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

No surprise... "substantial amount of information that [the special counsel] possessed that corroborates"...

 

Can't wait to see this...

 

and so-called "conservative christians" LOVE IT!

id rather see this!

 

That's all fine and dandy......but what about Hillary's emails?

Spoiler

 

Cohen says he is done lying. I find that apocryphal.

No way, no how do the SDNY let Cohen testify in a court of law. That might explain why the SDNY cut Cohen no slack during the sentencing hearing.

 

Amazing how republican/trump defenders are trying to redefine legal standards (let alone moral and ethical standards). Here senator graham tries to say that investigators/prosecutors would have to prove that trump's ONLY reason for violating campaign laws by paying women hush money was to protect his campaign. So graham is accepting the truth that at least part of the reason trump broke the law was to protect his campaign.

And of course, graham is wrong about that burden of proof...

 

Seems to me you could still have Cohen testify to things the SDNY has collaborating evidence (ie.tapes).

 

1. Thanks for posting a strong argument. Don't want to have to fight strawmen.

2. I can see his point of view, and he might even be right once it goes into the court system. Maybe when a judge gets ahold of it for Trump, he makes a ruling of law that the allegation isn't a crime. That's not what Cohen's judge did, though.

3. This is what sounds to me like the weak part of the argument:

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.
​

In the hypothetical, there are lawsuits pending. So even if they are without merit, they must be settled one way or another -- either paid to go away or defeated in court. The stories with McDougall and Daniels could have been left unattended forever, but for the campaign. They had in fact been neglected for years. So the parallel he draws doesn't quite fit. Lawsuits must be handled regardless, just like toothbrushing, but NDAs do not have to ever be signed.

4. I agree with his conclusion that Trump should fight the charges if he's ever indicted. I do not assume that just because Cohen pleaded guilty to it, it makes Trump automatically guilty. It should be tested by the courts. But neither do I believe that the charge isn't even a crime just because he had been FEC chairman. I know regulators and they are generally smart people, but they disagree with each other. His interpretation is his interpretation. What would matter is the interpretation of the court and jury that gets the case. But I doubt the case ever gets heard -- its not a big enough charge to withstand the political pressure it would face.

 

totally agree with you here, on both counts

 

FEC as currently configured is completely ineffective. All votes are along party lines and thus ties.

Thus, the head of the FEC (a political appointment) leads a do nothing body. This and all other campaign finance violations will not lead to criminal prosecutions.

 

https://theguardiansofdemocracy.com...fIKKEzMUh1b_u8y9A40ubOzDyajlo1SV4Kb6xA__ECmVM

Looks like Trump is a drug sniffer.

DD

 

Trump is in a huge pickle. He may get pardoned for federal crimes, but not if the NY state attorney general is successful in bring charges and convictions.

That's what happens when one becomes potus. Everything gets scrutinized and investigated, so the lesson for all potential 2020 candidates is get your **** cleaned up.

 

It does not matter what doufous Graham says. He's going down in history as an enabler for the most corrupt POTUS ever. Wikipedia remembers!

 

He lied while answering why should anyone believe him now. I sense a book deal. p.s. doesn't mean he's not telling the truth now.

 

C'mon, DD. Don't post anything from Tom Arnold. Treating people like Tom Arnold like he's a credible source, after all these years of spouting nonsense about "tapes" he has seen/heard, is how we get Donald Trump as president.

 

I only trust what Tom Arnold says a hair more than Trump.

 

George Stephanopoulos Just Asked Cohen a Great Question: Why Should We Believe You?

 

Maybe George can ask the 12 year old in charge the same question?