caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

Show a post on here where I have advocated for any type of socialism or Marxist program. You can't, because I don't. Just throw out those buzz words without any evidence. It's all you have.
Now, would you like to discuss the topic or just throw out childish bull*****

---

The latter. It's always the latter.

---

The budget is full of them! If you support the spending, then you support socialism.

---

The "socialism" and "Marxism" barbs are completely childish and counterproductive. It's just name-calling, no different than the woke left being all too eager to throw out "-ism's".

You can support federal spending without being a socialist.

And anyway, Pubs don't spend consequentially less than Dems, they just support taxing less.

Which is more responsible, "spend and tax" or "spend and don't tax"?

Who was the last President to balance the budget, again?

---

Your choice of spend and tax or spend and don't tax is part of the problem and illicit's the socialism tag.

I think things, like the COVID relief stuff, done under Trump is pure Socialism! Somebody, earlier asked what policy(s) I didn't like of Trumps, wel … that was a huge one!

---

Yup. Our choices are the party of "spend more" and the party of "low taxes." The compromise is that they spend more and don't raise taxes.

Packfan89 said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

Show a post on here where I have advocated for any type of socialism or Marxist program. You can't, because I don't. Just throw out those buzz words without any evidence. It's all you have.
Now, would you like to discuss the topic or just throw out childish bull*****

---

The latter. It's always the latter.

---

The budget is full of them! If you support the spending, then you support socialism.

---

The "socialism" and "Marxism" barbs are completely childish and counterproductive. It's just name-calling, no different than the woke left being all too eager to throw out "-ism's".

You can support federal spending without being a socialist.

And anyway, Pubs don't spend consequentially less than Dems, they just support taxing less.

Which is more responsible, "spend and tax" or "spend and don't tax"?

Who was the last President to balance the budget, again?

---

Your choice of spend and tax or spend and don't tax is part of the problem and illicit's the socialism tag.

I think things, like the COVID relief stuff, done under Trump is pure Socialism! Somebody, earlier asked what policy(s) I didn't like of Trumps, wel … that was a huge one!

---

Yup. Our choices are the party of "spend more" and the party of "low taxes." The compromise is that they spend more and don't raise taxes.

---

Just curious, a person making 200k a year, what's a fair tax rate (just consider no tax breaks for this person)?

I say no tax breaks because I am not a fan of any, for anyone, of any kind.

If I told you who Trump's VP was you'd never believe me. ;-)

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

Show a post on here where I have advocated for any type of socialism or Marxist program. You can't, because I don't. Just throw out those buzz words without any evidence. It's all you have.
Now, would you like to discuss the topic or just throw out childish bull*****

---

The latter. It's always the latter.

---

The budget is full of them! If you support the spending, then you support socialism.

---

The "socialism" and "Marxism" barbs are completely childish and counterproductive. It's just name-calling, no different than the woke left being all too eager to throw out "-ism's".

You can support federal spending without being a socialist.

And anyway, Pubs don't spend consequentially less than Dems, they just support taxing less.

Which is more responsible, "spend and tax" or "spend and don't tax"?

Who was the last President to balance the budget, again?

---

That part is quite true, excepting the minority of the GOP whom are the Freedom caucus. Which is why the nation is accelerating towards a fiscal cataclysm.

caryking said:

---

Packfan89 said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

Show a post on here where I have advocated for any type of socialism or Marxist program. You can't, because I don't. Just throw out those buzz words without any evidence. It's all you have.
Now, would you like to discuss the topic or just throw out childish bull*****

---

The latter. It's always the latter.

---

The budget is full of them! If you support the spending, then you support socialism.

---

The "socialism" and "Marxism" barbs are completely childish and counterproductive. It's just name-calling, no different than the woke left being all too eager to throw out "-ism's".

You can support federal spending without being a socialist.

And anyway, Pubs don't spend consequentially less than Dems, they just support taxing less.

Which is more responsible, "spend and tax" or "spend and don't tax"?

Who was the last President to balance the budget, again?

---

Your choice of spend and tax or spend and don't tax is part of the problem and illicit's the socialism tag.

I think things, like the COVID relief stuff, done under Trump is pure Socialism! Somebody, earlier asked what policy(s) I didn't like of Trumps, wel … that was a huge one!

---

Yup. Our choices are the party of "spend more" and the party of "low taxes." The compromise is that they spend more and don't raise taxes.

---

Just curious, a person making 200k a year, what's a fair tax rate (just consider no tax breaks for this person)?

I say no tax breaks because I am not a fan of any, for anyone, of any kind.

---

"fair" is impossible to define and is usually a code word for "tax that other guy more than me."

I like your idea of no tax breaks. I am going to make up numbers because I don't know exactly what it would take to balance the budget.

Federal - 20% income tax on every dollar over $30k/individual. This should result in trivial tax return forms.
National Sales Tax - 5%
Let States do what they want. 50 experiments.

Quit pretending that medicare/SS/mystery fee #7 are all separate funds. It should all be coming out of the same big pile of federal money.

Increase taxation and decrease federal spending every year until budget is balanced. This isn't going to happen overnight but at least let's start moving in the right direction.

For you hypothetical $200k person, they'd pay $34k in federal income tax and 5% sales tax on their shiny new fishing boat.

Packfan89 said:

---

caryking said:

---

Packfan89 said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

Show a post on here where I have advocated for any type of socialism or Marxist program. You can't, because I don't. Just throw out those buzz words without any evidence. It's all you have.
Now, would you like to discuss the topic or just throw out childish bull*****

---

The latter. It's always the latter.

---

The budget is full of them! If you support the spending, then you support socialism.

---

The "socialism" and "Marxism" barbs are completely childish and counterproductive. It's just name-calling, no different than the woke left being all too eager to throw out "-ism's".

You can support federal spending without being a socialist.

And anyway, Pubs don't spend consequentially less than Dems, they just support taxing less.

Which is more responsible, "spend and tax" or "spend and don't tax"?

Who was the last President to balance the budget, again?

---

Your choice of spend and tax or spend and don't tax is part of the problem and illicit's the socialism tag.

I think things, like the COVID relief stuff, done under Trump is pure Socialism! Somebody, earlier asked what policy(s) I didn't like of Trumps, wel … that was a huge one!

---

Yup. Our choices are the party of "spend more" and the party of "low taxes." The compromise is that they spend more and don't raise taxes.

---

Just curious, a person making 200k a year, what's a fair tax rate (just consider no tax breaks for this person)?

I say no tax breaks because I am not a fan of any, for anyone, of any kind.

---

"fair" is impossible to define and is usually a code word for "tax that other guy more than me."

I like your idea of no tax breaks. I am going to make up numbers because I don't know exactly what it would take to balance the budget.

Federal - 20% income tax on every dollar over $30k/individual. This should result in trivial tax return forms.
National Sales Tax - 5%
Let States do what they want. 50 experiments.

Quit pretending that medicare/SS/mystery fee #7 are all separate funds. It should all be coming out of the same big pile of federal money.

Increase taxation and decrease federal spending every year until budget is balanced. This isn't going to happen overnight but at least let's start moving in the right direction.

For you hypothetical $200k person, they'd pay $34k in federal income tax and 5% sales tax on their shiny new fishing boat.

---

First: taxing income and taxing consumption is not a good idea, to me. Choose one. Also, every single person should pay into income taxes, on the federal level, if that's the choice.

Personally, I'm for a consumption tax, with no exemptions, and a flat consumption tax. Pick a number and see how things go. Wouldn't it be nice to see the debate be about raising the consumption tax?

Now, regarding Social Security and Medicare, I completely disagree with you on the "same big pile of federal money". It may be; however, they are different programs and should be kept separately.

I think it's a reasonable to believe that the face value, of our debt, will never be touched, so, your right… it will take some time to balance the annual budget. Pick any plan for spending reduction. I don't care, just pick one…

caryking said:

---

Packfan89 said:

---

caryking said:

---

Packfan89 said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

Show a post on here where I have advocated for any type of socialism or Marxist program. You can't, because I don't. Just throw out those buzz words without any evidence. It's all you have.
Now, would you like to discuss the topic or just throw out childish bull*****

---

The latter. It's always the latter.

---

The budget is full of them! If you support the spending, then you support socialism.

---

The "socialism" and "Marxism" barbs are completely childish and counterproductive. It's just name-calling, no different than the woke left being all too eager to throw out "-ism's".

You can support federal spending without being a socialist.

And anyway, Pubs don't spend consequentially less than Dems, they just support taxing less.

Which is more responsible, "spend and tax" or "spend and don't tax"?

Who was the last President to balance the budget, again?

---

Your choice of spend and tax or spend and don't tax is part of the problem and illicit's the socialism tag.

I think things, like the COVID relief stuff, done under Trump is pure Socialism! Somebody, earlier asked what policy(s) I didn't like of Trumps, wel … that was a huge one!

---

Yup. Our choices are the party of "spend more" and the party of "low taxes." The compromise is that they spend more and don't raise taxes.

---

Just curious, a person making 200k a year, what's a fair tax rate (just consider no tax breaks for this person)?

I say no tax breaks because I am not a fan of any, for anyone, of any kind.

---

"fair" is impossible to define and is usually a code word for "tax that other guy more than me."

I like your idea of no tax breaks. I am going to make up numbers because I don't know exactly what it would take to balance the budget.

Federal - 20% income tax on every dollar over $30k/individual. This should result in trivial tax return forms.
National Sales Tax - 5%
Let States do what they want. 50 experiments.

Quit pretending that medicare/SS/mystery fee #7 are all separate funds. It should all be coming out of the same big pile of federal money.

Increase taxation and decrease federal spending every year until budget is balanced. This isn't going to happen overnight but at least let's start moving in the right direction.

For you hypothetical $200k person, they'd pay $34k in federal income tax and 5% sales tax on their shiny new fishing boat.

---

First: taxing income and taxing consumption is not a good idea, to me. Choose one. Also, every single person should pay into income taxes, on the federal level, if that's the choice.

Personally, I'm for a consumption tax, with no exemptions, and a flat consumption tax. Pick a number and see how things go. Wouldn't it be nice to see the debate be about raising the consumption tax?

Now, regarding Social Security and Medicare, I completely disagree with you on the "same big pile of federal money". It may be; however, they are different programs and should be kept separately.

I think it's a reasonable to believe that the face value, of our debt, will never be touched, so, your right… it will take some time to balance the annual budget. Pick any plan for spending reduction. I don't care, just pick one…

---

I like taxing consumption because it does force everyone to pay into the system. Including those people who mysteriously have money but report no income.

caryking said:

---

Packfan89 said:

---

caryking said:

---

Packfan89 said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

Show a post on here where I have advocated for any type of socialism or Marxist program. You can't, because I don't. Just throw out those buzz words without any evidence. It's all you have.
Now, would you like to discuss the topic or just throw out childish bull*****

---

The latter. It's always the latter.

---

The budget is full of them! If you support the spending, then you support socialism.

---

The "socialism" and "Marxism" barbs are completely childish and counterproductive. It's just name-calling, no different than the woke left being all too eager to throw out "-ism's".

You can support federal spending without being a socialist.

And anyway, Pubs don't spend consequentially less than Dems, they just support taxing less.

Which is more responsible, "spend and tax" or "spend and don't tax"?

Who was the last President to balance the budget, again?

---

Your choice of spend and tax or spend and don't tax is part of the problem and illicit's the socialism tag.

I think things, like the COVID relief stuff, done under Trump is pure Socialism! Somebody, earlier asked what policy(s) I didn't like of Trumps, wel … that was a huge one!

---

Yup. Our choices are the party of "spend more" and the party of "low taxes." The compromise is that they spend more and don't raise taxes.

---

Just curious, a person making 200k a year, what's a fair tax rate (just consider no tax breaks for this person)?

I say no tax breaks because I am not a fan of any, for anyone, of any kind.

---

"fair" is impossible to define and is usually a code word for "tax that other guy more than me."

I like your idea of no tax breaks. I am going to make up numbers because I don't know exactly what it would take to balance the budget.

Federal - 20% income tax on every dollar over $30k/individual. This should result in trivial tax return forms.
National Sales Tax - 5%
Let States do what they want. 50 experiments.

Quit pretending that medicare/SS/mystery fee #7 are all separate funds. It should all be coming out of the same big pile of federal money.

Increase taxation and decrease federal spending every year until budget is balanced. This isn't going to happen overnight but at least let's start moving in the right direction.

For you hypothetical $200k person, they'd pay $34k in federal income tax and 5% sales tax on their shiny new fishing boat.

---

First: taxing income and taxing consumption is not a good idea, to me. Choose one. Also, every single person should pay into income taxes, on the federal level, if that's the choice.

Personally, I'm for a consumption tax, with no exemptions, and a flat consumption tax. Pick a number and see how things go. Wouldn't it be nice to see the debate be about raising the consumption tax?

Now, regarding Social Security and Medicare, I completely disagree with you on the "same big pile of federal money". It may be; however, they are different programs and should be kept separately.

I think it's a reasonable to believe that the face value, of our debt, will never be touched, so, your right… it will take some time to balance the annual budget. Pick any plan for spending reduction. I don't care, just pick one…

---

I've read seemingly sound studies that indicate progressive income taxes actually hinder household savings (a key indicator of a country's economic health) more than regressive flat/consumption taxes.

I think the issue with income taxes is they're actually not progressive enough. The middle class bears too much of the burden while the almost-untaxed lower class and the very rich don't bear enough, so the tax base isn't as broad as it needs to be.

A well-applied income tax may be a net wash with consumption tax with respect to household savings, but that's hard to study in practice because there are few well-applied income taxes.

It's an interesting debate.

Ep 84 of Tucker, he had Tulsi on for over an hour. While I don't agree with her 100% I wouldn't be too upset if she was picked by Trump as his VP according to some rumors. Mostly because I think she's genuine and if you can convince her that her position on something is wrong headed she's not so stubborn that she wouldn't change her mind.

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Packfan89 said:

---

caryking said:

---

Packfan89 said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

Show a post on here where I have advocated for any type of socialism or Marxist program. You can't, because I don't. Just throw out those buzz words without any evidence. It's all you have.
Now, would you like to discuss the topic or just throw out childish bull*****

---

The latter. It's always the latter.

---

The budget is full of them! If you support the spending, then you support socialism.

---

The "socialism" and "Marxism" barbs are completely childish and counterproductive. It's just name-calling, no different than the woke left being all too eager to throw out "-ism's".

You can support federal spending without being a socialist.

And anyway, Pubs don't spend consequentially less than Dems, they just support taxing less.

Which is more responsible, "spend and tax" or "spend and don't tax"?

Who was the last President to balance the budget, again?

---

Your choice of spend and tax or spend and don't tax is part of the problem and illicit's the socialism tag.

I think things, like the COVID relief stuff, done under Trump is pure Socialism! Somebody, earlier asked what policy(s) I didn't like of Trumps, wel … that was a huge one!

---

Yup. Our choices are the party of "spend more" and the party of "low taxes." The compromise is that they spend more and don't raise taxes.

---

Just curious, a person making 200k a year, what's a fair tax rate (just consider no tax breaks for this person)?

I say no tax breaks because I am not a fan of any, for anyone, of any kind.

---

"fair" is impossible to define and is usually a code word for "tax that other guy more than me."

I like your idea of no tax breaks. I am going to make up numbers because I don't know exactly what it would take to balance the budget.

Federal - 20% income tax on every dollar over $30k/individual. This should result in trivial tax return forms.
National Sales Tax - 5%
Let States do what they want. 50 experiments.

Quit pretending that medicare/SS/mystery fee #7 are all separate funds. It should all be coming out of the same big pile of federal money.

Increase taxation and decrease federal spending every year until budget is balanced. This isn't going to happen overnight but at least let's start moving in the right direction.

For you hypothetical $200k person, they'd pay $34k in federal income tax and 5% sales tax on their shiny new fishing boat.

---

First: taxing income and taxing consumption is not a good idea, to me. Choose one. Also, every single person should pay into income taxes, on the federal level, if that's the choice.

Personally, I'm for a consumption tax, with no exemptions, and a flat consumption tax. Pick a number and see how things go. Wouldn't it be nice to see the debate be about raising the consumption tax?

Now, regarding Social Security and Medicare, I completely disagree with you on the "same big pile of federal money". It may be; however, they are different programs and should be kept separately.

I think it's a reasonable to believe that the face value, of our debt, will never be touched, so, your right… it will take some time to balance the annual budget. Pick any plan for spending reduction. I don't care, just pick one…

---

I've read seemingly sound studies that indicate progressive income taxes actually hinder household savings (a key indicator of a country's economic health) more than regressive flat/consumption taxes.

I think the issue with income taxes is they're actually not progressive enough. The middle class bears too much of the burden while the almost-untaxed lower class and the very rich don't bear enough, so the tax base isn't as broad as it needs to be.

A well-applied income tax may be a net wash with consumption tax with respect to household savings, but that's hard to study in practice because there are few well-applied income taxes.

It's an interesting debate.

---

The problem with this "debate" is that economics is very complicated, so most peoples' opinions have more to do with ideology/biases than what makes economic sense. In particular I think conservatives in general see the lower class as a bunch of "takers" who were too stupid/lazy to go to college, so the idea of them paying low/no taxes is offensive.

But the reality is that the market has set their barely-sustenance wages based on the expectation that they won't be taxed much. Raise their taxes and you'll either have to pay them more to be able to survive or hand all of the tax money you just collected back to them in public assistance... otherwise poverty will skyrocket and some folks will end up with their heads shoved through a guillotine.

I'd be interested to see the studies you're talking about, but regarding household savings, again, it's complicated. Our economy is the strongest on the planet because of our consumers spending their money. Some savings helps smooth out shocks in our system, but too much is actually a bad thing. China is struggling right now in part because they have basically no social safety net and their citizens save WAY too much in anticipation of a family emergency... most of them won't spend a dime unless they have to. Not good for an economy that needs money moving around.

There is always "work for welfare.."

But then... you know that would directly affect one particular party's voting block a hell of a lot and the party that prides itself every two years in caring about minorities until after the election wouldn't stand for that.

It's worked for over 60 years why change now?

Keep saying that corporate America, white America etc... is evil and is why the debt is where it's at.

But keep in mind... Pocahontas, the Ice Cream Queen, Comrade Bernie, the dip**** bartender all are multi-millionaires. How'd that happen?

This is like a SNL skit. And his peeps will eat it up.

Trump is now pimping the “God Bless The USA” Bible… The shameless grifting and blasphemy knows no bounds. pic.twitter.com/4Aphtme2r7

— HJoseph (Don’t Tread On Florida) (@DontShedOnMe_1) March 27, 2024

Wufskins said:

---

This is like a SNL skit. And his peeps will eat it up.

Trump is now pimping the “God Bless The USA” Bible… The shameless grifting and blasphemy knows no bounds. pic.twitter.com/4Aphtme2r7

— HJoseph (Don’t Tread On Florida) (@DontShedOnMe_1) March 27, 2024

---

A deity to his followers

🚨EXCLUSIVE BOMBSHELL REPORT🚨

Judge Merchan’s daughter has @KamalaHarris as a Client at her company that focuses on Campaigns and elections!!!

Judge Merchan, the NY State Supreme Court Judge who issued a GAG ORDER against President Trump today has a daughter named Loren… pic.twitter.com/Jr0FzWyJv6

— Laura Loomer (@LauraLoomer) March 26, 2024

Wufskins said:

---

This is like a SNL skit. And his peeps will eat it up.

Trump is now pimping the “God Bless The USA” Bible… The shameless grifting and blasphemy knows no bounds. pic.twitter.com/4Aphtme2r7

— HJoseph (Don’t Tread On Florida) (@DontShedOnMe_1) March 27, 2024

---

Is he teaming up with Lee Greenwood on this endeavor?

What's Harry signaling? He's a P Diddy pal too.

Remember when Prince Harry flashed the Devil horns when he met with Melania pic.twitter.com/J5o1Z2ZHns

— catranchdream🇨🇦🩸😤 (@catranchdream) September 11, 2022

Jake from state farm??

TheStorm said:

---

Werewolf said:

---

If I told you who Trump's VP was you'd never believe me. ;-)

---

And I bet that you won't tell us, because in reality you don't know...

---

You're back, out of right field all the time. At least you were on the field. ;-)

Trump team may seek recusal of Judge Merchan again

Juan Merchan's daughter, Loren Merchan company, Authentic Campaigns, have raised at least $93 million in campaign donationsusing Mr. Trump's case in their solicitation emails, according to the Post.

Ms. Merchan is president and partner of a Chicago-based firm Authentic Campaigns, whose top clients include U.S. Senate candidate Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and the Senate Majority PAC. Mr. Schiff also oversaw Mr. Trump's first impeachment trial as its lead prosecutor.

Last summer, the Trump team filed for Merchan to recuse himself, making similar arguments that Justice Merchan's impartiality might be compromised due to his daughter's political work.

In a six-page decision in August 2023, Justice Merchan rebutted these claims, stating that the evidence provided by Trump was speculative and fell short of the legal threshold for recusal.

The motion also highlighted concerns regarding Justice Merchan's previous involvement in a case against Allen Weisselberg, The Trump Organization's CFO, suggesting that it indicated bias against President Trump.
Additionally, President Trump raised issues over alleged 2020 campaign contributions by New York's highest court members, insinuating a lack of impartiality.

But yet all we hear is how the Conservatives have the judicial system in their pockets....

The left is full of hypocrites and no-life having losers.

#Sieve and #Nappy, Chicago is coming for you and your politicians. Hear them.

They are begging for President Trump to come to Chicago‼️ pic.twitter.com/xbfxK4KnBt

— Susan Cleary Rittger (@ClearyRittger) March 31, 2024

Bill Maher says he would vote for "Biden’s head in a jar of blue liquid," over Donald Trump.

How is that news, Maher?

Isn't that pretty much what you and the rest of the lunatic TDS people did in 2020?

You voted for a stumbling, bumbling Alzheimer’s patient who was the face of…

— Ann Vandersteel (@annvandersteel) April 1, 2024

Werewolf said:

---

Bill Maher says he would vote for "Biden’s head in a jar of blue liquid," over Donald Trump.

How is that news, Maher?

Isn't that pretty much what you and the rest of the lunatic TDS people did in 2020?

You voted for a stumbling, bumbling Alzheimer’s patient who was the face of…

— Ann Vandersteel (@annvandersteel) April 1, 2024

---

And they call President Trump's supporters are in a cult....

The loony lefties harp on every "bellweather" election that goes their way.....

Well........ Sleepy Joe's party had a very dismal if not defeating night last night in Wisconsin.

Suck it libtards!!!

BREAKING: Wausau Mayor Rosenberg (D) has been defeated by Republican Doug Diny by a 4.3% margin.

Wisconsin Democrats spent a lot here.

Biden won this town by 8% in 2020.

🔵➡️🔴 GOP FLIP pic.twitter.com/8Go6eVXYAv

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) April 3, 2024

BBW12OG said:

---

TheStorm said:

---

Pack Pride Part Deux now I see...

---

Unless Commandant Smith unlocks it they have nowhere else to go. They are all welcome here and can actually express Conservative view points without being banned.

And most of all.... can speak negatively about the left and how fcked up the party is.

---

I have no problem with that... just making an observation.

I like having more folks over here.

TheStorm said:

---

BBW12OG said:

---

TheStorm said:

---

Pack Pride Part Deux now I see...

---

Unless Commandant Smith unlocks it they have nowhere else to go. They are all welcome here and can actually express Conservative view points without being banned.

And most of all.... can speak negatively about the left and how fcked up the party is.

---

I have no problem with that... just making an observation.

---

It's been 6-7 years since I was over there….i didn't like where they were going then but it still wasn't anything like you and others are describing now.

TheStorm said:

---

Pack Pride Part Deux now I see...

---

Uriah...

ncsupack1 said:

---

I like having more folks over here.

---

Agree

barelypure said:

---

Trump team may seek recusal of Judge Merchan again

Juan Merchan's daughter, Loren Merchan company, Authentic Campaigns, have raised at least $93 million in campaign donationsusing Mr. Trump's case in their solicitation emails, according to the Post.

Ms. Merchan is president and partner of a Chicago-based firm Authentic Campaigns, whose top clients include U.S. Senate candidate Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and the Senate Majority PAC. Mr. Schiff also oversaw Mr. Trump's first impeachment trial as its lead prosecutor.

Last summer, the Trump team filed for Merchan to recuse himself, making similar arguments that Justice Merchan's impartiality might be compromised due to his daughter's political work.

In a six-page decision in August 2023, Justice Merchan rebutted these claims, stating that the evidence provided by Trump was speculative and fell short of the legal threshold for recusal.

The motion also highlighted concerns regarding Justice Merchan's previous involvement in a case against Allen Weisselberg, The Trump Organization's CFO, suggesting that it indicated bias against President Trump.
Additionally, President Trump raised issues over alleged 2020 campaign contributions by New York's highest court members, insinuating a lack of impartiality.

---

Well now we find out that Judge Merchan's wife, Lara, worked for Letitia James for 3 years. It seems clear that the judge could be compromised and maybe why he issued the gag order that Trump couldn't talk about his family. He doesn't want people to know his connections to anti-Trump family members. Merchan needs to recuse himself