The former U.N. ambassador has been focusing in on Trump, his legal trouble and the potential general election consequences.
Former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley on Wednesday called on Republican National Committee members to hold an on-the-record vote on a draft resolution that would curb the national party’s ability to direct its funds toward legal fees, including former President Donald Trump’s.
“All Americans, and Republicans especially, deserve a vote on the record on that resolution,” Haley said while campaigning here. “We deserve to know how the RNC is going to spend their money and if it’s going to go towards legal fees.”
And when they completely ignore her request (that she’s making knowing full well she has no leverage to make it happen) she’ll keep being a member of the Republican party and keep raising funds for them anyway
I wish she’d realize she does have leverage, even if it’s not much. She could a) launch an independent bid or b) campaign for Biden in exchange for a cabinet position with him. Either way she’d become a MAJOR problem for the GOP, and I think it stands to argue she could effectively guarantee a Trump loss. The one caveat is that she’d have to agree to effectively turn her back on her party (which she says is committing suicide anyway), and I have absolutely no faith that she’ll discover enough moral fortitude to ever do such a thing.
I don’t think she will do either of those things. She’s shown time and time again she’s for every horrible GOP position that Trump is for. The only problems she seems to have are that he’s a vindictive loudmouth.
If Biden seriously made that offer in b) I would be very strongly tempted to stay home on election day.
People keep lying to themselves and trying to believe that Trump is the problem and that he’s not just the most visible symptom of a Republican party that crossed the line way back in the 1960s when they started campaigning to get the KKK’s votes and undermining our foreign policy/national security for political wins. Haley, Romney, Cheney, etc. - they are all threats to the country as is anyone who collaborate with any of them.
Maybe it’s soft handed liberalism? Too close an examination of the body-politic would make people actually look at themselves and the circles they run with? It might cost you some friends at social events?
It’s not just Trump, though he is the iconoclast. Just like LBJ and Reagan before, a popular(ist) leader will transform the party and nation by shifting the Overton Window of what is ‘normal and accepted’ in the political arena.
Good for you. I know people whose very wealthy California family has been deeply connected to the Clinton apparatus for decades, and who are dyed-in-the-wool third way Democrats, and they have said they’d seriously consider Haley over Biden. It’s amazing what kind of diverse people you encounter outside of social media echo chambers.
Oh I’m sure they exist, there’s a lot of selfish scumbags in this country unfortunately. Thank goodness they only get one vote no matter how much money they hoard.
Gosh, I can’t for the life of me figure out why progressives have such a hard time winning friends and influencing people…
I can’t for the life of me figure out why I’d want to be friends with scumbags. If we had a democracy in this country we wouldn’t have to give a shit what rich weirdos who live vastly different lives than most of us think.
As a non-American it’s kind of insane to me that a political party can even potentially pay the legal fees of a party member (particularly when the fees are the result of completely personal crimes).
Republicans should be outraged about it too, but they apparently don’t realize they are being fleeced (again).
wdym they’re fully aware they’re paying Trump’s legal fees. They either love that or are mildly annoyed and won’t do anything.
Something something party of fiscal responsibility.
It’s because the Supreme Court made a ruling that affirmed that since corporations are people, and money is speech, it is unconstitutional to restrict how much money a corporation spends on political issues.
And what is a political issue? Trump says all of his legal issues are politically motivated. He’s lying, but does that (false) statement alone justify unlimited spending on this political issue?
It’s a legal gray area, it could be a campaign finance violation but he could argue some of the cases are campaign related.
The justice system has always been extremely light on Trump, so anything in a legal “gray area” might as well be assumed to be fully in the clear for him.
As an American, I feel the same way.
(Not so) fun fact: the DNC and RNC aren’t any sort of governmental organizations, and are in fact private companies. As such, the limits placed on them by law are pretty minimal in terms of political action they can take, and quite unlikely to change since they both have a stranglehold on who gets nominated into positions that could affect such change.
Which is why if he is found guilty of the coup attempt he would be declared an enemy of the state, and any aid or comfort would be considered treason under penalty of law. Thhe courts have ruled that companies are allotted rights as a person, aka they are guilty of treason if Trump is declared an enemy of the state. Best defense, “we didn’t know we were commiting treason as he wasn’t found guilty, just several of our members knew it”
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Ambassador Nikki Haley on Wednesday called on Republican National Committee members to hold an on-the-record vote on a draft resolution that would curb the national party’s ability to direct its funds toward legal fees, including former President Donald Trump’s.
Haley went on to question if the RNC would end up shifting support from down-ballot Republicans to a “legal slush fund.”
“We brought forth these two resolutions to make sure there is a serious discussion about protecting the primary process while there are still two candidates competing and preventing the RNC from paying the legal bills of any political candidate unrelated to the election cycle,” Barbour said in a statement to NBC News last week.
On the campaign trail ahead of Super Tuesday, March 5, Haley dodged a question from NBC News about whether having leadership teams announced in states past Super Tuesday — for instance, Georgia — meant she could guarantee staying in until that point.
When pressed that voters might want to know how long they’ll have her as an alternative to Trump, she sidestepped again: “No … I want the conversation to be, where are we going in the country?“
Haley also reacted to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s announcement Wednesday that he planned to step down from his leadership position.
The original article contains 457 words, the summary contains 213 words. Saved 53%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
