President Trump Thread...

Status
Not open for further replies.

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,874
ANALYSIS: Two of the president's former associates were in court Tuesday. Both guilty of multiple felonies. What happened to draining the swamp?

There hasn't been a darker moment for a president — or for the presidency — since Richard Nixon resigned on the verge of impeachment in 1974.

On Tuesday, Michael Cohen, the president's longtime fixer and former personal lawyer, pleaded guilty to felony crimes that included illegally paying women hush money to help Donald Trump win the presidency in 2016. Most important, he said he did so at Trump's direction.

In other words, Trump cheated to win the White House, according to one of his closest former associates.

Cohen's admissions were so damaging for the president, both legally and politically, that his lawyer Rudy Giuliani could point only to the lack of an indictment directly against Trump as the good news. "There is no allegation of any wrongdoing against the president in the government’s charges against Mr. Cohen," Giuliani said.

Cohen's plea was just one of several punishing blows delivered Tuesday to Trump's narrative that he and his allies came to Washington to "drain the swamp" of corruption. The others: Paul Manafort, the president's onetime campaign chairman, was convicted on eight counts of bank and tax fraud, and Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., an early endorser of Trump for president, was indicted on federal charges that he violated campaign finance law.

"The president is clearly guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors," New York Times columnist Bret Stephens, a conservative, wrote on Twitter after the Cohen plea. "He should resign his office or be impeached and removed from office." Stephens has been a frequent critic of Trump but had not previously called for his removal.

The allegation that the president not only knew about but directed criminal activity takes the country back to the Nixon days, when the central questions were what the president knew and when he knew it about the cover-up of the Watergate break-in. And the comparisons are sure to fill airwaves across the country in the coming days and weeks.

In 1998, President Bill Clinton was impeached by the House on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice stemming from his affair with Monica Lewinsky. But Clinton was not accused of any underlying crimes as serious as those which Cohen suggests Trump may have committed.

It is possible all of this could have come at a worse time for Trump and his fellow Republicans — it could have happened a week before the midterm elections in November, as the GOP tries to keep control of the House and Senate. But even three months before voters go to the polls is too close for comfort for congressional Republicans.

Regardless of whether Trump is ever charged with anything — and many lawyers argue a president can't be indicted while in office — voters will get to render their verdict on whether Republicans in Congress have done enough to investigate allegations that Trump subverted a free and fair election.

And when they look at the Trump operation, they will see that the president surrounded himself not with "only the best," as he has long claimed, but with several convicted criminals.

In addition to Cohen and Manafort, Trump's national security adviser, Michael Flynn, deputy campaign manager Rick Gates, and campaign adviser George Papadopoulos have all pleaded guilty to felonies. Rep. Chris Collins, R-N.Y., a political ally, has been indicted on charges related to insider trading.

Not everyone in Trump's base is quick to excuse those around him.

"If you do something wrong, there ought to be consequences for it — no matter who you are," said Dan Cooley, a 43-year-old forester from central West Virginia said at a Trump political rally here on Tuesday night, adding that he didn't think the wrongdoing of others reflected poorly on the president himself.

Whatever the case, voters will render the next verdict on Trump and his allies, and they will do so with Tuesday's events fresh in their minds. They will know the president stands accused by his own former fixer of breaking the law to win the White House.

It wasn't just a bad day for Trump, it was a historically awful day for the presidency.
This is just opinionated commentary. Hundreds of political media writers have has the same approach to a presumption of some crime. If there is a crime then have the prosecutor file it and get with the process. These hapless articles you post are just fodder to stir up people like you who do not deal with facts but instead backs their sources wit someone else's opinionated crap. Its a merry go round of sensationalistic hacks offering the same stuff. They wont wait to see if anything comes of it rather they stir up the controversy to keep the pot going. If charges are filed so be it. If it goes to trial so be it. At least we will all know the direction of the process.
 

BipolarFuk

Demoted
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
11,464
How the fuck will it go to trial?

Most articles I've read say a sitting President can't be indicted. He is literally ABOVE THE LAW.

Sure he can be indicted/impeached by a democratic House next year, but you would never get 2/3 of partisan hack senators to convict. The republicans that did would never win another primary. It isn't fair. We have elected Kings. Not presidents.
 

Smitty

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
24,097
I know you're not looking for a serious answer and just trolling but doing this anyway

I don't think Andy Grewal has this analysis correct. I think the "knowingly and willfully" part means you have to knowingly and willfully be making the payment. Not that you have to know you're breaking the law when you make the payment. Ignorance of the law is almost never an excuse. Ignorance of your actions is an excuse way more often, ie, you didn't realize that by signing this piece of paper, you were executing a check to Stephanie Clifford for $130,000. You thought you were signing your name to some other document, etc. Thus, even though the effect of your deliberate action, ie, deliberately signing your name on a check, you didn't realize you were signing a check, you thought you were doing something else.

That being said, it seems like Cohen making the payment on Trump's behalf is a violation. If Trump reimbursed, it may not be. Whether it was Trump's corporation that did the reimbursing, well, again, that is a fine line that I'm not sure is actually criminal. Trump can say, "That's my money." If he did, in fact, reimburse Cohen.
 

Smitty

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
24,097
Fuck the Constitution.

You commit a crime, you get taken down just like everyone else.
Uh.... no.

If we're "fucking" and disregarding federal law, then, uh, no violation of law actually occurred. Do you even think before you post?

If we are throwing out the supreme federal law, then the federal law that Trump violated no longer exists.

Seriously.

Do better.
 

Smitty

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
24,097
How the fuck will it go to trial?

Most articles I've read say a sitting President can't be indicted. He is literally ABOVE THE LAW.

Sure he can be indicted/impeached by a democratic House next year, but you would never get 2/3 of partisan hack senators to convict. The republicans that did would never win another primary. It isn't fair. We have elected Kings. Not presidents.
You continue to astound with your ignorance.

If the law says that Presidents have the power to pardon, that the President can only be indicted by the House and convicted by the Senate, than he is definitely NOT above the law; he's operating exactly how the law was written. Operating as the law was written is the definition of NOT being above the law.

I think what you are trying to bitch about is that the President isn't subject to the same prosecutor and jury as anyone who isn't the President. Guess what, a jury of 12 citizens could have 1 conservative on it who refuses to convict for political reasons too. And since the normal process requires UNANIMITY to convict, only needing to convince 2/3rds of your "jurors" doesn't seem so bad, huh?

But you may want to think twice about making the argument that any Joe Blow local or federal prosecutor can prosecute a President, because Obama would have faced one indictment after another during his term. So there's that.
 

jsmith6919

Honored Member - RIP
Joined
Aug 26, 2013
Messages
28,407
I don't think Andy Grewal has this analysis correct. I think the "knowingly and willfully" part means you have to knowingly and willfully be making the payment. Not that you have to know you're breaking the law when you make the payment. Ignorance of the law is almost never an excuse. Ignorance of your actions is an excuse way more often, ie, you didn't realize that by signing this piece of paper, you were executing a check to Stephanie Clifford for $130,000. You thought you were signing your name to some other document, etc. Thus, even though the effect of your deliberate action, ie, deliberately signing your name on a check, you didn't realize you were signing a check, you thought you were doing something else.

That being said, it seems like Cohen making the payment on Trump's behalf is a violation. If Trump reimbursed, it may not be. Whether it was Trump's corporation that did the reimbursing, well, again, that is a fine line that I'm not sure is actually criminal. Trump can say, "That's my money." If he did, in fact, reimburse Cohen.
From his link-

But FECA, according to the United States Department of Justice, operates differently. Most of FECA’s prohibitions, including those related to contributions/donations from foreign nationals, create criminal consequences only when a person “knowingly and willfully” commits a violation of the statute.*** See 52 U.S.C. 30109(d)(1)(A). And according to the DOJ’s standards, which may differ from the case law’s (more on that later), this heightened mens rea standard means that a person must know that he is breaking the law to trigger a criminal prosecution, and must know about the relevant statutory duty: The “words [‘knowingly and willingly’] of specific criminal intent require proof that the offender was aware of what the law required, and that he or she violated that law notwithstanding that knowledge, i.e., that the offender acted in conscious disregard of a known statutory duty or prohibition.” U.S. DOJ, Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses, p.135 (7th Ed.) (2007) (DOJ Manual). By the DOJ’s standards, if a defendant is unaware of FECA, she cannot commit a criminal violation of the statute. See id. at 14 (“FECA violations become potential crimes when they are committed knowingly and willfully, that is, by an offender who knew what the law forbade and violated it notwithstanding that knowledge.”). Even if she negligently ignores the law or mistakes its requirements, no prosecution can properly follow. See id. at 4. Instead, civil enforcement will correct any violations. See id. See also 52 U.S.C. 30109(a) (describing, among other things, civil enforcement procedures); 11 C.F.R. 110.20(g) (“knowingly” standard applies for civil violations of 52 U.S.C. 30121(a)(2)); 11 C.F.R. 110.20(a)(4) (defining “knowingly” as referring to knowledge of the facts, rather than knowledge of the law); Rick Hasen, Election Law Blog (“Trump Jr. can still be civilly liable, even if he’s too ignorant to be criminally liable.”).
http://yalejreg.com/nc/if-trump-jr-didnt-know-campaign-finance-law-he-didnt-break-it/

Is he wrong here? Seriously asking.

Also pretty sure I saw Trump did reimburse Cohen but don't remember if it was from his foundation
 

Smitty

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
24,097
Interesting. Maybe he's right.

I suppose the campaign finance law could be a specific intent crime but I would have been surprised by that. Most laws are general intent.
 

NoDak

Hotlinking' sonofabitch
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
26,085
:lol

Tell me again why it is Trump and his cronies in trouble with the law and not Hillary?

:lol
I never said anything about anybody breaking any laws. This doesn't have anything to do with what I posted or replied to. But nice deflection, I guess.
 

BipolarFuk

Demoted
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
11,464
Can Mueller Indict the Trump Organization?

Can Mueller Indict the Trump Organization?

Michael Cohen's Tuesday guilty plea to eight charges, including campaign finance violations, raised questions about whether Special Counsel Robert Mueller's next move could be to indict the Trump Organization, the Trump campaign, or even the president himself.

As part of Cohen’s plea deal, the president's former personal attorney admitted that "in coordination and at the direction of” then-candidate Donald Trump, he violated campaign finance laws when he paid off two women for their silence over alleged affairs with Trump “for the principal purpose of influencing the election.”

Those payments included $130,000 to adult-film actress Stormy Daniels and $150,000 to former Playboy model Karen McDougal through the use of shell companies. Those payments were later allegedly reimbursed to him by the Trump Organization.

Former federal prosecutors tell Newsweek while it’s plausible the Trump Organization or campaign could be indicted based on their alleged involvement in Cohen’s crimes, it’s unlikely the president himself would be indicted. The Department of Justice has a policy not to indict a sitting U.S. president because it would “undermine the capacity of the executive branch.” When it comes to impeachment, that would be entirely left up to Congress.

However, if he were not sitting in the Oval Office, former U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan Barbara McQuade said Trump would absolutely be indicted “because it appears based on Cohen’s in-court statement, he was directed by President Trump to engage in this.” McQuade said the specific charge would likely be the solicitation of a crime.

Both McQuade and Kenyan Brown, a former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Alabama, told Newsweek that based on Cohen’s admission of guilt and allegations in court documents from prosecutors, it seems like the Trump Organization may have engaged in a criminal activity and could be indicted. Harry Litman, former U.S. attorney for the Western District of Pennsylvania, believed it’s more likely individuals within the Trump Organization would be indicted for their alleged involvement rather than the corporation as a whole.

Prosecutors laid out the alleged use of false invoices the president's company made to mask 12 monthly payments of $35,000 to reimburse Cohen $420,000. His reimbursement was far more than the original $180,035 Cohen asked for that prosecutors said he paid to quash the stories of Daniels and McDougal from reaching the public.

The Trump campaign was also allegedly involved because of Cohen’s admitted violation of campaign finance laws by his intent to influence the election at the direction of the candidate, Trump. “In so doing,” prosecutors said, “he coordinated with one or more members of the campaign, including through meetings and phone calls, about the fact, nature, and timing of the payments.”

Cohen’s recent guilty plea “certainly implicates the president for possible criminal conduct dealing with campaign finance laws,” Brown said, adding: “It certainly seems like the circle is closing toward the top of the three, that being our chief executive and or his campaign organization.”

Litman said it's more likely individuals would be charged instead of the campaign as an entity, although he agreed with McQuade and Brown that there is nothing legally preventing Mueller from indicting the organization or the campaign, so long as there’s sufficient evidence.

McQuade said there may be enough.

“It looks like there’s that possibility, but I think most people would want more than just Michael Cohen’s word,” McQuade said. “Chances are they have it or they could get it if they have access to all his emails, financial records and tape recording.”

With no cooperation agreement required from Cohen in his plea deal with federal prosecutors, McQuade thinks they will probably sit down with Cohen to see if he'll cooperate and tell the truth in exchange for a lighter sentence.

Cohen's attorney, Lanny Davis, told MSNBC's Rachel Maddow Tuesday night that Cohen is willing to tell Mueller's team "all that he knows" and that he would never accept a "pardon from someone who acted so corruptly as president."
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,874
Michael Cohen's Tuesday guilty plea to eight charges, including campaign finance violations, raised questions about whether Special Counsel Robert Mueller's next move could be to indict the Trump Organization, the Trump campaign, or even the president himself.

As part of Cohen’s plea deal, the president's former personal attorney admitted that "in coordination and at the direction of” then-candidate Donald Trump, he violated campaign finance laws when he paid off two women for their silence over alleged affairs with Trump “for the principal purpose of influencing the election.”

Those payments included $130,000 to adult-film actress Stormy Daniels and $150,000 to former Playboy model Karen McDougal through the use of shell companies. Those payments were later allegedly reimbursed to him by the Trump Organization.

Former federal prosecutors tell Newsweek while it’s plausible the Trump Organization or campaign could be indicted based on their alleged involvement in Cohen’s crimes, it’s unlikely the president himself would be indicted. The Department of Justice has a policy not to indict a sitting U.S. president because it would “undermine the capacity of the executive branch.” When it comes to impeachment, that would be entirely left up to Congress.

However, if he were not sitting in the Oval Office, former U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan Barbara McQuade said Trump would absolutely be indicted “because it appears based on Cohen’s in-court statement, he was directed by President Trump to engage in this.” McQuade said the specific charge would likely be the solicitation of a crime.

Both McQuade and Kenyan Brown, a former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Alabama, told Newsweek that based on Cohen’s admission of guilt and allegations in court documents from prosecutors, it seems like the Trump Organization may have engaged in a criminal activity and could be indicted. Harry Litman, former U.S. attorney for the Western District of Pennsylvania, believed it’s more likely individuals within the Trump Organization would be indicted for their alleged involvement rather than the corporation as a whole.

Prosecutors laid out the alleged use of false invoices the president's company made to mask 12 monthly payments of $35,000 to reimburse Cohen $420,000. His reimbursement was far more than the original $180,035 Cohen asked for that prosecutors said he paid to quash the stories of Daniels and McDougal from reaching the public.

The Trump campaign was also allegedly involved because of Cohen’s admitted violation of campaign finance laws by his intent to influence the election at the direction of the candidate, Trump. “In so doing,” prosecutors said, “he coordinated with one or more members of the campaign, including through meetings and phone calls, about the fact, nature, and timing of the payments.”

Cohen’s recent guilty plea “certainly implicates the president for possible criminal conduct dealing with campaign finance laws,” Brown said, adding: “It certainly seems like the circle is closing toward the top of the three, that being our chief executive and or his campaign organization.”

Litman said it's more likely individuals would be charged instead of the campaign as an entity, although he agreed with McQuade and Brown that there is nothing legally preventing Mueller from indicting the organization or the campaign, so long as there’s sufficient evidence.

McQuade said there may be enough.

“It looks like there’s that possibility, but I think most people would want more than just Michael Cohen’s word,” McQuade said. “Chances are they have it or they could get it if they have access to all his emails, financial records and tape recording.”

With no cooperation agreement required from Cohen in his plea deal with federal prosecutors, McQuade thinks they will probably sit down with Cohen to see if he'll cooperate and tell the truth in exchange for a lighter sentence.

Cohen's attorney, Lanny Davis, told MSNBC's Rachel Maddow Tuesday night that Cohen is willing to tell Mueller's team "all that he knows" and that he would never accept a "pardon from someone who acted so corruptly as president."
What this tells me is that there will not be any more efforts on the Russian collusion matter. It was a straw man pseudo effort until they could go another direction. They think they may have made a chink in the armor with Cohen but if that doesn’t fly then the Special prosecutor is against the wall because there is no where else to go to try to get to Trump. Who knows what Cohen will say to save his skin but he will really need to have some leverage or the entire Special prosecutors program will then be toast. Regardless Trump will stay in office but Mullers game is about cooked and the Republicans will be hell bent on unearthing the scheme that brought about the FISA warrants that concocted all this collusion business. The pancake is about to flipped and the other side will be on the griddle.
 

BipolarFuk

Demoted
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
11,464
What this tells me is that there will not be any more efforts on the Russian collusion matter. It was a straw man pseudo effort until they could go another direction. They think they may have made a chink in the armor with Cohen but if that doesn’t fly then the Special prosecutor is against the wall because there is no where else to go to try to get to Trump. Who knows what Cohen will say to save his skin but he will really need to have some leverage or the entire Special prosecutors program will then be toast. Regardless Trump will stay in office but Mullers game is about cooked and the Republicans will be hell bent on unearthing the scheme that brought about the FISA warrants that concocted all this collusion business. The pancake is about to flipped and the other side will be on the griddle.
:lol
 

Cotton

One-armed Knife Sharpener
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
125,579
I think what LT is asking, and I am as well, is, What are the elements of an illegal campaign contribution?
Dude, he doesn't fucking know.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom