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

NewRoxFan · Dec 18, 2018

Astrodome said: ↑

Haha, thanks for the response. I never said I didn't want the investigation to be completed only that I hope it is completed soon. This has been 25 million well spent. Do you disagree that trump would be able to accomplish more if Congress was on board?
Click to expand...

I think ensuring that the president on the United States hasn't broken laws like money laundering, emoluments, obstruction of justice, and criminal conspiracy (especially with a foreign country) is priceless (although I am impressed that Mueller's investigation is profitable). I also know investigations of such complexity and such importance take time. So I don't care how long it takes.

And no... trump wouldn't be more successful. Seems when Obama was President his critics complained that he "didn't work hard enough to get along with congress." What have you seen trump do to work with congress? And now that Democrats have control of the House of Representatives, what makes you think trump will have any more success, or even a willingness to work with the House?

Last... I am not even sure I would want congress to be "on board" with trump. For what, an unwanted, expensive, ineffective wall along the southern border? For more tariffs that are hurting Americans and the economy? To end the Affordable Care Act that protects those with pre-existing conditions? For more tax breaks for corporations and the most wealthy? There are very few things I would want trump to "accomplish."

biff17 · Dec 18, 2018

MiddleMan said: ↑

If no collusion on POTUS. He will win again in 2020.
Click to expand...

How when he has already lost Pennsylvania and Michigan.

KingCheetah · Dec 18, 2018

Astrodome said: ↑

Is anybody else hoping this investigation ends soon so the president can have a few years to lead without the investigation over his head? He could accomplish quite a bit in that situation especially if it encourages others to work with him and not against him.
Click to expand...

Bill Clinton agrees.

biff17 · Dec 18, 2018

Astrodome said: ↑

Haha, thanks for the response. I never said I didn't want the investigation to be completed only that I hope it is completed soon. This has been 25 million well spent. Do you disagree that trump would be able to accomplish more if Congress was on board?

MSNBC has me reconsidering my stance after this piece of journalism.

LoL
Click to expand...

1st he has to get all of the Republicans on board.

gifford1967 · Dec 18, 2018

mick fry said: ↑

30 million dollars in and no collusion but what they have managed to find is he is less corrupt than most of Washington only that they have never had to ungo such a debacle and persecution (to the detriment of the country)like he has. Base? Not hardly, I have just become so damn anti left over the last 2 years after watching your partys antics and beliefs. The sad part is I used to be one of you.
Click to expand...

Orange Lives Matter!

Space Ghost · Dec 18, 2018

just checking in. Trump in jail yet?

Os Trigonum · Dec 18, 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...

Bradley Smith doubles down on his argument that the hush money payments to Daniels/Macdougall didn't break any laws

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/12/trump-hush-money-not-campaign-finance-law-violation/

Donald Trump’s Hush Money Did Not Violate Campaign-Finance Law
By BRADLEY A. SMITH
December 18, 2018 6:30 AM

In response to my recent column at National Review.com (and, in a sense, to earlier columns in the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal), David French has written a piece arguing that President Trump’s payments to women alleging prior past affairs violated the Federal Election Campaign Act. The payments, and in particular the way they were funded and reported, are, he argues, “against the plain language and clear intent of applicable law.” I don’t know David, but I greatly admire his biography, his writing, and his reputation for integrity. I agree with David that the Cohen plea is a serious threat to Trump. The difference between us is that David seems to think that’s based on a correct interpretation of the law, and I think the U.S. Attorney is applying, and the courts are accepting, an incorrect interpretation of the law. That interpretation, I fear, will open a door to other breeds of corruption when applied outside of this case.

If you haven’t followed this debate, it’s probably best to go back and read my and David’s original columns in full. But in a nutshell, what David and the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York have argued is that “hush money” payments can be regulated as campaign expenditures if “one of the reasons the payment is made is to influence the election.” (Internal quote omitted.) What I have argued is that not everything that is intended to influence an election is a campaign expenditure — that would open a loophole that would allow donors to ply candidates with funds for expensive clothing (have to look good on the campaign trail), lavish vacations (need to relax before that big debate), luxury vehicles (need a way to get to the campaign office), and more. Supporting my view is the statute’s requirement that campaign expenditures cannot be converted to personal use, and FEC regulations that define “personal use” to include obligations that exist “irrespective of” the campaign.

In response to the core of my argument, David says, “the best available evidence indicates that Trump’s commitments to Stormy Daniels didn’t exist ‘irrespective’ of his campaign but rather because of his campaign.” (Emphasis in original.) This misses the crux of the argument I presented.

A sufficiently egotistical and ambitious politician could come up with a plausible reason to pass off virtually any personal purchase and obligation as a campaign expenditure. A candidate has no legal obligation to join a health club to lose weight, to be more generous to charities, or (in many cases) to pay disputed bills. He might pay any of those, however, to positively influence his election. We might think of it as similar to the tax code. The tax code allows one to deduct certain unreimbursed business expenses, but it does not allow one to deduct everything that might positively influence one’s standing in the office.

In order for the prohibition on personal use of campaign funds to have any force, it cannot depend on the candidate’s subjective intent to influence an election. That would give cover to exactly the sorts of corrupt transactional donations that campaign-finance law is meant to prevent. Rather, “for the purpose of influencing an election” — the statutory phrase — is more a description of things than a state of mind. At a minimum, that intent must be connected to the kinds of things candidates routinely spend money on — polling, office space, bumper stickers, broadcast ads, a media spokesperson, travel costs, staff salaries, and so on. Hush money to cover up an affair? No way.

As I discussed in the previous column — and David does not suggest why these examples are wrong or how they meaningfully differ from the Trump payments — a businessman-candidate’s intent to protect his public image before an election by settling a lawsuit or other potential legal claim, paying to have old divorce records sealed, or settling up contested debts (none of which he has a legal obligation to pay, before or after becoming a candidate) does not make these payments campaign expenditures. If it did, many more politicians than Trump would be in trouble.
Click to expand...

fairly long article, more at the link

biff17 · Dec 18, 2018

Os Trigonum said: ↑

Bradley Smith doubles down on his argument that the hush money payments to Daniels/Macdougall didn't break any laws

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/12/trump-hush-money-not-campaign-finance-law-violation/

fairly long article, more at the link
Click to expand...

The question I have for you.

Should the payments or the subsequent lies have any bearing on should he be reelected?

Space Ghost · Dec 18, 2018

biff17 said: ↑

The question I have for you.

Should the payments or the subsequent lies have any bearing on should he be reelected?
Click to expand...

Everything has an impact. Even the thousands of dollars russia spent on social media ads.

Commodore · Dec 18, 2018

Os Trigonum · Dec 18, 2018

Commodore said: ↑

Click to expand...

lol

dobro1229 · Dec 18, 2018

The reaction from the right after these past few days is anything but surprising.

-Greatest hits- what about Hillary and Obama
- But no collusion (continual goal post movement)
- Deep state conspiracy

It’s just not worth it to respond to it anymore honestly. The judge today’s comments stating in plain terms about Flynn’s conduct could be blanketed over the entire Trump FoxNews movement that we see echoe’d here.

“You Sold Out Your Country”

And for what???... all of this... everything you are fighting against here to deny facts, excuse, or deflect... what the hell are you guys doing it for?... for the cult of Donald Trump? Seriously, what has this one man done to earn such unfathomable support? I just don’t understand what you guys are getting out of all this.

Keep on keeping on, but if you don’t see the writing on the wall you are a complete fool, and what’s coming out that has been telegraphed over the past two years is going to be so obviously in front of our faces the entire time that it will say quite a bit about you after it’s all out there and you can’t hide from the facts by deflecting, lying, and excusing.

Commodore · Dec 18, 2018

dobro1229 · Dec 18, 2018

^ case in point. Please nobody respond to that garbage.

Os Trigonum · Dec 18, 2018

Mueller probe could turn out badly for Dems

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...d3874f1ac36_story.html?utm_term=.e78d53778081

The Mueller probe could turn out to be a disaster — for the Democrats

By Marc A. Thiessen
Columnist
December 18 at 3:20 PM

All of Washington is focused on the political peril President Trump faces from Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation. But the Mueller probe could very well turn out to be a disaster, not for Trump, but for the Democrats.

The special counsel was appointed to investigate whether Trump engaged in a criminal conspiracy with Russia to win the 2016 presidential election. If Mueller finds incontrovertible evidence of a criminal conspiracy between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin, then the president will be — and should be — removed from office. But it is also possible that Mueller will not find evidence that Trump conspired with Russia, and that Mueller or federal prosecutors in New York’s Southern District will find evidence for some other charge unrelated to a conspiracy with Russia — such as Trump’s hush-money payments to alleged former mistresses or crimes related to Trump’s family business.

That would be a nightmare scenario for Democrats, for three reasons. First, their base would demand that the new Democratic House majority impeach Trump, even if the charges have nothing to do with Russia. The “resistance” does not care about Russia; it cares about getting rid of Trump, and any pretext will do. The pressure from the grass roots to impeach the president would be hard, if not impossible, for the new Democratic majority in the House to resist.

Second, such an effort to remove Trump from office would fail. Even if House Democrats managed to pass articles of impeachment, there is zero chance that two-thirds of the Senate would vote to convict Trump for paying hush money to an adult-film star and a Playboy playmate or for pre-presidential financial improprieties. And Americans — who rightly thought the purpose of the Mueller probe was to find out if Trump committed treason by working with Russia to steal the election — would see Democrats engaged in a pointless effort to remove the president over completely unrelated allegations.

Third, such a failed impeachment effort would backfire on Democrats just as the impeachment of Bill Clinton backfired on Republicans in the 1990s. At the same point in his presidency, after Republicans won the House in 1994, Clinton’s approval was stuck in the low 40s — only a few points better than Trump today. But two years later, after House Republicans approved articles of impeachment, Clinton’s approval rating soared to 73 percent. Despite incontrovertible evidence that Clinton had sexual relations with a White House intern and lied about it under oath, Clinton left office with the highest Gallup approval rating of any president since Harry Truman. If Democrats want to give Trump’s approval a similar boost, there is no better way to do it than to impeach him for something unrelated to a criminal conspiracy with Russia.

Impeachment would not only raise Trump’s approval with the very suburban voters Democrats just peeled away from the GOP in the 2018 midterms, but it would also energize his base as never before. Trump’s supporters knew about his affairs and shady business dealings in 2016. They knew about the “Access Hollywood” tape, where he bragged about grabbing women by their private parts. They knew he boasted about ogling Miss Universe contestants as they were getting dressed and publicly fat-shamed a Miss Universe winner for gaining weight. They knew about the evidence that students were ripped off by the for-profit Trump University (which was not actually a university). They knew that he has been credibly accused of using his charity, the Trump Foundation, to self-deal, including using $258,000from its coffers to settle legal disputes. They knew about the bankruptcy of his Atlantic City casinos and the allegations that he failed to pay workers and contractors.

They knew all this — and voted for him anyway. Impeaching him over pre-presidential conduct unrelated to Russia would be seen by Trump voters as an effort to invalidate their votes. It would be received in Trump country as nothing short of an attempted coup. That could provoke a massive backlash. Just as the Democrats’ campaign to destroy Brett M. Kavanaugh cost them the chance to take back the Senate in 2018, a campaign to impeach Trump could very well cost them the chance to take back the presidency in 2020.

In other words, Democrats hoping that the Mueller probe will be Trump’s undoing could find it is their own undoing instead.

Read more from Marc Thiessen’s archive, follow him on Twitteror subscribe to his updates on Facebook.
Click to expand...

FranchiseBlade · Dec 18, 2018

Os Trigonum said: ↑

Mueller probe could turn out badly for Dems

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...d3874f1ac36_story.html?utm_term=.e78d53778081
Click to expand...

It could turn out to be a lot of things. What's great is that right now it is a professionally run investigation to investigate and find facts. I don't care who it's bad for because it is good for the citizens of the United States.

FranchiseBlade · Dec 18, 2018

Astrodome said: ↑

Is anybody else hoping this investigation ends soon so the president can have a few years to lead without the investigation over his head? He could accomplish quite a bit in that situation especially if it encourages others to work with him and not against him.
Click to expand...

No. Mostly I'm hoping that the investigation finds out the truth and I don't want someone who has surrounded himself with corrupt criminals working without an investigation over his head. If he is also guilty of crimes, then I certainly don't want him to have any time to work without an investigation over his head.

Ottomaton · Dec 18, 2018

It's hilarious to me all the Republicans that are Shocked! Shocked to learn that gambling is going on here WRT the FBI.

They are investigating it in exactly the same way they've investigated every other case in the history of the FBI. Maybe if it really upsets you, you should have mentioned it at some point in the past 50 years.

NewRoxFan · Dec 19, 2018

I know, expecting trump ("nothing to do with russia") and his mouthpiece rudy ("There was a letter of intent to go forward, but no one signed it") to tell the truth is such an unrealistic expectation...

Trump signed letter of intent for Trump Tower Moscow project despite Giuliani insisting he didn't

A newly obtained document shows President Donald Trump signed a letter of intent to move forward with negotiations to build a Trump Tower in Russia, despite his attorney Rudy Giuliani claiming on Sunday the document was never signed. CNN's Chris Cuomo obtained a copy of the signed letter of intent that set the stage for negotiations for Trump condominiums, a hotel and commercial property in the heart of Moscow. The letter is dated October 28, 2015, and bears the President's signature. When asked on Sunday about the letter, Giuliani incorrectly told CNN's Dana Bash that it had not been signed. "It was a real estate project. There was a letter of intent to go forward, but no one signed it," Giuliani told Bash.
Click to expand...

https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/18/poli...ter-of-intent-rudy-giuliani-moscow/index.html

No Worries · Dec 19, 2018

Astrodome said: ↑

Is anybody else hoping this investigation ends soon so the president can have a few years to lead without the investigation over his head? He could accomplish quite a bit in that situation especially if it encourages others to work with him and not against him.
Click to expand...

If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

Forums

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

NewRoxFan Member

biff17 Member

KingCheetah Atomic Playboy
Supporting Member

biff17 Member

gifford1967 Member
Supporting Member

Space Ghost Member

Os Trigonum Member
Supporting Member

biff17 Member

Space Ghost Member

Commodore Member

Os Trigonum Member
Supporting Member

dobro1229 Member

Commodore Member

dobro1229 Member

Os Trigonum Member
Supporting Member

FranchiseBlade Member
Supporting Member

FranchiseBlade Member
Supporting Member

Ottomaton Member
Supporting Member

NewRoxFan Member

No Worries Member

Share This Page

About ClutchFans

Rockets Content

Support ClutchFans!

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

NewRoxFan Member

biff17 Member

KingCheetah Atomic Playboy Supporting Member

biff17 Member

gifford1967 Member Supporting Member

Space Ghost Member

Os Trigonum Member Supporting Member

biff17 Member

Space Ghost Member

Commodore Member

Os Trigonum Member Supporting Member

dobro1229 Member

Commodore Member

dobro1229 Member

Os Trigonum Member Supporting Member

FranchiseBlade Member Supporting Member

FranchiseBlade Member Supporting Member

Ottomaton Member Supporting Member

NewRoxFan Member

No Worries Member

Share This Page

KingCheetah Atomic Playboy
Supporting Member

gifford1967 Member
Supporting Member

Os Trigonum Member
Supporting Member

Os Trigonum Member
Supporting Member

Os Trigonum Member
Supporting Member

FranchiseBlade Member
Supporting Member

FranchiseBlade Member
Supporting Member

Ottomaton Member
Supporting Member