Robert Mueller, Former F.B.I. Director, Is Named Special Counsel for Russia Investigation

biff17 · Dec 13, 2018

Os Trigonum said: ↑

another perspective

"The walls have been “closing in” for so long, the media tells us constantly. Yet the American public is still left wondering whether this is all a manufactured smear story. If it’s not, Muller should present his evidence and close up shop already. The fact that he’s not is certainly suggestive."

http://thefederalist.com/2018/12/13/promises-mueller-closing-trump-far-just-media-crying-wolf/
Click to expand...

When you go the American public route you lose all credibility because the American public does not all think the same thing.

Anybody without a bias can at least figure that out.

dobro1229 · Dec 13, 2018

txtony said: ↑

Why would Trump ever do this when he can go the Nixon path of resigning and getting a full pardon?
Click to expand...

Because Mueller and SDNY can give immunity to the whole Trump family. The Nixon route puts ALOT of faith in Mike Pence. A guy who went to the GOP donors the day the Access Hollywood Tape came out to take over the top of the ticket.

Os Trigonum · Dec 13, 2018

yet another perspective from a former head of the FEC

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/12/michael-cohen-sentencing-campaign-finance-law/

Michael Cohen Pled Guilty to Something That Is Not a Crime
By BRADLEY A. SMITH

December 12, 2018 5:00 PM

The prosecutor is twisting campaign-finance law.

Donald Trump’s wayward counsel, Michael Cohen, was sentenced today as part of a plea bargain with the government. As part of that settlement, Cohen has admitted to criminal violations of federal campaign-finance law and has implicated President Trump in those violations. The press is ablaze with headlines trumpeting the president’s possible involvement in two felony campaign-finance violations. The source of these violations are Mr. Cohen’s arranging — allegedly at Trump’s direction — hush-money payments to women alleging long-ago affairs with the 2016 presidential candidate.

The Federal Election Campaign Act holds that an “expenditure” is any “purchase, payment, loan, advance, deposit or gift of money, or anything of value, for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office.” According to Cohen and the U.S. Attorney, the hush-money payments were, it appears, made in the hopes of preventing information from becoming public before the election, and hence were “for the purpose of influencing” the election. This means that, at a minimum, they had to be reported to the Federal Election Commission; further, if they were authorized by Mr. Trump, they would become, in the law’s parlance, “coordinated expenditures,” subject to limits on the amounts that could be spent. Since the lawful contribution limit is much lower than the payments made, and the payments were not reported, this looks like an open and shut case, right?

Well, no. Or at least not in the way some might presume. To the contrary, the law — following our common sense — tells us that the hush-money payments outlined by the U.S. Attorney are clearly not campaign expenditures. There is no violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act.

To reach the opposite conclusion, the U.S. Attorney is placing all his chips on the language “for the purpose of influencing an election.” Intuitively, however, we all know that such language cannot be read literally — if it were, virtually every political candidate of the past 45 years has been in near-constant violation. The candidate who thinks “I need to brush my teeth, shower, and put on a nice suit today in order to campaign effectively” is surely not required to report as campaign expenditures his purchases of toothpaste, soap, and clothing. When he eats his Wheaties — breakfast of champions, and surely one cannot campaign on an empty stomach — his cereal and milk are not campaign expenses. When he drives to his office to start making phone calls to supporters, his gas is not a campaign expense.

So what does it mean to be “for the purpose of influencing an[] election”? To understand this, we read the statutory language in conjunction other parts of the statute. Here the key is the statute’s prohibition on diverting campaign funds to “personal use.” This is a crucial distinction, because one of the primary factors separating campaign funds from personal funds is that the former must be spent on the candidate’s campaign, while the latter can be used to buy expensive vacations, cars, watches, furs, and such. The law defines “personal use” as spending “used to fulfill any commitment, obligation, or expense of a person that would exist irrespective of the candidate’s election campaign.” So a candidate may intend for good toothpaste and soap, a quality suit, and a healthy breakfast to positively influence his election, but none of those are campaign expenditures, because all of those purchases would typically be made irrespective of running for office. And even if the candidate might not have brushed his teeth quite so often or would have bought a cheaper suit absent the campaign, these purchases still address his underlying obligations of maintaining hygiene and dressing himself.

To use a more pertinent example, imagine a wealthy entrepreneur who decides to run for office. Like many men and women with substantial business activities, at any one time there are likely several lawsuits pending against him personally, or against those various businesses. The candidate calls in his company attorney: “I want all outstanding lawsuits against our various enterprises settled.” His lawyer protests that the suits are without merit — the company should clearly win at trial, and he should protect his reputation of not settling meritless lawsuits. “I agree that these suits lack merit,” says our candidate, “but I don’t want them as a distraction during the campaign, and I don’t want to take the risk that the papers will use them to portray me as a heartless tycoon. Get them settled.”

The settlements in this hypothetical are made “for the purpose of influencing the election,” yet they are not “expenditures” under the Federal Election Campaign Act. Indeed, if they were, the candidate would have to pay for them with campaign funds. Thus, an unscrupulous but popular businessman could declare his candidacy, gather contributions from the public, use those contributions to settle various preexisting lawsuits, and then withdraw from the race. A nice trick!

But in fact, the contrary rule prevails, because the candidate’s obligation to resolve the business’s lawsuits exists “irrespective” of the campaign. Similarly, any payments made to women by Mr. Trump or his associates are independent of the campaign.

To this intuitively obvious fact — very few people would think paying hush money is a legitimate campaign expenditure — those eager to hang a charge on Mr. Trump typically respond that he made the payments when he did because of the looming election. That may be true, but note that the same is true of the entrepreneur, who instructs his counsel to settle the lawsuits pending against him. Further, note that in both cases, while the candidate has no legal obligation to pay at all, the events that give rise to the claim against him are unrelated to the campaign for office. Paying them may help the campaign, but the obligations exist “irrespective” of the run for office. Mr. Trump’s alleged decade-old affairs occurred long before he became a candidate for president and were not caused by his run for president.

Further clinching the case, in writing its implementing regulations for the statute, the Federal Election Commission specifically rejected a proposal that an expense could be considered a campaign expenditure if it were merely “primarily related to the candidate’s campaign.” This was done specifically to prevent candidates from claiming that things that benefitted them personally were done because they would also benefit the campaign. And with that in mind, it is worth noting Mr. Cohen’s sentencing statement, in which he writes that he “felt obligated to assist [Trump], on [Trump’s] instruction, to attempt to prevent Woman-1 and Woman-2 from disseminating narratives that would adversely affect the Campaign and cause personal embarrassment to Client-1 and his family.” (Emphasis in original.)

Certainly Mr. Trump had many valid, non-electoral reasons for trying to keep these allegations quiet, most notably family harmony, protecting family members (especially his young son, Baron), and preserving his future viability as a television personality in case he lost the election. Indeed, it is quite probable that many of those now baying for Trump’s scalp for illegal campaign contributions would be leading a charge to prosecute Trump for illegal “personal use” of campaign funds had he made the payments from his campaign treasury.

Finally, by ignoring these other parts of the statute and its implementing regulations (which carry the force of law), the prosecutors attempt to make the “for the purpose of influencing any election” language a subjective test that would, but for the plea bargain, be decided by a jury. But that is incorrect. The test is intended as an objective test of campaign-related expenditures. Renting campaign office space, printing bumper stickers and yard signs, hiring campaign staff, paying for polling, and buying broadcast ads are all obligations that exist for the purpose of influencing an election. Paying hush money to silence allegations of decade-old affairs is not.

When faced with the vague, sweepingly broad “for the purpose of influencing any election” language, the Supreme Court has consistently restricted its reach to brightly defined rules. For example, in determining whether a public message was an “expenditure” made “for the purpose of influencing any election,” it has construed the later phrase to apply only to messages “expressly advocating” the election or defeat of a candidate, such as “vote for,” “vote against,” “defeat,” “re-elect,” and the like, or to other clearly defined messages that are the “functional equivalent” of that express advocacy.

In short, Michael Cohen is pleading guilty to something that isn’t a crime. Of course, people will do that when a zealous prosecutor is threatening them with decades in prison. But his admissions are not binding on President Trump, and Trump should fight these charges ferociously.

Many Americans have convinced themselves that Trump is a uniquely dangerous and bad man, such that any available tool should be used to expel him from office. But in that way lies the bigger threat to our democracy and rule of law.
Click to expand...

more at the link

Amiga · Dec 13, 2018

dobro1229 said: ↑

Because Mueller and SDNY can give immunity to the whole Trump family. The Nixon route puts ALOT of faith in Mike Pence. A guy who went to the GOP donors the day the Access Hollywood Tape came out to take over the top of the ticket.
Click to expand...

The other path put a lot of faith on Mueller.

I don't see that as Pence not willing to pardon Trump and his family, but as a person that is ready and wanting to be President (hardly a secret). And I think he would have to also weight not alienating Trump's loyal supporters. I also see low political risk of pardoning a let-said-clearly-known-criminal-family given the precedent. Blah blah about crimes, then blah about forgiveness, about moving on for the good of the nation...

Anticope · Dec 13, 2018

Os Trigonum said: ↑

yet another perspective from a former head of the FEC

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/12/michael-cohen-sentencing-campaign-finance-law/

more at the link
Click to expand...

So Cohen and his lawyers decided that it was in Cohen's best interest to plead guilty to two non-existent campaign finance felonies? And let me guess, it was done to punish Trump because the entire world is out to get him as usual?

The ability of Trump supporters to completely warp reality to whatever narrative they see fit seems to reach new heights every day, there's literally nothing the guy could do that his supporters wouldn't instantly rush to defend. I'm guessing this is all just likely practice for the forthcoming defense of "conspiring with a foreign power while running for president isn't actually a crime." It's pretty pathetic at this point.

Os Trigonum · Dec 13, 2018

Anticope said: ↑

So Cohen and his lawyers decided that it was in Cohen's best interest to plead guilty to two non-existent campaign finance felonies? And let me guess, it was done to punish Trump because the entire world is out to get him as usual?

The ability of Trump supporters to completely warp reality to whatever narrative they see fit seems to reach new heights every day, there's literally nothing the guy could do that his supporters wouldn't instantly rush to defend. I'm guessing this is all just likely practice for the forthcoming defense of "conspiring with a foreign power while running for president isn't actually a crime." It's pretty pathetic at this point.
Click to expand...

this appears to be a mis-reading of the article. here's another view--Jack Marshall is a legal ethicist who writes:

"Sure enough, when Cohen, trying to save his own neck, was bullied into pleading guilty to a non-crime, the media and social media hills were alive with the sounds of impeachment. The celebrants, however, are just wrong. Cohen’s plea shows a cowardly, disgraceful unethical lawyer; it shows that his lawyer, Lanny Davis, may be more interested in getting Trump than representing Cohen; it shows that the prosecutors in the case are unethical, and that the judge should not have accepted a plea to something that was not and cannot be a crime. It does not show that the President violated the federal election laws."

https://ethicsalarms.com/2018/12/13...ne-much-less-a-justification-for-impeachment/

Rashmon · Dec 13, 2018

Os Trigonum said: ↑

this appears to be a mis-reading of the article. here's another view--Jack Marshall is a legal ethicist who writes:

"Sure enough, when Cohen, trying to save his own neck, was bullied into pleading guilty to a non-crime, the media and social media hills were alive with the sounds of impeachment. The celebrants, however, are just wrong. Cohen’s plea shows a cowardly, disgraceful unethical lawyer; it shows that his lawyer, Lanny Davis, may be more interested in getting Trump than representing Cohen; it shows that the prosecutors in the case are unethical, and that the judge should not have accepted a plea to something that was not and cannot be a crime. It does not show that the President violated the federal election laws."

https://ethicsalarms.com/2018/12/13...ne-much-less-a-justification-for-impeachment/
Click to expand...

You are embarassing yourself.

Anticope · Dec 13, 2018

Os Trigonum said: ↑

this appears to be a mis-reading of the article. here's another view--Jack Marshall is a legal ethicist who writes:

"Sure enough, when Cohen, trying to save his own neck, was bullied into pleading guilty to a non-crime, the media and social media hills were alive with the sounds of impeachment. The celebrants, however, are just wrong. Cohen’s plea shows a cowardly, disgraceful unethical lawyer; it shows that his lawyer, Lanny Davis, may be more interested in getting Trump than representing Cohen; it shows that the prosecutors in the case are unethical, and that the judge should not have accepted a plea to something that was not and cannot be a crime. It does not show that the President violated the federal election laws."

https://ethicsalarms.com/2018/12/13...ne-much-less-a-justification-for-impeachment/
Click to expand...

Okay so we can add Lanny Davis to the laundry list of people out to get Trump. Lanny Davis, the Democrats, the FBI, the justice department, FISA judges, the media, sexual assault accusers. Did I miss anyone?

MojoMan · Dec 13, 2018

Anticope said: ↑

So Cohen and his lawyers decided that it was in Cohen's best interest to plead guilty to two non-existent campaign finance felonies? And let me guess, it was done to punish Trump because the entire world is out to get him as usual?

The ability of Trump supporters to completely warp reality to whatever narrative they see fit seems to reach new heights every day, there's literally nothing the guy could do that his supporters wouldn't instantly rush to defend. I'm guessing this is all just likely practice for the forthcoming defense of "conspiring with a foreign power while running for president isn't actually a crime." It's pretty pathetic at this point.
Click to expand...

Cohen's lawyer is Lanny Davis, by the way.

mdrowe00 · Dec 13, 2018

Anticope said: ↑

Okay so we can add Lanny Davis to the laundry list of people out to get Trump. Lanny Davis, the Democrats, the FBI, the justice department, FISA judges, the media, sexual assault accusers. Did I miss anyone?
Click to expand...

...there's the Deep State...
...the Clintons (including that little ingrate Chelsea)...
...Obama (the president AND the Muslim)...
...Parkland High School and their little flash cards...
...and however-many millions of people had the good sense not to vote for him...

...and let's throw in Al Sharpton, too.

...you can never go wrong blaming a Negro for anything....

KingCheetah · Dec 13, 2018

Rashmon said: ↑

You are embarassing yourself.
Click to expand...

ETHICS ALARM.COM

larsv8 · Dec 13, 2018

The level of corruption that been unleashed here is practically comical.

Everyday new stories as more and more of the truth comes out.

Anyone denying it at this point, should be ignored, it is blatantly obvious.

Buck Turgidson · Dec 13, 2018

mdrowe00 said: ↑

...and let's throw in Al Sharpton, too.

...you can never go wrong blaming a Negro for anything....
Click to expand...

I'm assuming you are saving the big bombs for later...(apologies but I haven't read the whole thread)

Marion Barry. Clarence Thomas. Jessie Jackson. That Guy Obama Had a Beer With. Thomas Sowell. Leonard Pitts. OJ.

peleincubus · Dec 14, 2018

larsv8 said: ↑

The level of corruption that been unleashed here is practically comical.

Everyday new stories as more and more of the truth comes out.

Anyone denying it at this point, should be ignored, it is blatantly obvious.
Click to expand...

Nahh man. As a recent post in this thread said. mueller needs to close up shop. Nothing is happening. This whole investigation should have only taken two weeks. If more it’s obviously a sham.

Hakeemtheking · Dec 14, 2018

Judge Napolitano from Fox News said Trump is in serious legal trouble. He said Cohen has hard evidence that Trump committed a felony. Napolitano goes further as to why he knows this explaining you can't go to a federal judge and accuse someone like the POTUS without hard evidence that a crime has been committed.

My take: very likely the hard evidence Napolitano is alluding to is some recording of Trump implicating himself. Oops...

No Worries · Dec 14, 2018

Anticope said: ↑

Okay so we can add Lanny Davis to the laundry list of people out to get Trump. Lanny Davis, the Democrats, the FBI, the justice department, FISA judges, the media, sexual assault accusers. Did I miss anyone?
Click to expand...

57% of the voting public who do not approve of the job Trump is doing. Besides that, you got it covered

No Worries · Dec 14, 2018

MojoMan said: ↑

Cohen's lawyer is Lanny Davis, by the way.
Click to expand...

Trump's lawyer is Michael Cohen, by the way.

No Worries · Dec 14, 2018

Hakeemtheking said: ↑

Judge Napolitano from Fox News said Trump is in serious legal trouble. He said Cohen has hard evidence that Trump committed a felony. Napolitano goes further as to why he knows this explaining you can't go to a federal judge and accuse someone like the POTUS without hard evidence that a crime has been committed.

My take: very likely the hard evidence Napolitano is alluding to is some recording of Trump implicating himself. Oops...
Click to expand...

Trump Inc's ex-CFO, Allen Weisselberg, is also cooperating with the SDNY. Unlike Cohen, the SDNY might be able to put Weisselberg on the stand. Weisselberg should know where all of the bodies that Trump and his dad have buried. This is a HUGE get for the SDNY.

mdrowe00 · Dec 14, 2018

Buck Turgidson said: ↑

I'm assuming you are saving the big bombs for later...(apologies but I haven't read the whole thread)

Marion Barry. Clarence Thomas. Jessie Jackson. That Guy Obama Had a Beer With. Thomas Sowell. Leonard Pitts. OJ.
Click to expand...

...an all-star cast, including:

...the Bilderberg clan...
...the Illuminati...
...QAnon...

...with Joe Scarborough, Mika Brzezinski...

...AND...

...George Soros...as the Beaver.

NewRoxFan · Dec 14, 2018

No Worries said: ↑

Trump Inc's ex-CFO, Allen Weisselberg, is also cooperating with the SDNY. Unlike Cohen, the SDNY might be able to put Weisselberg on the stand. Weisselberg should know where all of the bodies that Trump and his dad have buried. This is a HUGE get for the SDNY.
Click to expand...

Plus... the publisher of The Inquirer has also agreed to cooperate, providing the other side of the $150,000 hush money payment. There were additional things alluded to... suggesting that there were other stories buried by the magazine. At the least there will be additional embarrassment upcoming and many believe trump hates getting embarrassed more than anything else.

An interesting additional point... in yesterday's fox news "interview" trump referred to cohen as "more of a PR person." If so, there is no "PR person/client" privilege. While I suspect that trump and his current/future legal counsel will try to suggest that any part cohen is willing to sing about will be under lawyer/client privilege. Still, trump continues to weaken his case.

Forums

Robert Mueller, Former F.B.I. Director, Is Named Special Counsel for Russia Investigation

biff17 Member

dobro1229 Member

Os Trigonum Member
Supporting Member

Amiga Member

Anticope Member

Os Trigonum Member
Supporting Member

Rashmon Member

Anticope Member

MojoMan Member

mdrowe00 Member

KingCheetah Atomic Playboy
Supporting Member

larsv8 Member

Buck Turgidson Member

peleincubus Member

Hakeemtheking Member

No Worries Member

No Worries Member

No Worries Member

mdrowe00 Member

NewRoxFan Member

Share This Page

About ClutchFans

Rockets Content

Support ClutchFans!

Robert Mueller, Former F.B.I. Director, Is Named Special Counsel for Russia Investigation

biff17 Member

dobro1229 Member

Os Trigonum Member Supporting Member

Amiga Member

Anticope Member

Os Trigonum Member Supporting Member

Rashmon Member

Anticope Member

MojoMan Member

mdrowe00 Member

KingCheetah Atomic Playboy Supporting Member

larsv8 Member

Buck Turgidson Member

peleincubus Member

Hakeemtheking Member

No Worries Member

No Worries Member

No Worries Member

mdrowe00 Member

NewRoxFan Member

Share This Page

Os Trigonum Member
Supporting Member

Os Trigonum Member
Supporting Member

KingCheetah Atomic Playboy
Supporting Member