Impeaching Trump: Make America Sane Again

[frank ryan]

Frank - I think people are calling it a witch hunt because of the actual charges and what is being investigated. If people are breaking the law and need to be held accountable, I don't know of anyone here to would want to let them off the hook. That aside - sure, there have been charges. Great. But I don't see where any of the charges actually have anything to do with collusion with Russia. That is the point I keep hearing. The stuff that is being uncovered is typical politics in DC - with the microscope on Trump and his associates.

Did you read the good senator Hatch's quote? Hell plenty of people fall into the category of not giving a shit what Trumo does.

What part of paying porn stars mistresses hush money or meeting with foreign agents to get dirt on opponents is politics as usual? It's not. Let's not normalize this presidency.

Complaints about Mueller's bias, or the lengh or cost of the investigation are baseless stuff, according to both context and precedent.

I'm not going to give you a recap of the things Mueller has already uncovered (that we know about) but it's not insignificant. Indictments have been against Russian nationals, including intelligence agents.

[Uncle Ted]

What part of paying porn stars mistresses hush money or meeting with foreign agents to get dirt on opponents is politics as usual? It's not. Let's not normalize this presidency.

Please... take the rose colored glasses off.

Clinton normalized the idea of paying hush money a long time ago when he paid Paula Jones $850,000. And what exactly was the Steele Dossier? Did the clinton campaign not pay for that dirt? Where exactly did that dirt come from? Was Christopher Steele a registered foreign agent?

Does Mueller Indictment Mean Clinton Campaign Can Be Indicted for Chris Steele?

Special Counsel Robert Mueller indicted foreign citizens for trying to influence the American public about an election because those citizens did not register as a foreign agent nor record their financial expenditures to the Federal Elections Commission. By that theory, when will Mueller indict Christopher Steele, FusionGPS, PerkinsCoie, the DNC and the Clinton Campaign? Mueller’s indictment against 13 Russian trolls claimed their social media political activity was criminal because: they were foreign citizens; they tried to influence an election; and they neither registered under the Foreign Agents Registration Act nor reported their funding to the Federal Elections Commission.

First, if Mueller’s theory is correct, three things make Steele a criminal: first, he is a foreign citizen; second, he tried to influence an election, which he received payments to do (including from the FBI itself); and third, he neither registered as a foreign agent nor listed his receipts and expenditures to the Federal Election Commission. Also, according to the FBI, along the way, Steele lied…a lot, while the dossier he disseminated contained its own lies based on bought-and-paid for smears from foreign sources reliant on rumors and innuendo.

Second, if Mueller’s theory is correct, three things make FusionGPS a criminal co-conspirator: it knew Steele was a foreign citizen; it knew, and paid, Steele to influence an election; and it knew, and facilitated, Steele neither registering as a foreign agent nor reporting his funding from the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign to the Federal Election Commission.


Third, if Mueller’s theory is correct, then three things make PerkinsCoie a potential target: it knew Steele was a foreign citizen; it knew, and paid, Steele to influence an election; and it knew, and facilitated, Steele neither registering as a foreign agent nor reporting his funding from the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign to the Federal Election Commission, by disguising its receipt of payments from the Clinton campaign as a “legal expense.”


Fourth, if Mueller’s theory is correct, then three things make the DNC a potential target: it knew Steele was a foreign citizen; it knew, and paid, Steele to influence an election; and it knew, and facilitated, Steele neither registering as a foreign agent nor reporting his funding from the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign to the Federal Election Commission, by disguising its payments to Steele as laundered legal expenses to a law firm.


Fifth, if Mueller’s theory is correct, three things make the Clinton Campaign a potential target: it knew Steele was a foreign citizen; it knew, and paid, Steele to influence an election; and it knew, and facilitated, Steele neither registering as a foreign agent nor reporting his funding from the Clinton campaign to the Federal Election Commission, by disguising its funding of payments to Steele laundered through a law firm as a “legal expense.”
[...]

https://lawandcrime.com/opinion/does...-chris-steele/

[Walter Sobchak]

Indictments have been against Russian nationals, including intelligence agents.

Yes, those were groundbreaking indictments. Russia apparently spies on us and tries to influence US policies and elections to their own benefit. (Every country does this... including the US.)

However, again, there is NO KNOWN EVIDENCE that Trump-campaign officials had any involvement in these activities. More nothing burgers.

[Eddie]

I'm willing to admit that I have my own biases and blinders and that my information is only as good as the crap I read online - which also comes with biases and blinders. Are you?

Did you read the good senator Hatch's quote? Hell plenty of people fall into the category of not giving a shit what Trumo does.

Nope. And I don't care. Hatch is a politician. He's going to do what he's going to do. Truth be told, he has a much better idea than either you or I of what is "normal" for DC and what isn't. In the end, I believe what I said was that people on this forum are OK with people having consequences for illegal actions. Hatch isn't on this forum.

What part of paying porn stars mistresses hush money or meeting with foreign agents to get dirt on opponents is politics as usual? It's not. Let's not normalize this presidency.

If this is your argument, I don't think we can even have an honest discussion. You are honestly and truly saying that it is NOT politics as usual for politicians to pay hush money to get people to shut up about their sexual indiscretions? Are you punking me? Were you laughing when you wrote that? I mean, google and I could find literally dozens of examples within seconds if you want me to (Which is hilarious because they are being paid NOT to allow them to be public. So how many do we NOT hear about?) But I'm afraid you'd come back chuckling and saying you can't believe I thought you were being serious. Politicians paying off people to cover their sexual exploits NEVER happens. Ha!

Politicians are ALWAYS looking for dirt on opponents. Whether they are talking to foreign nationals to get that dirt or not, I can't tell you. But it wouldn't surprise me either way. In this election alone we apparently had Jr. talk to a Russian thinking he would get some dirt, and Hillary's folks were dumb enough to actually pay a Brit for bad info.

Complaints about Mueller's bias, or the lengh or cost of the investigation are baseless stuff, according to both context and precedent.

Please - put it into context for me. Particularly since there hasn't been any actual evidence that connects to Trump.

I'm not going to give you a recap of the things Mueller has already uncovered (that we know about) but it's not insignificant. Indictments have been against Russian nationals, including intelligence agents.

Russians have been indicted for meddling. Great. Tell me again what this has to do with Trump? Our government SHOULD be looking at who is meddling in our elections and doing what they can to stop them and hold them accountable. But saying that doing this requires an investigation into Trump is like saying the police need to set up surveillance of my home in order to discover if my neighbor's car parked in his driveway has expired plates.


Sure - I get, again, that Mueller had broad discretion to investigate all of that. Great. But it doesn't change the point - if his whole investigation is tangential then why not shut it down and give what he's got to the proper authorities to finish investigating? If he's got stuff on Trump, great! Let's hear it! Let's get on with it!

I've said before and I'll say it again. I'm not a Trump fanboy. I don't like the guy. If they've got criminal stuff on him - real criminal stuff on him - then let's prosecute him and lock him up! I think it would be hilarious with as much as he says Hillary should be in jail if it actually happened to him. But if they don't have something on him, then continuing this farce of an inquiry just drives a wedge further into the American populace and further polarizes us as a nation.

[Maximus]

No biggie
The payment wasn’t made to spare Melania Trump or the Trump children from the embarrassment of learning about the affair. It was made to influence the election — that is, it was a campaign contribution. And it wasn’t reported. And it exceeded the statutory cap. And it was made in concert with the campaign.

https://hotair.com/archives/2018/12/...ence-election/

[wapiti]

This is an unprecedented stretch of campaign finance law. I can see how they are connecting the dots but there is no way this logic holds up in court.

[Eddie]

No biggie
The payment wasn’t made to spare Melania Trump or the Trump children from the embarrassment of learning about the affair. It was made to influence the election — that is, it was a campaign contribution. And it wasn’t reported. And it exceeded the statutory cap. And it was made in concert with the campaign.

https://hotair.com/archives/2018/12/...ence-election/

If you think that politicians aren't considering their political career when paying hush money to keep people quiet about their past indiscretions, you're crazy.

I'm not saying they don't consider their own public embarrassment or that of their family. I'm saying that elections and their political careers play a role as well. A role that you seem to be ignoring.

I mean - if we're just taking about Trump - he's famous for bragging about all of the beautiful women he's been with. NOW he's embarrassed by it and wants to hide if from his family? Sure....

[BlueK]

This is an unprecedented stretch of campaign finance law. I can see how they are connecting the dots but there is no way this logic holds up in court.

It already did hold up in court. Cohen was sentenced on it. The judge had every right to not sentence him to anything or throw out the charge and plea altogether. Or are you talking strictly about how it affects Trump in court at some future date? Problematic for Trump is the recording with him talking with Cohen about how he's going to set up the payments. And John Edwards wouldn't be a precedent? Maybe I'm just not following what you're saying.

[BlueK]

I mean - if we're just taking about Trump - he's famous for bragging about all of the beautiful women he's been with. NOW he's embarrassed by it and wants to hide if from his family? Sure....

Agreed. He has bragged about this stuff in the past, but I'm not sure how this makes your point. It's a fact that he has continually denied these particular incidents, as well as the payments multiple times. So what is different this time other than he was running for president at the time and such information could have affected the opinion of some of the voters.

[Eddie]

Agreed. He has bragged about this stuff in the past, but I'm not sure how this makes your point. It's a fact that he has continually denied these particular incidents, as well as the payments multiple times. So what is different this time other than he was running for president at the time and such information could have affected the opinion of some of the voters.

I'm simply saying that it's the same with other politicians as well. I'm sure they don't want their families to be publicly embarrassed. But I am equally as certain that most of them are at least as concerned for their political career as they are about embarrassment.

Times are changing, and it isn't as big a deal as it used to be. But politicians still want to be seen as family guys who don't cheat. It isn't just Trump trying to put that front up.

[Uncle Ted]

It already did hold up in court. Cohen was sentenced on it. The judge had every right to not sentence him to anything or throw out the charge and plea altogether. Or are you talking strictly about how it affects Trump in court at some future date? Problematic for Trump is the recording with him talking with Cohen about how he's going to set up the payments. And John Edwards wouldn't be a precedent? Maybe I'm just not following what you're saying.

Wasn't Cohen sentenced on two or three things? The biggest was tax evasion/fraud, I believe (not paying taxes on millions of income). As a lawyer he should have know better.

The campaign finance thing seems minor: If it is viewed as a donation to the Drumpf campaign then obviously he is above the $2,700 limit. This is similar to the $370,000 that Obama got caught doing. But if Drumpf gave him the money (from his own personal pocket) then a law may have not even been violated because you can contribute all you want to your own campaign. In fact, Drumpf contributed many millions of his own money to his campaign. That alone shows that he is dumb. Most politicians blow other dumb people's money on their campaigns. Look at all the dumb Dems that gave Clinton over a billion for her campaign. If it was just the campaign finance thing he may be just looking at a big fat fine and no jail time.

John Edwards used more than $1 million to cover up his thing. The problem was the money was traced back to coming out of his campaign funds. IIRC, he paid a big, fat fine but didn't serve any time. In fact, he went back to practicing law. So if John Edwards would be precedent then Cohen should just be paying a fat fine and back to being a lawyer.

[wapiti]

It already did hold up in court. Cohen was sentenced on it. The judge had every right to not sentence him to anything or throw out the charge and plea altogether. Or are you talking strictly about how it affects Trump in court at some future date? Problematic for Trump is the recording with him talking with Cohen about how he's going to set up the payments. And John Edwards wouldn't be a precedent? Maybe I'm just not following what you're saying.

I'm referring to a future time when it affects Trump directly, not the judge rubber-stamping Cohen's plea.

[Uncle Ted]

Embedded Tweet

[PaloAltoCougar]

Embedded Tweet

The tweet is great. Even if the factual premises were all true (and obviously they are not), they don't provide an exemption for high crimes and misdemeanors.

I'm on board with Rand Paul who, despite his dopey and hypocritical rip on Romney [note correct spelling], has described Trump as a "delusional narcissist" and "an orange-faced wind-bag." I concede the foregoing descriptions, though demonstrably true, are not impeachable offenses.

[Uncle Ted]

The tweet is great. Even if the factual premises were all true (and obviously they are not), they don't provide an exemption for high crimes and misdemeanors.

I'm on board with Rand Paul who, despite his dopey and hypocritical rip on Romney [note correct spelling], has described Trump as a "delusional narcissist" and "an orange-faced wind-bag." I concede the foregoing descriptions, though demonstrably true, are not impeachable offenses.

I'm on board with Congresswoman @RashidaTlaib...

Embedded Tweet

and congressman Hank Johnson.

But maybe RMomney, AKA. Mr. Decency, will make folks to tone down their language a bit...

But I will speak out against significant statements or actions that are divisive, racist, sexist, anti-immigrant, dishonest or destructive to democratic institutions.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...=.4ecd84da3b7c

RMoney is no fun.