case is about. laura: well a blatantly false a blatantly false statement. here s the onl y thingin ifn lawyers need to know about this case.ft if after the twenterytion twenty election, donald trump had announced that he was retiring from politics,indict alvin would not have indicted him.ed or let s say if after 2020, trump had gradually evolved ind his views and maybe became more like romney or one of the bushes in that case,ve ind alvin bragg would not haveic indicted him. the real reason that donald trump was bookedngerprin and fingerprinted today comes down to one simple fact. wrong he has the wrongs political views. now to the entire class of politicians and media figures who cheered the proceedings today. donaldding trump represents an existential threat, a threat to the regim thee that s run our country into the ground fort decades, a threat to the credibilit tibility y the mediae calls out relentlessly. but most significant of all,um another trump term is a threata
expenditure. as such.king at common sense would wise, then that s before wbeeid get back into the technicalities of law. so you re a persontrelectionby c you write your check for, if the twenty or fifty or five hundred dollars, whatever you can affornddidate to candidate. do you think you re writing n that check to paeed todebate ape to someone? and the answer is no. wru re you think you re writing thatit check to paye your che whateve and that sort of thing.toan and that s whad t the lathwu rew riprovides. e law provides, the supreme court has long said you can t have a subjective standard in campaign finance . it needs to be objective. have and so we look a st it and weeet say, would a person who is not w running for office do that?ok au i mean, he might not buy a twoo heousand dollar suit, but he is going to buy clothes. so it s not a campaign expenditure. he s we might say he might not otherwise pay for tooth whitening, but other people would say it s not a campaigng u expenditure.
but if everybody else in washington thought it was a good idea to invade iraq, if it turns out to be wrong and we waste trillion dollars and thousands of people die, oops. tucker: but why should the rest of us listen to people whose judgment has been discredited? where should ia read a column from max stevens or see john bolton on television. they all helped destroy our military and weaken our country. why are they still taken seriously by anyone? well, part of the problem is when you look on television and you open up your newspaper and look at the op-ed page, those people are talking and writing.n the american people don t have the option in a lot of cases at looking at alternative viewpoints. certainly the internet helps and new media enterprises help.