you view it as acting as a defense lawyer says more about the objectivity of your view compared to mine. You are undermining you claim to be in the objective middle ground.

      If it is a Biden, Trump, Manchin race, I think Trump wins — and Manchin most certainly knows that. The only way to avoid that besides not running is for Manchin to force Biden out by preventing him from winning. In that regard, he would be playing the Gene McCarthy role of 1968. Voting third party in America is equivalent of staying home. It is just one less vote for someone. It only makes sense if you do not care which of the other two candidates win. It shows contempt for both and support for neither. Ironically, most third person bids only hurt the candidate they would otherwise be aligned with. I do not know, but I suspect that if you had to make a choice between Trump and Biden, you would vote for Biden. Your vote for Manchin would accrue to the benefit of Trump, however.

      And your constant seeing an equivalency between me and Frank is a damn insult….LOL

      • frank stetson

        Horist and I are the same as the Georgia indictment and the January 6th indictment :>)

  7. frank stetson

    Manchin can’t win and if he gets his financial support from the right, he’s got to know it’s a set up.

    Perhaps you should lay off the “Biden crime family” until the facts are on the table. There is so much FUD here it’s juvenile.

    NINE MEMBERS GOT MONEY FROM CHINSE, the announce in April, again in May, and now in the middle of August we got Hunter (no shit sherlock), James (that’s interesting, how much?) and Hallie, Beau’s wife (35K — katy, bar the door), but the other six have yet to be revealed —– why? They have the bank records, don’t they? Plus, James’ was a company payment, more investigation needs to determine what that means.

    It’s August, a day later, a dollar shorter, so where’s the beef?

    I think you are a tad early to describe it as the Biden Crime Family since there is no concrete evidence of Joe’s payments or involvement besides being put on calls with Hunter’s associates where you can’t determine yet, invited or ambushed even?

    It’s not like there’s a list of adjudicated Biden crimes, indictments, pending indictments, and active investigations. It’s not like he’s been indicted for hush money payoffs, business records fraud, voter fraud, defrauding the nation, derailing the peaceful transfer of power in a Democratic nation, stealing top secret and other documents, and having a pool boy for security…..

    Biden did have documents at home. He did not have spies for club members or a member of the communist party living in his guest house and eating at his dinner table. Yeah, that’s our boy Trump.

    IMO, you need more data before you throw that one around. At least if you are totally objective and independent about it :>)

  8. Glenn Nunya

    Not safe betting that Trump will “win”. The centers of Leftist Vote Cheating – those select 5 or 6 counties in various “blue” states whose cheating, like it or not, is overwhelmingly provable and damned well still in action — will just manufacture votes until Christmas ’24 if that’s what it takes. It probably will because Trump will have probably actually won by “HUUUUGE” margins. But the Libtards blinded by the constant MSM bombardment of propaganda will rejoice in their supposed “victory”, still unaware that we’re ALL being screwed, and that their pretend votes for their particular Bailiwick will someday be just as ignored.

  9. frank stetson

    Horist: we agree there is not enough evidence to try Trump on Russia gate. Where we disagree is that you feel Mueller has stated; Trump is fully exonerated. I feel Muller has said, we cannot prove guilt. There’s a slight difference although the bottom line of not proceeding is the same for both outcomes. How can there ever be full exoneration if there is obstruction of justice?

    One more time: yes, he’s innocent, but he’s not as pure as driven snow. Quite the opposite.

    You state: “Mueller CLEARLY stated that no one — including Trump campaign — were involved in the Russian meddling.” Really? Because it seemed the report said there’s not evidence to indict with the caveat being based on the information collected from folks caught lying and obstructing justice regarding what happened. A number were thrown in jail for it for which they were all freed in a short period of time.

    You are right on obstruction being the target of that quote, my bad. There’s so much comingling of media threads but Mueller himself has hedged similarly for the Russian meddling often saying “read the report, that’s my testimony.” No where can I find him saying exonerated for the meddling. Can you actually source that?

    IMO, it still comes down to the fact that Mueller found insufficient evidence establishing Trump and his campaign had engaged in a criminal conspiracy with Russia. That is not exoneration, there’s a nuance here. It’s not that he said “couldn’t find a shred of evidence, he said “insufficient.” Nuance. Especially when joined with the apparent multiple crimes of lying and criminal obstruction of justice which Trump himself has often said is proof of guilt. Trump obstructed justice, Team Trump obstructed justice, Trump was too afraid to tell his story under oath, many lied, and Trump offered pardons and protections to all to freely obstruct justice as well, which they did. So, Mueller crapped out and did not find the goods but neither did he totally exonerate the President and his minions from conspiring with the Russians; he just could not prove it, especially with all the obstruction, the ones we could prove as follows:

    Roger Stone once met with a Russian trying to sell him Hillary’s financials, was guilty of obstructing an official proceeding, witness tampering, and lying to congress in regard to the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 US election and his involvement with WikiLeaks. Guilty on seven charges. Why, if totally exoneration was coming because they did nothing wrong.

    Michael Flynn, shortest tenue ever as National Security Advisor, dismissed from this position and pled guilty to making false statements to FBI investigators about his conversations with Russian Ambassador to the United States Sergey Kislyak during the presidential transition.

    Rick Gates, Trump Deputy Campaign Chairman, indicted for work with pro-Russian Ukrainians. He got those dropped by pleading guilty to conspiracy against the United States for making false statements in the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections.

    George Papadopoulos, Trump campaign foreign policy adviser, convicted for making false statements to the

    Alex van der Zwaan, pled guilty to making a false statement to investigators while answering questions about Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections.

    All guilty, all lying about Russia, all pardoned by Trump. It’s good to be friends of the King.

    Mr. Horist: on the facts, I take it you agree that:
    – Team Trump had over 140 Russian contacts, many with Russian spies, before the election.
    – Team Trump campaign manager shared strategy information with the Russians
    – Team Trump obstructed the Mueller investigation into the Russian meddling by lying about the Russians, working with them, sharing information with the Russians.

    Can you provide a plausible explanation to that? Has any other Presidential campaign ever taking similar actions with ANY foreign sovereign nation. Even England or Canada much less our major adversary in this world? How do you explain that? I have said before, impeachment is not a court of law, it’s a different standard. My feeling is that you let the standard crash and now you reap the results. We told you he was dirty in business, he was dirty in the 2016 election, he was dirty in office, and he will do it again, only bigger, if you let him continue. Republicans had a choice, perhaps more difficult for Russiagate, but a no-brainer for Ukraine-gate. “I need a favor.” Come on. You know when your defense is “it’s legal,” you have morality problems.

    You are correct on the obstruction comment; however, Mueller consistently stated similar comments for the Russian meddling which, as you note, happened, and as Mueller noted — with over 140 Russian/team trump contacts, many with Russian spies, Team Trump did nothing to discourage it, report it, stop it, and the Trump campaign manager even gave voter data and strategy data to the Russians. What could be wrong with that?

    When Nadler asked directly, under oath, to Mueller: “Did you actually totally exonerate the president?” Nadler asked Mueller during the first hearing. “No,” Mueller replied.

    Point is meddling occurred, Team Trump met with Russians over a hundred times, often with spies, Team Trump obstructed justice, lying, badgering witnesses, which tends to point to a more serious underlying crime, we put the liars in jail, and Trump let every one of them go free. Perhaps if we had let them rot a bit more in jail they might offer to tell the truth. We will never know.

    If you see folks lying about a crime, tossed in jail, pardoned, do you automatically cry out: “full exoneration?” Mueller did not. Next, the Muller testimony, better known as The Report.

  10. frank stetson

    Mueller testimony (that’s what HE calls it) From the Mueller Report: “As set forth in detail in this report, the Special Counsel’s investigation established that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election principally through two operations. First, a Russian entity carried out a social media campaign that favored presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Second, a Russian intelligence service conducted computer-intrusion operations against entities, employees, and volunteers working on the Clinton Campaign and then released stolen documents. The investigation also identified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign. Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.

    Second, while the investigation identified numerous links between individuals with ties to the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign, the evidence was not sufficient to support criminal charges. Among other things, the evidence was not sufficient to charge any Campaign official as an unregistered agent of the Russian government or other Russian principal. And our evidence about the June 9, 2016 meeting and WikiLeaks’s releases of hacked materials was not sufficient to charge a criminal campaign-finance violation. Further, the evidence was not sufficient to charge that any member of the Trump Campaign conspired with representatives of the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 election.

    Third, the investigation established that several individuals affiliated with the Trump Campaign lied to the Office, and to Congress, about their interactions with Russian-affiliated individuals and related matters. Those lies materially impaired the investigation of Russian election interference. The Office charged some of those lies as violations of the federal false-statements statute. Former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn pleaded guilty to lying about his interactions with Russian Ambassador Kislyak during the transition period. George Papadopoulos, a foreign policy advisor during the campaign period, pleaded guilty to lying to investigators about, inter alia, the nature and timing of his interactions with Joseph Mifsud, the professor who told Papadopoulos that the Russians had dirt on candidate Clinton in the form of thousands of emails. Former Trump Organization attorney Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to making false statements to Congress about the Trump Moscow project. Harm to Ongoing Matter And in February 2019, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia found that Manafort lied to the Office and the grand jury concerning his interactions and communications with Konstantin Kilimnik about Trump Campaign polling data and a peace plan for Ukraine.
    Accordingly, while this report embodies factual and legal determinations that the Office believes to be accurate and complete to the greatest extent possible, given these identified gaps, the Office cannot rule out the possibility that the unavailable information would shed additional light on (or cast in a new light) the events described in the report.”

    Bottom Line:
    1. Illegal meddling by Russia
    2. Many Trump links to Russia, not sufficient evidence to charge,
    3. Lies materially impaired investigation by obstructing the truth to justice, people put in jail, office can not rule out the possibility that unavailable info would add truth or show a different conclusion.

    And that’s it Mr. Horist, not exactly a total exoneration, according to Mueller and his report.

    The point is that the crime and the obstruction are interwoven, you can’t have one without the other. To get to the crime, to get to the truth, you must remove the obstruction. We jailed it, Trump let it go free, we could not get the obstructed facts into the light because the lies were protected by the President and Congress too partisan to act upon the lies. No full exoneration therefore. Instead, just the “not enough evidence to convict.” Here’s a summary quote from Mueller’s “testimony:”

    “Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President’s conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.” Until the obstruction is removed, we will never know the whole truth.

    And Trump let them all go free.

    How you can overlook all this, prepare to support the guy in 2024, fully knowing he will do it again, faster, harder, and more extensive if you give him the power again. “They let you do it. You can do anything. Grab ’em by the pussy” was thought to be “locker-room trash talk” by Republicans. Braggadocio. It was right as rain. This time he states his mission will be: “In 2016, I declared: I am your voice. Today, I add: I am your warrior. I am your justice. And for those who have been wronged and betrayed: I am your retribution.”

    Better believe it. I do.

  11. William Manning

    AS OF 1954, J. E. HOOVER OF THE FBI, REFUSED TO ALLOW CATHOLICS AS AGENTS. [AS CAUSE; AGENTS OF A FORIEGN POWER]
    WITH THE CREATION OF THE CIA CATHOLIC’S BECAME FBI AGENTS BUT IN SEPERATE WASHINGTON, DC [UNIT CALLED “METRO”]
    FROM THEN ON “CUBA, JFK ASSINATION, WATERGATE [FAKE FLAG BAG JOB] PENTAGON PAPERS, AND SO MUCH MORE.

    NIXON’S EXPLAINATION IN HIS BOOK “WATERGATE” HE REMINDES US THE OF PAST HISTORY THE FACIEST CATHOLICS COLLECTIVELY IN GOVERNMENT CALLED “TAMMANY HALL” AND BOSS TWEED. ONCE CATHOLICS DOMINATE A AREA, ONLY CATHOLICS CAN HAVE JOBS IN GOVERNMENT. [MOSTLY AFTER PAYING A FEE TO THE DEMOCRAT PARTY, PRIEST, PRESIDENT, OR MAYOR]

    I LIVE IN SOUTH TEXAS, AS CATHOLICS DOMINATE GOVERNMENT, THEN “NOTHING SEEMS TO WORK,” WHILE ALL THE CASH DISAPEARS TO ROME BANKS. IF NOTHING WORKS IN YOUR CITY, LOOK AT THE EARLY BEGINNINGS OF YOUR LEADERS, FOR CATHOLIC BEGINNINGS. THEN YOU WILL UNDERSTAND WHAT I SAY IS TRUE.

    IF YOU HAVE READ “JOE KENNEDY; THE FOUNDING FATHER.” [FOUNDING FATHER OF THE CATHOLIC OVERTHROW OF AMERICA FOR THE POPE]. IF YOU DON’T BELIEVE HIM, THEN READ RANDOLF HEARST REPORTS OF CATHOLIC DOMINATION OF CALIFORNIA; COMPLETE WITH HIS BUILDING A CASTLE FOR THE POPE, TO MOVE TO AND TO LIVE IN SAN FRANCISCO.

    IF YOU DISMISS ALL THIS AS “A CRAZY TRAIN” OF NUTS. VIEW THE BORDER PROBLEMS AS THEY BOLSTER THEIR CATHOLIC VOTERS TO AMERICAN CITIES, TO GET CONTROL OF THE POLITICAL LANDSCAPE, AND STEAL THE PUBLIC CASH.

    LET ME REMIND YOU IN DENVER IT WAS DECIDED TO BUILD A NEW AIRPORT FOR 2 MILLION DOLLARS. AFTER LONG CONSTRUCTION AND DELAYS IT WAS FINISHED AT A $235 MILLION PRICE TAG [IN CONSTRUCTION BOND SALES BY
    DENVER TAXPAYERS] THEN; TWO MONTS LATER THE POPE ARRIVES IN HIS PERSONAL JET TO CARRY OFF THE CASH.
    IN A ALL SECRET DEAL, AND NO CUSTOMS INSPECTIONS.

    I AM HOPEING THAT YOU ARE NOT THAT STUPID, TO THINK ALL THIS IS JUST NORMAL BUSINESS OR HEADLINES.

    MEXICANS ARE TRICKED OR PAID TO COME TO TEXAS. AS THEY ARRIVE NOT ONE WILL HAVE A CRAFT OR PROFESSION.
    [WATCH TV “BORDER WARS” AS THEY ARE ASK WHAT TYPE OF JOB THEY WANT? THEY ALL ANSWER; “WHAT EVER JOB SOME ONE WILL GIVE ME.” IN MEXICO IF YOU LEARN A SKILL YOU WILL LIVE FINE AND LIVE HIGH ON THE HOG, FOR A MEXICAN LIFE.

    THE BORDER CROSSERS ARE THE MEXICANS “MEXICANS” DONT WANT IN “THEIR” CITY. WELL FUNNY BUT TRUE.
    SO NOW THEY ARE IN YOUR CITY. THESE ARE SAVAGES, RIGHT OUT OF THE TREES, DEEP IN MEXICO. LET THEM USE YOUR BATHROOM FOR A MONTH, AND YOU WILL BE ASTONISHED WHAT THEY USE THE FIXTERS FOR. [TRY IT – THEY HAVE NEVER SEEN SUCH THINGS.. THEN AS THEY ARRIVE THEY WILL SPRAY PAINT EVERTYHING WITHN STRANGE FIGURES AND GANG NAMES. AFTER THAT THEY WILL CUT DOWN MOST ANY TREE [USUALLY NO TREES IN MEXICO] THEN THEY WILL KILL THE GRASS LANDSCAPING [WITH WEED KILLER] TO HAVE DIRT TO PLAY SOCCER ON, JUST LIKE THEIR OLD HOME.

    FRIEND I COULD GO ON FOR YEARS.
    BUT YOU BETTER KNOW “WHAT A MEXICAN IS THINKING….BEFORE HE THINKS IT! THAT IS IF YOU WANT TO LIVE SAFTLY IN THAT ENVIREMENT IN YOUR CATHOLIC AREA. YOUR KIDS WILL BE SEXUALLY ASSAULTED BY CATHOLIC PRIEST, OR KIDNAPPED AND SOLD AS SEX SLAVES, TO EUROPEAN MARKETS.

    SO I HAVE OVER SEVENTY YEARS OF THIS KIND OF LIFE, AS OUR SLEEPY CITY WAS TAKEN OVER BY CATHOLIC PRIEST AND CHURCHES, JUST OVER WHELMED BY CATHOLIC PEOPLE, AS THEY VOTE INN CATHOLIC POLICE AND POLITITIONS. YOUR CITY WILL TURN INTO A VIOLENT GETTO. THEY WILL RUN OUT ALL BLACK PEOPLE AS THEIR WILL BE NO JOBS FOR THEM.

    TAKE THIS AS A WARNING….JOE BIDEN IS CATHOLIC, AND AS CROOKED AS ANY BORDER MEXICAN. THEY ALL ARE MARCHING FOR THE SAME GOAL. TO TAKE YOUR LIFE FOR THEIR VERY OWN WHILE YOU MOVE FROM THIS COUNTRY TO SAFER AREAS.

    DON’T BE THAT DUMB; THEY HAVE BEEN DOING EXACTLY THAT FOR 6000 YEARS UNCHECKED. AMERICA WAS FOUNDED ON THE IDEA AS A SAFE PLACE FOR NON-CATHOLICS TO LIVE WITH FREEDOM. AMERICA ENDED THE ROMAN EMPIRE, AND STOPED ITS RE- FORMATION IN WORLD WAR II. SO NOW THEY ARE TRYING TO END AMERICA SO THEY CAN REFORM THE “ROMAN CATHOLIC EMPIRE.

    LOOK ONLY CATHOLIC’S KILL JEWS, OTHERS THINK JEWS ARE FINE. THE MUSILUM “SHEETIE” SECT ARE VERY CATHOLIC AND FIGHTING THE “SUNNIES-MUSLIUM” FOR CONTROL. THE BUDIST “SHINTO” ARE VERY CATHOLIC AND ARE RULED BY ROME.”
    IN VIET NAM THE SHINTO BUDIST INVADED VIET-NAM, THE BUDIST REPELED THEM TO SAVE THEIR COUNTRY, WITH THE HELP OF CHINA AND RUSSIA.

    YES AS A MARINE, IN DANANG IN 1966, 67,68, IN THE “1st MARINE AIR WING HEADQUARTERS” OFTEN SENT TO GEN. WESTMORLAND HEADQUARTERS FOR UP DATES AND REPORTS.
    SO TODAY ALL SOUTH VIETNAMEESE CAME TO AMERICA AS CATHOLICS AND SUPPORTED BY CATHOLIC CHARITYS, INVADED YOUR CITYS.

    BUT THEN IN IRAQ IN 2003,2004, I WAS IN CHARGE OF OPERATIONS OF THE “BAGHDAD POLICE STATION” I SERVED AND LEARNED THE OLD LESSON CATHOLICS WANT TO RULE OR THE JUST KILL ALL INFADEL NON-CATHOLIC FOLKS LIKE YOU.

    BAGHDAD STREETS ARE JUST LIKE MEXICO STREETS/ BUILDINGS. THE PEOPLE BROWN JUST LIKE MEXICAN. GO TO MATAMORES, MEX AND SEE WHAT BAGHDAD REALLY LOOKS LIKE.

    DON’T BE FOOLED TO THINK ANY DIFFERANT. VOTE TO SAVE YOUR CITY “NO BOSS TWEED – TAMMANY HALL IN YOUR AREA

    • larry Horist

      William Manning … Since you were in Vietnam, I assume you are an old guy. My only hope is that before you check out you and rid yourself of your burdensome ignorance and hatred. If you cannot, you deserve to live with the angst and unhappiness you have allowed to take over you life. If you are a Christian, you seem to have forgotten Jesus’ admission to live they neighbor as thyself. If you cannot, you will hate your neighbor as you hate yourself.