Tucker Carlson

Indicting Trump is an abuse of power

Make no mistake, this is a turning point for the country.

Published

8 months ago

March 21, 2023

Alan Rugger

Tucker looks at why Donald Trump might possibly be indicted and questions whether that’s even illegal and punishable at this point. Highlights include:

“The dominant rumor on the internet over the weekend was that Donald Trump will soon be indicted, possibly even handcuffed on camera. Is that true? We can’t say. We do know that Trump is the subject of a grand jury investigation in Manhattan, that’s a city that voted against Donald Trump by almost 80% in the last presidential election. We also know that the grand jury was empaneled by a Soros-funded DA called Alvin Bragg.”

“So we would assume on the basis of that evidence that’s it’s pretty likely Trump does get charged with something at some point, but charged with what? That’s the question that should matter. In a free country, laws are universal. Laws apply to all citizens equally precisely because all citizens are considered equal.”

“Eight years ago as he was running for president, Trump paid a porn actress named Stormy Daniels $130,000. Daniels alleged that she and Trump had at one point had sex. Trump denied that, he still denies it. But in exchange for promising not to repeat that claim in public, Trump through his then attorney Michael Cohen, sent Stormy Daniels a check. Was that legal?.”

“Because there was a campaign in progress at the time, officials at the Federal Election Commission later examined the transaction between Trump and Stormy Daniels. Federal investigators concluded that nothing criminal had taken place, and in fact, settlements like this, whatever you think of them, are common, both among famous people, ‘celebrities’ and in corporate America. The result is usually known as a NDA, a non-disclosure agreement.”

“It didn’t really answer the question. Why are we handcuffing Donald Trump? Liberals don’t seem to care at all as long as it happens, as long as Trump gets handcuffed. But, in fact there’s plenty of evidence that Trump committed no crime in sending money to Stormy Daniels.”

“We don’t have to guess. Consider the case of former North Carolina senator John Edwards. Long after Edwards left office, Barak Obama’s DOJ charged him with federal finance violations. So, the premise of the case against John Edwards was that he had received $1 million in gifts and that he spent that money in ‘hush money’ payments to his mistress with whom he later had a child. Obama’s DOJ argued that the money Edwards sent to his girlfriend amounted to ‘campaign contributions.’ Edwards never reported that money, so Obama’s DOJ tried to send him to prison.”

“Well, in the end, the case fell apart under the weight of its own incoherence. So, Obama’s lawyers argued that any payment that could conceivably help a political candidate politically is by definition a campaign expenditure. There’s no law that says that, by the way, they just made it up. But if you think about it for a second, it doesn’t make sense. If that were true, flip it around. It would mean that candidates could use donor money and also taxpayer money in the form of federal matching funds to pay for any personal expense as long as that expense could conceivably benefit them politically.”

“Not surprisingly, John Edwards was acquitted in that case.”

“What’s interesting is even as Bragg has been single-mindedly focused on Donald Trump and his ‘crimes,’ sending money to a porn star, he has been not only ignoring real crimes, but downgrading felonies to misdemeanors and letting actual violent criminals out of jail as quickly as possible. On his first day in office, first day, Bragg, consistent with the ideas of the man who paid for his campaign, George Soros, issued a memo explaining his office will ‘not seek a corsarial sentence except in cases involving homicides, economic crimes, and a small number of felonies.’”

“Bragg seems to be alleging that Trump violated New York’s Business Record Act by falsely reporting the payout to Stormy Daniels as ‘legal fees.’ Now, if this were true, it would constitute a misdemeanor and the statute of limitations has already run out for that, for the bookkeeping error, assuming it even happened. But Bragg apparently is thinking about charging Trump under a felony version of the Business Records Law, one that punishes businesses for falsifying records as a way to commit another separate crime. That would be the campaign finance violation, which as we mentioned, was not a campaign finance violation, and we know that from the FEC, which policies campaign finance violations. By the way, if it were, that would be a federal crime, not something that Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan DA would be prosecuting.”

“Make no mistake, this is a turning point for the country. Now, the headline here is not that they’re being unfair to Donald Trump again, though of course they are, or even that Trump is the former president of the United States. Who cares? Though, as long as we are indicting retired presidents, where are the charges against George W Bush for invading Iraq under false pretenses and giving permanent normalized trade relations to China, which completely wrecked our economy?”

“What happens if they get away with this? If they use the Justice Department, in full view of everyone, to settle a political score and to keep the White House, just to take a guy out of the race who seems to be doing fairly well? We’ll destroy the justice system, and that’s not a small thing. A functioning justice system has kept this country peaceful for hundreds of years. The purpose of a justice system is to administer justice so that citizens don’t have to do it themselves, you outsource that duty to the government. But what happens when you take that away, when there is no justice system?”

Watch the video below and give us your thoughts in the comments:

We'd love to hear your thoughts about this article. Please take a minute to share them in the comment section by clicking here. Or carry the conversation over on your favorite social network by clicking one of the share buttons below.

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

Up Next

Tucker: This is malicious

Don't Miss

Zelenskyy is demanding you send your kids to war

Tucker Carlson

Tucker: Ep. 39 Candace Owens responds to Ben Shapiro.

They can’t point to a specific sentence that I said that was wrong, it’s more about how they’re reading into the sentence.

Published

1 week ago

November 20, 2023

Alan Rugger

Politicrossing. The Intersection of Faith and Politics.

Are you a conservative business person? Then check out the Red Referral Network and partner with Dinesh D’Souza by clicking the banner below:

Tucker talks with Candace Owens about debating intelligently and remaining moderate when people on both sides of an argument seem to be rushing to emotion and extremism. Highlights include:

“I think what tends to happen is they have too much ego and they’re too proud and they want to sort-of move on and pretend that they weren’t as radical as they were in their stances, in calling you a grandma killer, you know, if you wanted to go out the door and get groceries or if you wanted to maybe see your grandma because grandma shouldn’t be dying alone even if she is dying. So, it takes a tremendous amount of humility to admit that you were wrong. People prefer to then pretend the internet will forget and just that they had more nuance than they did on the nuance of the day.”

“I’ve been speaking out against this for years, and now you’re demanding that I use my platform to focus on a conflict that’s overseas, and the answer I tend to get is no, I didn’t talk about what was happening, I didn’t realize it was happening, so it actually is quite a selfish viewpoint, which we all have, we’re all guilty of, we write ourselves into the storyline, how is this going to affect me? And that is, I think why it feels existential for other people and not existential for people who have been dealing with this for the last decade.”

“Some people are just now jumping into this dialogue and I don’t fault them their emotion, but I’m not going to become a radical and rise to that level of emotion. I think my takes have been very moderate, even people that are reading into things that I haven’t said are unable to explain to me why what I’m saying is not okay. They can’t point to a specific sentence that I said that was wrong, it’s more about how they’re reading into the sentence…Which, if it’s how you’re reading into it, that’s your emotion.”

“What we’re seeing right now is things that are being perceived as a discrimination and it’s not discrimination, I’m just treating you the same as everyone has been treated throughout, at least, my dialogues and monologues throughout the last six or seven years.”

“They get a little taste of what they can earn for themselves and they kind of go further into this and it actually doesn’t become about America at all, and I think at this particular moment you are seeing a fracturing on the right. There are people that are pro-America, America first…and it absolutely makes my skin crawl when tie America’s success to what we have to do overseas. I believe in national sovereignty, I believe that America has what it takes here at home to be a great nation, and actually, I think history sort-of tells us that once we started this campaign of international liberalism following World War 2, things kind of started falling apart…Socially, morally, economically, this has been a nation that’s in decline.”

“There are a lot of different people that I admire, but I think what they all have in common is an underlying belief in freedom and a hatred for people who are trying to tell you it’s freedom when they are trying to censor you and to belittle you and to smear you and to libel you.”

“It will always pay in the long run to stay on the side of morality, to be moderate in your opinions, to not ever fault yourself for wanting to feed your family first.”

“I would say that I became laser focused and I’ve never felt more secure. I’ve never felt more sure that I will land on my two feet if I follow a path that I deem to be righteous, and I am not speaking these things to myself. That’s God operating. That is God that is operating and is the call upon all people to be righteous in their approaches to things, and that can be very difficult in politics. But, I’m confident, and I think people are…very angry about that confidence, I think they can see the happiness that I have and they’re angry because that means that’s less of an ability to control what I say and what I think.

You can find the links below and leave your thoughts in the comments.

https://x.com/TuckerCarlson/status/1724924211150389280?s=20

Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) / X (twitter.com)

Tucker Carlson

The two defining tragedies of our time: the war in Ukraine and the presidency of Joe Biden

Obviously it’s not a principal if the only time you defend free speech is when it comes to views you agree with.

Published

3 weeks ago

November 8, 2023

Alan Rugger

Are you a conservative business person? Then check out the Red Referral Network and partner with Dinesh D’Souza by clicking the banner below:

Tucker interviews Glenn Greenwald, host of “System Update” on Rumble, on the war in Ukraine,the hypocrisy of those people only supporting free speech when it suits them, and the state of Donald Trump’s campaign. Highlights include:

“The two defining tragedies of our time, the war in Ukraine and the presidency of Joe Biden, are finally both inevitably coming to an end, both have outlived their usefulness.”

“We were accused of not caring about the Ukrainians, of cheering for the Russians, when none of that was true. All along the point was that there was no way Ukraine could possibly win a war against Russia, a country way larger with a much better military, even if NATO is behind it. The only thing that’s gonna happen is that this war will be prolonged, huge numbers of young Ukrainians and then older Ukrainians, not people who’ve volunteered, but who are conscripts, Zelenskyy has been fighting with a conscript army since the beginning, are going to die, and at the end there’s going to be a negotiation that says that Russia will end up being able to protect the part of eastern Ukraine it believes had people in it who are largely Russian…who are being oppressed by Kiev, they will keep Crimea, there’s no way for these maximalist war aims ever to be achieved…and now here we are two years later.”

“Now they’re finally telling the Ukrainians and so is NATO, look, the gig is up, it’s time for you to sit down at the negotiating table. And now we’re now in a position where NATO has to beg Russia to be happy to keep 20% of Ukraine, which is what they’ve controlled pretty much without any change for the last year or even year and a half as tens of billions of dollars were wasted and thousands upon thousands of lives were extinguished.”

“One of the things that is, I think the greatest fraud of this war, is that the people who kept claiming they were so concerned about Ukrainians were, in fact, totally indifferent to the Ukrainians. They were willing to sacrifice Ukrainians and Ukraine at the altar of getting back at Russia, I think, in large part, because they wanted to extract vengeance against Russia for what they perceive to be Russia’s role in helping Donald Trump win the 2016 election … and they were willing to sacrifice an entire country and to wipe out tens of thousands of lives of young people who didn’t want to fight in order to fulfill their political goal of extracting vengeance against Russia.”

“They’re invoking all the theories that the liberal left have been invoking for years now to justify censorship of the views they dislike. Oh, this is inciting violence, this is going to far, this is hate speech, this is against a vulnerable minority group, and now we’re seeing the same kind of erosion of free speech here in the United States on the part of Americans because now there’s another foreign war. That’s always part of the equation, the domestic aspect to it, that’s more power in the government and takes away more and more rights from Americans.”

“Obviously it’s not a principal if they only time you defend free speech is when it comes to views you agree with. Anybody can do that, that’s easy to do, that’s worthless. The only real test of whether you believe in free speech is whether you defend the right to express the views you find most offensive, and a lot of conservatives, not all, are woefully failing that test.”

“What this shows is that Americans have really come to the conclusion that our leading institutions of authority are radically corrupted. Our media outlets are radically corrupted, the department of justice and the legal system has been aggressively politicized. So now Donald Trump is in a position where he’s facing serious felony charges, I don’t think they’re serious in the sense that they’re real, but they’re serious in the sense that if he’s convicted he’ll go to jail…and yet his lead is expanding over Joe Biden…”

“That is the good news, that these institutions where people have lost faith in deserve to have lost their faith and trust, deserve to have lost their faith and trust, they deserve the contempt and hatred they provoke, and it’s good that Americans are recognizing that. And it’s good that those people there, even though they’ll never question whether they are to blame, are also starting to see that nothing they say really matters and makes a difference any longer.”

You can find the links below and leave us your thoughts in the comments:

Ep. 37 The two defining tragedies of our time — the war in Ukraine and the presidency of Joe Biden — are both finally coming to an end.

TIMESTAMPS:
(00:17) Glenn Greenwald joins
(05:41) Will the Ukraine War Hawks ever apologize?
(07:25) Using foreign wars to punish Americans… pic.twitter.com/vTVXqNNPhT

— Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) November 7, 2023