(C) Daily Kos This story was originally published by Daily Kos and is unaltered. . . . . . . . . . . New: Jack Smith investigating possible campaign finance violations [1] ['This Content Is Not Subject To Review Daily Kos Staff Prior To Publication.', 'Backgroundurl Avatar_Large', 'Nickname', 'Joined', 'Created_At', 'Story Count', 'N_Stories', 'Comment Count', 'N_Comments', 'Popular Tags'] Date: 2023-04-04 Special Counsel Jack Smith is investigating possible campaign finance violations by Donald Trump We should be referring to the case Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg is bringing against Donald Trump as election interference or as campaign finance violations instead of as the “hush money” case if the case does revolve around payments which were meant to influence the election by buying the silence of Stormy Daniels and, possibly, Karen McDougal. I believe that I first learned that this is the better way to refer to this issue from Ms. Agnifilo, the former number 2 prosecutor in the office of the Manhattan District Attorney where she spent almost 30 years of her career. Some prosecutors and others who are not MAGA Republicans and who dislike Donald Trump believe that if the case that District Attorney Bragg is bringing against him involves or revolves around campaign finance violations, then it is a weak case, a case without precedent, and that it is not a case that should be brought against former President Trump. Significantly, Ms. Agnifilo disagrees and she knows the office and the laws of New York as well as almost anybody who is not in the office right now. There are other prominent prosecutors who disagree with that view, the view of the skeptics of this case, as well. Having said that, for most of the skeptics who are not MAGA Republicans, the primary issue is that Donald Trump was a federal candidate in a federal election and it’s not obvious to them how a violation of federal campaign law by a federal candidate is a state crime. Some of these people may oppose bringing a campaign finance violation against the former president. It’s not worth our time to debate this with these people because that’s an absurd proposition. It’s bad enough that billionaires can contribute as much money as they want to political action committees, PACS, and Super PACS. However, it would be much worse if they could contribute directly to a candidate and their campaign as much as they want. A candidate and their campaign has a strategist, a pollster who gains far better and more accurate information than a public pollster, a messaging guru, and other campaign staff. Due to better polling data and better and more information, a candidate’s campaign learns where their candidate is strong and where their candidate is weak, geographically, in terms of messaging, and demographically. They likely learn the same about their opponent. The candidate’s campaign simply has better and more information. That means that any money that the candidate gets through their campaign has a better chance of being spent effectively compared to a Super PAC. While a PAC or Super PAC can monitor the campaign advertisements of the candidate and try to follow suit, it’s difficult to do so, especially in a timely fashion. Thus, the money would be much better and effectively spent by a candidate and their campaign than a PAC or Super PAC. Hence, campaign contribution limits really are important and they do help protect our democracy. Therefore, taking away any campaign contribution limits would dramatically affect our elections. I, therefore, believe that a violation of campaign finance law should be prosecuted. It’s not worth our time to try to convince those who don’t think that violations of campaign finance laws by former presidents should not be prosecuted. They are wrong because (1) not having limits to how much money individuals can contribute would dramatically weaken our democracy [as I pointed out above] and (2) nobody is above the law. However, there are prosecutors and others who believe that violations of federal campaign finance laws by former presidents and all others should be prosecuted, but that a district attorney prosecuting state crimes will have difficulty getting a conviction of a federal candidate in a federal election for violating federal campaign finance laws. On the other hand, they may believe that a federal prosecutor would have a much greater chance of success prosecuting a federal candidate in a federal election than a local district attorney. Such a person should be heartened to hear that, “By the way, one of the things Special Counsel Jack Smith is investigating is campaign finance violations by Donald Trump through his political action groups and how he’s made false representations to donors and how he may have misappropriated funds there as well. “ (Ben Meiselas). x YouTube Video This may be well known, but I have tried to stay on top of the investigations, although I have focused more on the Bragg’s grand jury’s indictment lately. Rachel Maddow said, “What’s Trump’s month going to look like? This week, he’s in New York to be arraigned and arrested. Next week, he has to be in New York again to be deposed in the quarter billion dollar civil fraud suit that the New York Attorney General has brought against him and his adult children. The week after that is when the Fox Dominion Case is supposed to go to trial. If the disclosures in that trial are anything to go by, that will mean among other things, that will mean lots more headlines about the most influential right wing media figures secretly hating Trump’s guts and telling people behind the scenes when nobody’s watching how dumb and terrible and wrong Trump is, that will be a nice week for him. Then, the week after that, the E. Jean Carroll case goes to trial in which case he’s accused of raping E. Jean Carroll and then lying about it. I mean that’s what April looks like in his calendar. That’s what the next four weeks are like for him in his calendar. “ Donald Trump lost the popular vote in 2016 as he lost it in 2020. However, he did narrowly win the electoral college in 2016. If 40,000 votes flipped from Trump to Secretary Clinton in the 2016 election in the right amounts and in the right places, and certainly this could have happened as a result of hearing about the Stormy Daniels scandal, then Secretary Clinton would have won the election. Therefore, this could have altered who won the 2016 presidential election. Thus, I consider it fairly important. x YouTube Video . . I love S.E. Cupp here! I think I have heard of her before, but don’t remember anything about her. But what she said in this video is awesome. So much truth in so little time! How do you thread the needle here and what do you do if you’re a potential rival because you need the base support. (In Pod Save America Dan Pfeiffer points out there are a certain group of republicans who appear to want to move on from Trump, but every time there is an opportunity to get rid of him, they and everybody else in the right wing insane asylum immediately rush to defend Trump because there WILL BE SHORT TERM PAIN and you WILL LOSE some of the Trump base by not defending him and more if you actually speak out against him. However, while he may boost the cumulative total of republican votes nationally, he boosts turnout against even more. So, if you want to win elections, you have to bite the bullet and let Trump go down and not defend him even though it will cost you in the short term). But at the same time, this is a chance to needle at Donald Trump with all the baggage that he brings right? S.E. Cupp, “I think you let the court of public opinion do that for you. I think if you’re running against Donald Trump, David Challian is right. The field’s frozen. There’s really nowhere for them to go. You’re not going to win any voters on the right. And we’re still in a primary by applauding this decision or you know or dunking on Donald Trump right now. So, I think they’re doing the right thing. But I think when it comes to the politics of this, it’s really important to remember. I think I think that this indictment is coming in spite of politics, because if you were trying to orchestrate a political takedown of Donald Trump, you wouldn’t start with this charge, but also it’s important to look at the people who are outraged, right. The folks running against Donald Trump, the Tucker Carlsons, the Fox News, the Republican Trump surrogates, these are people who are outraged by this indictment. They were not outraged by Trump’s attempt to overturn a democratic and fair election. They were not outraged by the violence on January 6. They were not outraged by an illegal phone call to the Georgia Secretary of State, an illegal phone call to Volodymyr Zelenskyy. They’re not outraged by multiple, credible accusations of sexual harassment, assault, and rape. They’re not outraged by Trump’s sexist, bigoted, homophobic, xenophobic rhetoric. They’re not outraged by his white nationalism. They’re not outraged by his defense of anti-Semitism and Neo-Nazis. They’re not outraged by all that stuff. So, with all due respect, no one should care that these people are outraged by this indictment. x YouTube Video . . [END] --- [1] Url: https://www.dailykos.com/story/2023/4/4/2161996/-New-Jack-Smith-investigating-possible-campaign-finance-violations Published and (C) by Daily Kos Content appears here under this condition or license: Site content may be used for any purpose without permission unless otherwise specified. via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds: gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/dailykos/