The judge in the case Monday reinforced that this is also about whether Trump’s actions “unlawfully influence[d]” the election. Here’s what we can say about the impact.
Then-Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump and Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton debate in St. Louis in October 2016. The fact that Donald Trump has been indicted four times means we all must use shorthand to differentiate between the cases. So one case is the “classified documents” case. We’ve got the twin federal and Georgia “election subversion” or “Jan. 6” cases.
One is that Trump’s victory came by less than one percentage point in the decisive states. He won Michigan by 0.2 percent, Pennsylvania by 0.7 percent and Wisconsin by 0.8 percent: Change 78,000 votes in those states or shift the entire electorate just one point toward Hillary Clinton, and Trump is never president.The other is that Trump appears to have won because voters who were undecided late in the race broke strongly for him.
It’s tempting to say that it wouldn’t have. Voters, after all, elected Trump despite learning a month before Election Day about thein which Trump mused about sexually abusing women. Trump overcame any number of other controversies to get elected. And late decidersBut just because Trump won doesn’t mean he was Teflon. Punditry often devolves into treating every attack on a winner as a failure, because they won. But sometimes things do damage a winning candidate — just not enough to lose.
Of course, media coverage of alleged Trump affairs followed him for decades, so perhaps it was baked-in to his brand by that point. And given the affair likely wouldn’t have been and still hasn’t been proven — Trump has always denied it, though he’s— maybe voters would simply chalk it up to being unknowable. Perhaps they would even view it as a last-minute dirty trick from a disreputable character — an adult film actress.
Indonesia Berita Terbaru, Indonesia Berita utama
Similar News:Anda juga dapat membaca berita serupa dengan ini yang kami kumpulkan dari sumber berita lain.
Opinion: Why the hush money trial judge was rightTrump can’t actually believe he’s completely immune from prosecution, law professor David Orentlicher notes.
Baca lebih lajut »
Katyal reveals why he 'strongly suspects' Trump will be convicted in hush money caseThis is additional taxonomy that helps us with analytics
Baca lebih lajut »
Insight into why we have emotional difficulties trumps managing emotions.Longer-term psychodynamic psychotherapy has advantages over brief approaches to self-improvement like CBT and metacognition.
Baca lebih lajut »
Trump Attacks Judge's Daughter in Attempt to Remove Judge from Hush-Money TrialFormer President Donald Trump intensifies his attacks against the daughter of the judge overseeing his hush-money criminal trial in New York, citing her Democratic ties and making dubious claims about her online posts. The judge broadens the gag order and states that Trump's rhetoric threatens the integrity of the upcoming trial.
Baca lebih lajut »
Judge in hush money case hits Trump with partial gag orderDareh Gregorian is a politics reporter for NBC News.
Baca lebih lajut »
Trump hush money case: Judge issues gag orderA New York judge has issued a gag order barring Donald Trump from commenting publicly about witnesses, prosecutors, court staff and jurors in his upcoming hush-money criminal trial. The order cites the former president’s history of “threatening, inflammatory, denigrating” remarks about people involved in his legal cases. Judge Juan M.
Baca lebih lajut »