|
Post by kcrufnek on Aug 22, 2018 11:40:06 GMT -6
If it's high crimes and misdemeanors now then it should have been in 2008.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 22, 2018 11:44:04 GMT -6
Op-Ed by a former pollster for both Bill & Hillary Clinton: thehill.com/opinion/white-house/402959-cohens-plea-deal-is-prosecutors-attempt-to-set-up-trumpCohen's plea deal is prosecutor's attempt to set up Trump BY MARK PENN, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 08/22/18 07:25 AM EDT 4,386 THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY CONTRIBUTORS ARE THEIR OWN AND NOT THE VIEW OF THE HILL Here we go, from Russia with love to campaign finance with love. Why was Michael Cohen investigated? Because the “Steele dossier” had him making secret trips to meet with Russians that never happened, so his business dealings got a thorough scrubbing and, in the process, he fell into the special counsel’s Manafort bin — the bin reserved for squeezing until the juice comes out. And now we are back to 1998 all over again, with presidents and presidential candidates covering up their alleged marital misdeeds and prosecutors trying to turn legal acts into illegal ones by inventing new crimes. The plot to get President Trump out of office thickens, as Cohen obviously was his own mini-crime syndicate and decided that his betrayals of Trump meant he would be better served turning on his old boss to cut the best deal with prosecutors he could rather than holding out and getting the full Manafort treatment. That was clear the minute he hired attorney Lanny Davis, who doesn’t try cases and did past work for Hillary Clinton. Cohen had recorded his client, trying to entrap him, sold information about Trump (while acting as his lawyer) to corporations for millions of dollars, and didn’t pay taxes on millions. ADVERTISEMENT The sweetener for the prosecutors, of course, was getting Cohen to plead guilty to campaign finance violations that were not campaign finance violations. Money paid to people who come out of the woodwork and shake down people under threat of revealing bad sexual stories are not legitimate campaign expenditures. They are personal expenditures. That is true for both candidates we like and candidates we don’t. Just imagine if candidates used campaign funds instead of their own money to pay folks like Stormy Daniels to keep quiet about affairs; they would get indicted for misuse of campaign funds for personal purposes and for tax evasion. There appear to be two payments involved in this unusual plea — Cohen pleaded guilty to a campaign finance violation for having “coordinated” the American Media Inc. payment to Karen McDougal for her story, not for actually making the payment. So he is pleading guilty over a corporate contribution he did not make.Think about this for a minute: Suppose ABC had paid Stormy Daniels for her story in coordination with Michael Avenatti or maybe even the Democratic National Committee’s law firm on the eve of the election; by this reasoning, if the purpose of this money paid, just before the election, would be to hurt Trump and help Clinton win, this payment would be a corporate political contribution. If using it not to get Trump would be a corporate contribution, then using it to get Trump also has to be a corporate contribution. That’s why neither are corporate contributions and this is a bogus approach to federal election law. (Note that none of the donors in the 2012 John Edwards case faced any legal issues and the Federal Election Commission [FEC] ruled their payments were not campaign contributions that had to be reported — facts that prosecutors tried to suppress at trial.) Now, when it comes to Stormy Daniels, Cohen made a payment a few days before the election that Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani says was reimbursed. First, given that this payment was on Oct. 27, it would never have been reported before the election campaign and so, for all intents and purposes, was immaterial as it relates to any effect on the campaign. What’s clear in this plea deal is that, in exchange for overall leniency on his massive tax evasion, Cohen is pleading guilty to these other charges as an attempt to give prosecutors what they want — a Trump connection.The usual procedures here would be for the FEC to investigate complaints and sort through these murky laws to determine if these kinds of payments are personal in nature or more properly classified as campaign expenditures. And, on the Daniels payment that was made and reimbursed by Trump, it is again a question of whether that was made for personal reasons (especially since they have been trying since 2011 to obtain agreement). Just because it would be helpful to the campaign does not convert it to a campaign expenditure. Think of a candidate with bad teeth who had dental work done to look better for the campaign; his campaign still could not pay for it because it’s a personal expenditure. --- MORE FROM MARK PENN Only courts can rein in 'King Rosenstein' Press needs to restore its credibility on the FBI and Justice Department Don't let Big Tech become Big Brother --- Contrast what is going on here with the treatment of the millions of dollars paid to a Democratic law firm which, in turn, paid out money to political research firm Fusion GPS and British ex-spy Christopher Steele without listing them on any campaign expenditure form — despite crystal-clear laws and regulations that the ultimate beneficiaries of the funds must be listed. This rule was even tightened recently. There is no question that hiring spies to do opposition research in Russia is a campaign expenditure, and yet, no prosecutorial raids have been sprung on the law firm, Fusion GPS or Steele. Reason: It does not “get” Trump.So, Trump spends $130,000 to keep the lid on a personal story and the full weight of state prosecutors comes down on his lawyer, tossing attorney–client privilege to the wind. Democrats spend potentially millions on secret opposition research and no serious criminal investigation occurs. Remember that the feds tried a similar strategy against Democrat John Edwards in the 2012 case and it failed. As Gregory Craig, a lawyer who worked both for President Clinton and Edwards, said: “The government’s theory is wrong on the facts and wrong on the law. It is novel and untested. There is no civil or criminal precedent for such a prosecution.” Hey, tried it there anyway and it failed.
And let’s not forget that Clinton was entrapped into lying about his affairs and, although impeached, was acquitted by the Senate. The lesson was clear: We are not going to remove presidents for lying about who they had affairs with, nor even convict politicians on campaign finance violations for these personal payments.With Cohen pleading guilty, there will be no test of soundness of the prosecution theories here, and it is yet another example of the double standards of justice of one investigation that gave Clinton aides and principals every benefit of the doubt and another investigation that targeted Trump people until they found unrelated crimes to use as leverage. Prosecutors thought nothing of using the Logan Act against former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn and, now, obscure and unsettled elements of campaign finance law against Trump lawyer Cohen to manufacture crimes in what is a naked attempt to take Trump down and defeat democracy. Donald Trump should do a better job of picking aides who pay their taxes — but he’s not responsible for their financial problems and crimes. These investigations, essentially based on an opposition-funded dossier, were never anything other than an attempt to push into a corner as many Trump aides and family members as possible and shake them down until they could get close enough to Trump to try to take him down. That’s why so many of his aides, lawyers and actions in the campaign and in the White House have undergone hour-by-hour scrutiny to find anything that could be colored into a crime, leaving far behind the original Russia-collusion theory as the fake pretext it was. Paying for nondisclosure agreements for perfectly legal activities is not a crime, not a campaign contribution as commonly understood or ruled upon by the FEC — and squeezing guilty pleas out of vulnerable witnesses does not change those facts. Mark Penn is a managing partner of the Stagwell Group, a private equity firm specializing in marketing services companies, as well as chairman of the Harris Poll and author of “Microtrends Squared.” He served as pollster and adviser to President Clinton from 1995 to 2000, including during Clinton’s impeachment. You can follow him on Twitter @mark_Penn.
|
|
|
Post by okirishfan on Aug 22, 2018 12:01:29 GMT -6
Who are these experts saying that the violations that Cohen pleaded guilty to are not crimes?
I know you love you some links so I'll just wait here patiently for something that says the violations he pleaded guilty to are not crimes.
Edit: And don't come back with something about "discretion". A prosecutor can use his discretion, much like a cop deciding not to give a ticket, as to whether a person is charged criminally or civil concerning campaign violation laws. But make no mistake about it, speeding is against the law, it's a violation. Whether or not the police officer "charges" you does not change the fact it is still a violation.
I’d say the former head of the FEC would qualify & I already linked to an interview where he mentioned,(audio at site linked), as well as, his Op-Ed in the WSJ earlier this year. They were posted in a single post earlier in this thread. And he said that the violations that COHEN pleaded guilty to were not crimes.....since, that is, of course, what we're talking about?
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 22, 2018 12:03:59 GMT -6
I’d say the former head of the FEC would qualify & I already linked to an interview where he mentioned,(audio at site linked), as well as, his Op-Ed in the WSJ earlier this year. They were posted in a single post earlier in this thread. And he said that the violations that COHEN pleaded guilty to were not crimes.....since, that is, of course, what we're talking about? The campaign violation “crime” was not a crime which is what we’ve been discussing, (since it attempts to involve Trump).
|
|
|
Post by okirishfan on Aug 22, 2018 12:11:47 GMT -6
And he said that the violations that COHEN pleaded guilty to were not crimes.....since, that is, of course, what we're talking about? The campaign violation “crime” was not a crime which is what we’ve been discussing, (since it attempts to involve Trump). No we were never discussing it's relevancy to Trump, besides his ignorant statement that Cohen pleaded guilty to a crime that is not a crime. You even went as far to say that maybe the judge, Cohen and Cohen's attorney don't know what the law is as if someone would plead guilty to a crime that wasn't a crime. But whatever. 5th avenue and all that. Maybe Cohen should ask for the FEC chairman to defend him. Seems like he knows more than everyone else. And you said, "some". You gave ONE example...and example I might add of a guy that was infowars. Got anyone else besides that? I can give you a litany of names, including conservatives, who say that it is a crime...including the one that's going to prison for it. lol. Geez.
|
|
|
Post by 1tc on Aug 22, 2018 12:18:42 GMT -6
The campaign violation “crime” was not a crime which is what we’ve been discussing, (since it attempts to involve Trump). No we were never discussing it's relevancy to Trump, besides his ignorant statement that Cohen pleaded guilty to a crime that is not a crime. You even went as far to say that maybe the judge, Cohen and Cohen's attorney don't know what the law is as if someone would plead guilty to a crime that wasn't a crime. But whatever. 5th avenue and all that. Maybe Cohen should ask for the FEC chairman to defend him. Seems like he knows more than everyone else. And you said, "some". You gave ONE example...and example I might add of a guy that was infowars. Got anyone else besides that? I can give you a litany of names, including conservatives, who say that it is a crime...including the one that's going to prison for it. lol. Geez. He’s going to jail for tax fraud and bank fraud.
|
|
|
Post by okirishfan on Aug 22, 2018 12:20:28 GMT -6
So now Trump is saying he knew about the hush money payments "later on", which, of course, contradicts his statement(s) that he didn't know anything about it.
Gee I wonder why he is saying, "later on"? Could it be because if he knew about them before, he might have broken a law "that isn't a crime". lol.
Stormy Daniels has more credibility than this crook.
|
|
|
Post by sheepdog on Aug 22, 2018 12:22:28 GMT -6
So now Trump is saying he knew about the hush money payments "later on", which, of course, contradicts his statement(s) that he didn't know anything about it. Gee I wonder why he is saying, "later on"? Could it be because if he knew about them before, he might have broken a law "that isn't a crime". lol. Stormy Daniels has more credibility than this crook. Before her issue with Trump what did you know about her?
|
|
|
Post by okirishfan on Aug 22, 2018 12:24:17 GMT -6
No we were never discussing it's relevancy to Trump, besides his ignorant statement that Cohen pleaded guilty to a crime that is not a crime. You even went as far to say that maybe the judge, Cohen and Cohen's attorney don't know what the law is as if someone would plead guilty to a crime that wasn't a crime. But whatever. 5th avenue and all that. Maybe Cohen should ask for the FEC chairman to defend him. Seems like he knows more than everyone else. And you said, "some". You gave ONE example...and example I might add of a guy that was infowars. Got anyone else besides that? I can give you a litany of names, including conservatives, who say that it is a crime...including the one that's going to prison for it. lol. Geez. He’s going to jail for tax fraud and bank fraud. I don't care what he's going to do time for. He pleaded guilty to two counts of campaign violations that have prison time up to 5 years. I'm no scholar but generally people don't plead guilty to charges that have prison time associated with them if they're not crimes. But keep trying to change the narrative. You're doing great.
|
|
|
Post by okirishfan on Aug 22, 2018 12:27:21 GMT -6
So now Trump is saying he knew about the hush money payments "later on", which, of course, contradicts his statement(s) that he didn't know anything about it. Gee I wonder why he is saying, "later on"? Could it be because if he knew about them before, he might have broken a law "that isn't a crime". lol. Stormy Daniels has more credibility than this crook. Before her issue with Trump what did you know about her? Did I need to know something about her? What I know right now is just about everything the fake news, a porn star and a playboy model have said about Trump has been spot on. And he's lied about it the whole time. I'm not sure I really need to know more than that.
|
|
|
Post by 1tc on Aug 22, 2018 12:30:22 GMT -6
He’s going to jail for tax fraud and bank fraud. I don't care what he's going to do time for. He pleaded guilty to two counts of campaign violations that have prison time up to 5 years. I'm no scholar but generally people don't plead guilty to charges that have prison time associated with them if they're not crimes. But keep trying to change the narrative. You're doing great. Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by okirishfan on Aug 22, 2018 12:37:51 GMT -6
Trump on AF1 April 5th 2018 when asked if he knew about payments to Stormy Daniels: "No"
Trump says on August 22, 2018 after Cohen admission: "I knew about the payments 'later'"
Sarah Sanders on August 22, 2018 when asked by reporter citing the two statements made by Trump above if Trump lied: "that's a ridiculous assertion".
My god, it's like disease over there.
|
|
|
Post by sheepdog on Aug 22, 2018 12:38:03 GMT -6
Before her issue with Trump what did you know about her? Did I need to know something about her? What I know right now is just about everything the fake news, a porn star and a playboy model have said about Trump has been spot on. And he's lied about it the whole time. I'm not sure I really need to know more than that. And maybe one day will come where you're not willing to pull things out of your reverse piehole.
|
|
|
Post by okirishfan on Aug 22, 2018 12:38:09 GMT -6
I don't care what he's going to do time for. He pleaded guilty to two counts of campaign violations that have prison time up to 5 years. I'm no scholar but generally people don't plead guilty to charges that have prison time associated with them if they're not crimes. But keep trying to change the narrative. You're doing great. Thanks! Anytime.
|
|
|
Post by okirishfan on Aug 22, 2018 12:41:24 GMT -6
Did I need to know something about her? What I know right now is just about everything the fake news, a porn star and a playboy model have said about Trump has been spot on. And he's lied about it the whole time. I'm not sure I really need to know more than that. And maybe one day will come where you're not willing to pull things out of your reverse piehole. Touche. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off for some self-reflection.
|
|
|
Post by 1tc on Aug 22, 2018 12:47:40 GMT -6
Trump on AF1 April 5th 2018 when asked if he knew about payments to Stormy Daniels: "No" Trump says on August 22, 2018 after Cohen admission: "I knew about the payments 'later'" Sarah Sanders on August 22, 2018 when asked by reporter citing the two statements made by Trump above if Trump lied: "that's a ridiculous assertion". My god, it's like disease over there. Hopefully, one day in the near future, we will have a cure for the lying disease you share with President Trump! Lierish: I didn’t post on LT when Obama was President. lol
|
|
|
Post by okirishfan on Aug 22, 2018 12:50:31 GMT -6
Trump on AF1 April 5th 2018 when asked if he knew about payments to Stormy Daniels: "No" Trump says on August 22, 2018 after Cohen admission: "I knew about the payments 'later'" Sarah Sanders on August 22, 2018 when asked by reporter citing the two statements made by Trump above if Trump lied: "that's a ridiculous assertion". My god, it's like disease over there. Hopefully, one day in the near future, we will have a cure for the lying disease you share with President Trump! Lierish: I didn’t post on LT when Obama was President. lol Yep.
|
|
|
Post by kcrufnek on Aug 22, 2018 12:53:40 GMT -6
Trump should have just said he heard about it when we did - on TV.
|
|
|
Post by reddeadredemption on Aug 22, 2018 12:56:49 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by okirishfan on Aug 22, 2018 13:01:21 GMT -6
Why is he so worried about the timing of this and where the money came from? I mean his great legal mind just said this morning that Cohen pleaded not guilty to something that wasn't a crime. It's so inexplicable. A mystery.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 22, 2018 13:08:47 GMT -6
Interesting if true:
“Judicial Watch went to the FBI in 2016 with information that we’d uncovered that suggested that the Russians had compromised Hillary Clinton’s server… But the FBI never did anything with that information.”
“We went to the FBI, our guy met with them for four hours. The meeting was initially set up through, guess who? Peter Strzok,” Fitton revealed. “Now, Strzok wasn’t at the meeting interestingly even though he set up the meeting–he sent two of his underlings there and they never did anything with that information,” Fitton said.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 22, 2018 13:12:49 GMT -6
www.dailywire.com/news/34880/democrats-say-they-wont-meet-trumps-supreme-court-ben-shapiroIn the wake of Michael Cohen’s allegations that President Trump directed him to violate federal campaign finance law, Democrats are seizing the opportunity to state that they will not even bother to meet with Trump’s latest Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) explained: A president, identified as an unindicted co-conspirator of a federal crime – an accusation made not by a political enemy but by the closest of his own confidants – is on the verge of making a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. A court that may someday soon determine the extent of the president’s legal jeopardy. In my view: the Senate Judiciary Committee should immediately pause the consideration of the Kavanaugh nomination. Ed Markey ✔ @senmarkey I will not take a meeting with Brett Kavanaugh. He has been nominated by someone implicated, and all but named as a co-conspirator, in federal crimes. His nomination is tainted and should be considered illegitimate. 12:16 PM - Aug 22, 2018 33.9K 11.7K people are talking about this Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) stated: The Judiciary Committee should cease reviewing, the hearings that are scheduled from about two weeks from now and deal with the matter of a President being credibly implicated or alleged to being a criminal co-conspirator. Senator Mazie Hirono (D-HI) agreed. None of this makes any sense. Even if Trump were impeached or resigned, his vice president would then take over; Mike Pence would simply renominate Kavanaugh. The entire goal here is to prevent a vote from taking place on Trump’s pick at all. Now, Democrats have every right to try to stall Kavanaugh. But this is the latest intellectually dishonest excuse from Democrats, who killed the judicial filibuster years ago, and began the process of Borking Republican nominees decades ago.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 22, 2018 13:16:43 GMT -6
The campaign violation “crime” was not a crime which is what we’ve been discussing, (since it attempts to involve Trump). No we were never discussing it's relevancy to Trump, besides his ignorant statement that Cohen pleaded guilty to a crime that is not a crime. You even went as far to say that maybe the judge, Cohen and Cohen's attorney don't know what the law is as if someone would plead guilty to a crime that wasn't a crime. But whatever. 5th avenue and all that. Maybe Cohen should ask for the FEC chairman to defend him. Seems like he knows more than everyone else. And you said, "some". You gave ONE example...and example I might add of a guy that was infowars. Got anyone else besides that? I can give you a litany of names, including conservatives, who say that it is a crime...including the one that's going to prison for it. lol. Geez. Actually we were,(since yourself & others were celebrating something negative against Trump with the accusation of campaign finance). But whatever, resistance, not my President & all correct? As for the rest, nice job moving the goalposts again. You asked, I answered, you move the goalposts & ask a similar question. Lather, rinse, repeat.
|
|
|
Post by okirishfan on Aug 22, 2018 13:23:38 GMT -6
No we were never discussing it's relevancy to Trump, besides his ignorant statement that Cohen pleaded guilty to a crime that is not a crime. You even went as far to say that maybe the judge, Cohen and Cohen's attorney don't know what the law is as if someone would plead guilty to a crime that wasn't a crime. But whatever. 5th avenue and all that. Maybe Cohen should ask for the FEC chairman to defend him. Seems like he knows more than everyone else. And you said, "some". You gave ONE example...and example I might add of a guy that was infowars. Got anyone else besides that? I can give you a litany of names, including conservatives, who say that it is a crime...including the one that's going to prison for it. lol. Geez. Actually we were,(since yourself & others were celebrating something negative against Trump with the accusation of campaign finance). But whatever, resistance, not my President & all correct? As for the rest, nice job moving the goalposts again. You asked, I answered, you move the goalposts & ask a similar question. Lather, rinse, repeat. So one person? Got it. One person = "some" in the Trumpian world. Again, dude pleaded guilty to campaign violations that are a crime. I'll take the judge's, the prosecutor's, the defense attorney, and the accused, opinions over yours. But hey, Cohen needs to get you,the FEC guy and those "some" you spoke of on the phone, stat. I'd hate to see someone get 5 years in prison for something that wasn't even a crime. But I get. Anything that puts Trump in a good light even if it defies common sense reasoning. 5th avenue.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 22, 2018 13:23:40 GMT -6
www.breitbart.com/video/2018/08/22/trump-i-knew-about-cohen-payments-later-on-money-came-from-me/During a portion of an interview set to air on Thursday’s edition of the Fox News Channel’s “Fox & Friends,” President Trump stated that he knew about the payments made by Michael Cohen “Later on.” He added that the money for the payments came from him, not the campaign. Co-host Ainsley Earhardt asked, “Did you know about the payments?” Trump answered, “Later on I knew. Later on.” He added, “They came from me. … In fact, my first question when I heard about it was, did they come out of the campaign? Because that could be a little dicey. And they didn’t come out of the campaign, and that’s big. But they weren’t — that’s not a — it’s not even a campaign violation. If you look at President Obama, he had a massive campaign violation, but he had a different attorney general, and they viewed it a lot differently.”
|
|
|
Post by okirishfan on Aug 22, 2018 13:25:59 GMT -6
www.breitbart.com/video/2018/08/22/trump-i-knew-about-cohen-payments-later-on-money-came-from-me/During a portion of an interview set to air on Thursday’s edition of the Fox News Channel’s “Fox & Friends,” President Trump stated that he knew about the payments made by Michael Cohen “Later on.” He added that the money for the payments came from him, not the campaign. Co-host Ainsley Earhardt asked, “Did you know about the payments?” Trump answered, “Later on I knew. Later on.” He added, “They came from me. … In fact, my first question when I heard about it was, did they come out of the campaign? Because that could be a little dicey. And they didn’t come out of the campaign, and that’s big. But they weren’t — that’s not a — it’s not even a campaign violation. If you look at President Obama, he had a massive campaign violation, but he had a different attorney general, and they viewed it a lot differently.” Did she follow up with, "then why did you lie on April 5th 2018, on AF1 when you were asked if you knew and you said, "no"? Asking for a friend. "It's dicey and big if they did...but it's not a crime.....which is why I set up this interview with Fox news so I could say that it's big and dicey...but it's not...only when it is....and when it is...it doesn't matter because it didn't come out of campaign.....because that would be big and dicey....except it's not a violation or a crime....but it's important enough for me to come on and make a statement about it."
|
|
|
Post by reddeadredemption on Aug 22, 2018 13:34:03 GMT -6
www.breitbart.com/video/2018/08/22/trump-i-knew-about-cohen-payments-later-on-money-came-from-me/During a portion of an interview set to air on Thursday’s edition of the Fox News Channel’s “Fox & Friends,” President Trump stated that he knew about the payments made by Michael Cohen “Later on.” He added that the money for the payments came from him, not the campaign. Co-host Ainsley Earhardt asked, “Did you know about the payments?” Trump answered, “Later on I knew. Later on.” He added, “They came from me. … In fact, my first question when I heard about it was, did they come out of the campaign? Because that could be a little dicey. And they didn’t come out of the campaign, and that’s big. But they weren’t — that’s not a — it’s not even a campaign violation. If you look at President Obama, he had a massive campaign violation, but he had a different attorney general, and they viewed it a lot differently.” And again I post the FECA definition of a contribution (emphasis mine): www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2014-title52/pdf/USCODE-2014-title52-subtitleIII-chap301-subchapI-sec30101.pdf : It doesn't matter who paid for it, if it came out of campaign funds, if Cohen paid for it and was repaid by Trump...whatever - the law is very clear - ANY PERSON.
|
|
|
Post by sooner98 on Aug 22, 2018 13:40:43 GMT -6
www.dailywire.com/news/34880/democrats-say-they-wont-meet-trumps-supreme-court-ben-shapiroIn the wake of Michael Cohen’s allegations that President Trump directed him to violate federal campaign finance law, Democrats are seizing the opportunity to state that they will not even bother to meet with Trump’s latest Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) explained: A president, identified as an unindicted co-conspirator of a federal crime – an accusation made not by a political enemy but by the closest of his own confidants – is on the verge of making a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. A court that may someday soon determine the extent of the president’s legal jeopardy. In my view: the Senate Judiciary Committee should immediately pause the consideration of the Kavanaugh nomination. Ed Markey ✔ @senmarkey I will not take a meeting with Brett Kavanaugh. He has been nominated by someone implicated, and all but named as a co-conspirator, in federal crimes. His nomination is tainted and should be considered illegitimate. 12:16 PM - Aug 22, 2018 33.9K 11.7K people are talking about this Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) stated: The Judiciary Committee should cease reviewing, the hearings that are scheduled from about two weeks from now and deal with the matter of a President being credibly implicated or alleged to being a criminal co-conspirator. Senator Mazie Hirono (D-HI) agreed. None of this makes any sense. Even if Trump were impeached or resigned, his vice president would then take over; Mike Pence would simply renominate Kavanaugh. The entire goal here is to prevent a vote from taking place on Trump’s pick at all. Now, Democrats have every right to try to stall Kavanaugh. But this is the latest intellectually dishonest excuse from Democrats, who killed the judicial filibuster years ago, and began the process of Borking Republican nominees decades ago. Hmm...interesting offer there, Senators. I have a counter-offer for you: you can stand there and cry, whine, and stomp your feet like the petulant children you are, while the Kavanaugh hearings happen, the vote takes place, and he is confirmed for life, and the Supreme Court tilts conservative for the next two or three decades. Deal?
|
|
|
Post by Boots on Aug 22, 2018 13:59:50 GMT -6
www.dailywire.com/news/34880/democrats-say-they-wont-meet-trumps-supreme-court-ben-shapiroIn the wake of Michael Cohen’s allegations that President Trump directed him to violate federal campaign finance law, Democrats are seizing the opportunity to state that they will not even bother to meet with Trump’s latest Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) explained: A president, identified as an unindicted co-conspirator of a federal crime – an accusation made not by a political enemy but by the closest of his own confidants – is on the verge of making a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. A court that may someday soon determine the extent of the president’s legal jeopardy. In my view: the Senate Judiciary Committee should immediately pause the consideration of the Kavanaugh nomination. Ed Markey ✔ @senmarkey I will not take a meeting with Brett Kavanaugh. He has been nominated by someone implicated, and all but named as a co-conspirator, in federal crimes. His nomination is tainted and should be considered illegitimate. 12:16 PM - Aug 22, 2018 33.9K 11.7K people are talking about this Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) stated: The Judiciary Committee should cease reviewing, the hearings that are scheduled from about two weeks from now and deal with the matter of a President being credibly implicated or alleged to being a criminal co-conspirator. Senator Mazie Hirono (D-HI) agreed. None of this makes any sense. Even if Trump were impeached or resigned, his vice president would then take over; Mike Pence would simply renominate Kavanaugh. The entire goal here is to prevent a vote from taking place on Trump’s pick at all. Now, Democrats have every right to try to stall Kavanaugh. But this is the latest intellectually dishonest excuse from Democrats, who killed the judicial filibuster years ago, and began the process of Borking Republican nominees decades ago. Hmm...interesting offer there, Senators. I have a counter-offer for you: you can stand there and cry, whine, and stomp your feet like the petulant children you are, while the Kavanaugh hearings happen, the vote takes place, and he is confirmed for life, and the Supreme Court tilts conservative for the next two or three decades. Deal? Guilt by inference is the new rule of law
|
|
|
Post by Boots on Aug 22, 2018 14:14:02 GMT -6
www.breitbart.com/video/2018/08/22/trump-i-knew-about-cohen-payments-later-on-money-came-from-me/During a portion of an interview set to air on Thursday’s edition of the Fox News Channel’s “Fox & Friends,” President Trump stated that he knew about the payments made by Michael Cohen “Later on.” He added that the money for the payments came from him, not the campaign. Co-host Ainsley Earhardt asked, “Did you know about the payments?” Trump answered, “Later on I knew. Later on.” He added, “They came from me. … In fact, my first question when I heard about it was, did they come out of the campaign? Because that could be a little dicey. And they didn’t come out of the campaign, and that’s big. But they weren’t — that’s not a — it’s not even a campaign violation. If you look at President Obama, he had a massive campaign violation, but he had a different attorney general, and they viewed it a lot differently.” And again I post the FECA definition of a contribution (emphasis mine): www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2014-title52/pdf/USCODE-2014-title52-subtitleIII-chap301-subchapI-sec30101.pdf : It doesn't matter who paid for it, if it came out of campaign funds, if Cohen paid for it and was repaid by Trump...whatever - the law is very clear - ANY PERSON. If you are interested, the seminal case is the John Edwards trial - which resulted in a mistrial - and the government never pursued further. Now, what you are quoting are federal campaign contributions. What the feds say is that Cohen paid for the rights for the Stormy Daniels story for $130,000 and then wrote it off as campaign contributions. To prosecute Trump, the would have to prove (1) he ordered Cohen to write it off as campaign contributions, and (2) in doing so that it was illegal. If Mueller had any evidence beyond Cohen's statements - already deemed not credible - then he would have already gone after Trump for that and not passed it off to the Southern District of New York. Trunp indicates that he paid Cohen back with his own funds. This doesn't negate Cohen's bad act, but for campaign finance violations, routinely the campaign with return the monies and / or pay a fine.
|
|