Trump Impeachment

[Seattle Husker]

SH
" Send this abhorrent character to where he belongs?????
This Character who has decreased unemployment to record lows
among all of us including blacks and browns.
New black ownership of black owners increased by 400 % last year

who has brought Hundreds of millions of $$ back to USA from Corps who are spending the money here
who has seen hundreds of millions of 401ks increase Bigly
who has seen nations of NATO finally start to pay their share. etc etc

Who is seeing wages rise for the first time in a long time
Who has seen people receive more in their paychecks that in last 8 years of obama
and many more verifiable facts
i don't think abborrent means the same to you as it does to hard working Americans

Maybe you can look the other way as your rich neighbor screws your wife because he lets you use his expensive riding lawn mower. I can't.

On a serious note, Trump has done some things to juuce an economy that was already improving. Tax receipts are up (thanks primarily to the one-time windfall of repatriation of international revenue) yet the debt is growing at an accelerating rate. As a fiscal conservative, I get debt funding your way out of recessions. Debt funding your way through a good economy is a givaway to the wealthy class and a dumb thing to do.

 

[ShAArk92]

As a fiscal conservative, I get debt funding your way out of recessions

a fiscal conservative would only support such if the spending were Constitutional in the first place. Much of our spending has been extra-Constitutional for a LONG time and the vector is in the wrong direction (as you noted by the acceleration of the debt)

So you've got a problem defining "abhorrent" and "fiscal conservative" in a single thread!

 

[Mr. Deez]

How are you going to prove intent? It is perfectly reasonable to assume Trump did not want his family to find out about the affairs, and thus the hush money. You cannot prove in a court of law what his motivation was, so you're not going to get a conviction on that point.

You'd look for a smoking gun to prove intent - a statement (oral or written) that establishes it. For example, suppose Cohen had a tape of Trump saying, "Michael, pay those whores off. I don't care what the law says. I'll lose the election if they're shooting their mouths off."

 

[Mr. Deez]

I never said that paying hush money with confidentiality agreements were illegal per se, but in the context of the campaign creates some legality concerns at a minimum.

I agree with this, depending on how it was funded.

At the end of the day, just fess up and admit that the reason it's okay is because it's our guy with a side of and

He's not my guy. I didn't vote for him and took a lot of flack here for but doing so. And for me, none of it is "ok." I take the approach that if you'll break your oath to your own wife, you won't hesitate to break your oath to 300 million strangers, especially if you have no remorse for breaking that oath.

However, I accept the political reality that most people roll their eyes at my view and dismiss it as "puritanical" and naïve. Furthermore, I see no reason to hold Trump to a standard to which I know damn good and well that his critics would never in a million years subject themselves, because when they were presented with that opportunity, they didn't.

 

[Mr. Deez]

The equivalent of the Clinton impeachment. Welcome to fiscal conservativism, NOW.

The difference is that in 1998, the precedent hadn't been set. No one had established that the involvement of someone's cock in an activity suddenly made it unimpeachable.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Maybe you can look the other way as your rich neighbor screws your wife because he lets you use his expensive riding lawn mower. I can't.

Doesn't that depend on how big your yard is and how nice his mower is?

 

[Sangre Naranjada]

You'd look for a smoking gun to prove intent - a statement (oral or written) that establishes it. For example, suppose Cohen had a tape of Trump saying, "Michael, pay those whores off. I don't care what the law says. I'll lose the election if they're shooting their mouths off."

Here's Dershowitz on your point.
DERSHOWITZ: The president doesn't break the law if, as a candidate, he contributes to his own campaign. So if he gave $1 million to two women as hush money, there would be no crime. If he directed his lawyer to do it, and he would compensate the lawyer, he's committed no crime.

The only crime is if a third-party, namely, Cohen, on his own, contributed to a campaign, that would be a campaign contribution. So it is a catch-22 for the prosecution. If they claim that the president authorized him to do it or directed him to do it, it is not a crime for anybody. If Cohen did it on his own, then it is a crime for Cohen but not the president.

This is going to be a very difficult case for the prosecution to make, precisely because the laws on election are so convoluted.
_______________________________________________
This is the point I paraphrased up the thread. I am glad I found a transcript of what Dershowitz said so certain posters no longer have to be burdened with the horrible misconception that I attained a newly minted law degree from Fox News.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Here's Dershowitz on your point.
DERSHOWITZ: The president doesn't break the law if, as a candidate, he contributes to his own campaign. So if he gave $1 million to two women as hush money, there would be no crime. If he directed his lawyer to do it, and he would compensate the lawyer, he's committed no crime.

The only crime is if a third-party, namely, Cohen, on his own, contributed to a campaign, that would be a campaign contribution. So it is a catch-22 for the prosecution. If they claim that the president authorized him to do it or directed him to do it, it is not a crime for anybody. If Cohen did it on his own, then it is a crime for Cohen but not the president.

This is going to be a very difficult case for the prosecution to make, precisely because the laws on election are so convoluted.
_______________________________________________
This is the point I paraphrased up the thread. I am glad I found a transcript of what Dershowitz said so certain posters no longer have to be burdened with the horrible misconception that I attained a newly minted law degree from Fox News.

I'm just explaining how you'd prove intent even in the theoretical sense. I agree with Dershowitz's assessment.

 

[UTChE96]

The equivalent of the Clinton impeachment. Welcome to fiscal conservativism, NOW.

Well, except there was a minor point of Clinton having committed perjury and being found in contempt of court for providing "intentionally false" testimony. The Dems have absolutely no credibility to even discuss impeaching a President after they white washed all of Clinton's sins away.

 

[Clean]

If the Dems take the House, they will impeach Trump. That was going to happen all along. It was going to happen even before Mueller broke Cohen like a bad joke. The Dems have had a different rationale for impeachment every week since Trump was elected; collusion, obstruction, Charlottesville, Stormy, Helsinki, etc. etc. Whatever the crisis of the week was, it was an impeachable offense in their minds.

 

[UTChE96]

If the Dems take the House, they will impeach Trump. That was going to happen all along.

I am not sure the Dems are this politically stupid. Making outrageous statements to your base is one thing but actually doing it is another. Now if Trump is charged with a felony then things may change.

 

[Joe Fan]

I am not sure the Dems are this politically stupid. ....

 

[Mr. Deez]

I am not sure the Dems are this politically stupid. Making outrageous statements to your base is one thing but actually doing it is another. Now if Trump is charged with a felony then things may change.

I'm conflicted on this. You're right that it would be a stupid move (at least with what we know now), but if they flip the House and don't do it, their base will **** a solid gold brick. They'll have no momentum going into 2020.

 

[Seattle Husker]

I am not sure the Dems are this politically stupid. Making outrageous statements to your base is one thing but actually doing it is another. Now if Trump is charged with a felony then things may change.

The NYT is reporting (sorry, no link) that the >$400k payments to Cohen came from the Trump Org and were classified as legal expenses and no formal legal retainer existed. A Manhattan DA is considering charges. Per the NYT this would be a felony under State law. Trump and 2 Trump Org employees are potentially in jeopardy.

Trump's taxes will get subpoenaed eventually. When that happens then it all will come crashing down, IMHO.

 

[UTChE96]

I'm conflicted on this. You're right that it would be a stupid move (at least with what we know now), but if they flip the House and don't do it, their base will **** a solid gold brick. They'll have no momentum going into 2020.

Fair enough. I hate to underestimate the political stupidity of the Dems as they have proven to be quite impressive in that respect. It certainly would fire up their base, but very likely turn off moderates and independents. Couple that with any damage to the economy/markets.

 

[djimaplon]

If the Dems take the House, they will impeach Trump. That was going to happen all along. It was going to happen even before Mueller broke Cohen like a bad joke. The Dems have had a different rationale for impeachment every week since Trump was elected; collusion, obstruction, Charlottesville, Stormy, Helsinki, etc. etc. Whatever the crisis of the week was, it was an impeachable offense in their minds.

You are absolutely right! Each of those incidents are all much to do about nothing. Nevermind, the President's role in making them issues in the first place. But hey at least HRC aint President..it'd be worse for sure.

 

[UTChE96]

The NYT is reporting (sorry, no link) that the >$400k payments to Cohen came from the Trump Org and were classified as legal expenses and no formal legal retainer existed. A Manhattan DA is considering charges. Per the NYT this would be a felony under State law. Trump and 2 Trump Org employees are potentially in jeopardy.

Trump's taxes will get subpoenaed eventually. When that happens then it all will come crashing down, IMHO.

See above links to Dershowitz's analysis. A candidate can donate as much as he likes to his own campaign. There could be a misdemeanor if the donation was incorrectly reported but still no felonies.

 

[Seattle Husker]

See above links to Dershowitz's analysis. A candidate can donate as much as he likes to his own campaign. There could be a misdemeanor if the donation was incorrectly reported but still no felonies.

I'm not a lawyer but I think we are talking about different issues. Dershowitz is referencing campaign finance laws. Based on my interpretation of the NYT article, Trump might be in trouble for tax fraud with New York State. Of course, the Trump Foundation is already being investigated for similar activity. This new challenge is directly against the Trump Org.

 

[ProdigalHorn]

I take the approach that if you'll break your oath to your own wife, you won't hesitate to break your oath to 300 million strangers, especially if you have no remorse for breaking that oath.

Morally I would agree with this, and in principle I think it's true. But sadly, we live in a culture now where marital vows simply don't care as much weight as they used to, and people don't tend to think of it in terms of "a vow is a vow." For example, a soldier overseas who vows to protect his country and dies doing it is seen as an honorable man, even if during that time he cheated on his wife. Because people will immediately say "yes but he was overseas and it was war and people make mistakes." Perjury is seen as more serious than infidelity even though they are almost exactly the same issue - only difference is that one is a vow to act a certain way, and another is a vow to speak a certain way.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I'm not a lawyer but I think we are talking about different issues. Dershowitz is referencing campaign finance laws. Based on my interpretation of the NYT article, Trump might be in trouble for tax fraud with New York State. Of course, the Trump Foundation is already being investigated for similar activity. This new challenge is directly against the Trump Org.

They are separate issues and separate activities. Of course, the state tax fraud claims are matters for the New York AG to investigate and prosecute. Will she indict a sitting President? For political reasons, probably so. Can he haul her into federal court and get the proceedings stayed? Maybe.

 

[I35]

Too me Robert Mueller or Ken Star have and had way too much flexibility in their investigations. They should only have a right to investigate what someone is being accused of. Then they should have to give a report to a judge after 3 to 6 months to show if they have anything to keep an investigation going. If not it ends there. I’m not sure about Ken Starr because I can’t remember much about it, but it’s pretty obvious they knew from the very start there was no Russian collusion. That they just came up with something to claim they are investigating just so they can try to find crime. That’s not American at all.

 

[Mr. Deez]

TS, this is good stuff. Wish you commented more often.

It is my understanding that the critical issue would be the principal purpose of the payments. If the principal purpose was to protect his family, no crime. If the principal purpose was to assist the campaign, crime.

At least if you buy Dershowitz's analysis, the payments aren't illegal regardless of the purpose. However, if the purpose was to help the campaign, there was a duty to report the contributions.

The timing of the payments, obviously, when the nation was focused on Trump's conduct with women. The requirement in the Stormy Daniels agreement that she cement the deal by November 1 (right before the first Tuesday in November). Evidence of intent to thwart reporting laws is easier to find. Assuming, as most of you will not, that the intent of the payments was to assist in the election, the failure to report the payments was not an accident, inadvertent, or a book keeping oversight. It was carefully orchestrated through specially formed, alias laden business organizations and agreements. This smells to me like sufficient evidence from which a jury could, but might not, find the requisite intent(s). If there are documents or recordings discussing the payoffs in the context of the campaign, then intent becomes easier to prove.

Did he make the payments to assist in the election or to hide the affairs from Melania? Maybe a little of both. I think it was a stupid thing to do to help the campaign since his reputation was already in the crapper and wouldn't have been hurt much if these stories had become public, but I can believe that that was the primary reason. However, I don't think that necessary proves the absence of accident, inadvertence, or bookkeeping oversight in reporting. He may not have known he had to report it. It's not an obvious contribution like getting a check from somebody, and of course, Cohen is a dolt. No reason to assume he advised Trump correctly.

Despite all the talk here about Lanny Davis, he is Cohen's PR lawyer, not his courtroom lawyer. ( And he's doing a good job).

I recognize that and agree that Davis is doing a superb job as he did for Bill Clinton back in the '90s. He's good at what he does.

It is extremely unlikely that he would plead out Cohen if the case is as weak as you all make it out to be, your newly minted FoxNews provided legal educations notwithstanding.

Has anyone argued that the case against Cohen is weak? I haven't. I assume it's reasonably solid.

 

[UTChE96]

I'm not a lawyer but I think we are talking about different issues. Dershowitz is referencing campaign finance laws. Based on my interpretation of the NYT article, Trump might be in trouble for tax fraud with New York State. Of course, the Trump Foundation is already being investigated for similar activity. This new challenge is directly against the Trump Org.

I see. Not familiar with this new allegation. I will wait to reserve judgement. It will take more than Cohen's accusation to be compelling. Also, is violating a state's tax code really enough justification to remove a sitting President? Not sure about that.

 

[Htown77]

But sadly, we live in a culture now where marital vows simply don't care as much weight as they used to, and people don't tend to think of it in terms of "a vow is a vow."

Yep. I noticed over the years when discussing the gay marriage debate with various people that a large number of people nowadays seem to see marriage as a “relationship status with government benefits” and not as a meaningful vow between two people. All that matters is the piece of paper and the party/ceremony, not the actual vows being exchanged.

 

[Joe Fan]

Here is the relevant part of Michael Cohen's September Senate testimony prepared statement -

“I never saw anything — not a hint of anything — that demonstrated [President Trump’s] involvement in Russian interference in our election or any form of Russian collusion.”​

 

[Joe Fan]

 

[Joe Fan]

 

[LongestHorn]

 

[mchammer]

Unless they find something really distasteful, it’s another witch hunt.

 

[LongestHorn]

Unless they find something really distasteful, it’s another witch hunt.

Immunity means they found something really illegal.