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

Trump should have never run for office, he can't handle reality and this will eventually lead to a massive breakdown and possibly his death.

DD

 

Is that considerably much worse than when we had a president committing obstruction of justice and perjury in an attempt to not get caught banging chubby interns in the oval office and nutting on their dress or when the Secret Service had to smuggle the president's girlfriends, including Russian spies out of the White House?

I get that the whole faux outrage thing is really in vogue at the moment, but I think we'll look back on this moral panic and laugh at those involved. I already do.

 

I really doubt Trump has any close friends.

I'm not really feeling it. For one, I'm not very comfortable with it. Making deals for presidents to relinquish political power is above Mueller's pay grade. If the president is going to cut a political deal, I want it to be with Congress. Second, Mueller doesn't strike me as the kind of guy who'd grab that authority. I expect a very conservative and unassailable legal procedure.

I think you're right that the campaign finance violation hasn't been tested in court. They probably would not have gotten a guilty plea on that if they didn't also have him dead to rights on tax evasion and bank fraud. However, I don't see why you'd say it probably wasn't a violation. I'm no lawyer, but it seems like a strong argument to me -- all campaign expenses must be reported, this was a campaign expense, he knew about it, he didn't report it. And, unlike Obama's late filings campaign law violations that he self-reported, Trump's campaign not only didn't self-report, they continued to lie and obfuscate about it for a long period of time until they were busted, which shows the willfulness of the violation. And now with 2 witnesses to testify that they intentionally skirted campaign finance law, plus the documentary evidence, I'd say they would have a good chance to convict if they had an indictment. I agree with whoever it was that said earlier that our whole campaign finance law framework is ridiculous, but given that we have it Trump is pretty plainly guilty of violating it.

Also, you forgot the lying to Congress thing. It's small potatoes for Cohen (2 months, concurrent) but I expect it will play a role in building the case against Trump on conspiring with Russia because the Moscow Trump project was or would have been a vehicle for moving dirty money into Trump's accounts.

 

The argument will be that it wasn't a campaign expense, or rather it wasn't believed to have been by Trump in that he used his own money unrelated to the campaign and that him paying her off was just a normal thing he does, not something related to the campaign. Also, he can argue that he was relying on his attorney to inform him that his normal routine of paying off women for their silence could be construed as a campaign expense and he'll claim that didn't happen....and it'll be nearly impossible to prove otherwise without hard evidence due to the fact that there are no credible witnesses.

 

Sounds like you want to compare one situation with another. I take it you're ok with impeachment, then? Or maybe not because this isn't "considerably much worse?"

 

I think it would be hilarious if Democrats pushed forward with impeachment on this weak ass case. It'll work for them about as well as it worked for Republicans when they pushed forward with impeachment when a president was guilty of obstruction of justice and perjury when trying to hide an extra marital affair.

They don't have the votes for removal and it'll just make them look like assholes which will boost the president's approval rating and gift him re-election. Paying off a w**** to keep her mouth shut isn't something that most people will get the vapors over.

Now if they end up finding something serious that they can actually prove, then we'll have a completely different conversation.

 

The National Inquirer is as legitimate and trustworthy as the other mass-media news sources that you guys routinely quote.

And now it is down to the work of the National Inquirer.

You really cannot make this stuff up.

 

Yeah, that Antonin Scalia Murdered By CIA Hooker/Assassin is totally something the Washington Post was chasing before the Enquirer scooped them.

 

These types of statements (by Giuliani) are mindboggling. Can a mistake-in-chief supporter explain the following?

• Why would someone plead guilty to something that was not illegal?
• Why would a court accept a guilty plea for something that was not illegal?

"Sir, I'd like to plead guilty to stopping at that red light."

GUILTY

 

I know, fake news everywhere.

Some wordings need to flip, but this was pretty reflective.

 

I know... its increasingly embarrassing to continue to defend trump. But this just adds to your embarrassment...

 

This was not a campaign expense. Just because Cohen and the National Inquirer have agreed under proprietorial pressure to say that it is, does not make it so. They are not authorities in this area and the suggestion that these were campaign expenses ignores the standards provided by the law.

In fact, the payments are not a donations if they were made for expenses that were independent of the campaign – that is, money that would have had to be paid even if there were no campaign.

It appears that Trump has likely made other such payments prior to his campaign, perhaps in part as a PR play for the benefit of his business interests, perhaps in part as a way to keep these stories from being an embarrassment and a source of discomfort for his wife and his family, and therefore also for him. If he can establish that he has ever made any such payments in the past, any campaign violation assertions that anyone would eventually try to levy against him would be rendered moot. And that would not be his only defense by any means. Just the easiest one to deploy to end this line of accusation, rapidly and once and for all.

 

A 16 day vacation sounds like a pretty good idea for trump (and his lawyers)...

 

God knows he needs a 16-day retreat from all the lying and tweeting.

 

As I'd said, the charge hasn't been tested in the courts because of the guilty pleas. I don't know whether it could be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. I just say the prosecution would have a credible case to bring. Because apart from all the legal obfuscations a defense attorney could bring to bear in a trial, the streetwise conclusion is that he probably had these payments made to keep the scandals from hurting his presidential bid. I won't say he's conviction-worthy guilty, but I would urge you to not belittle the gravity of the charge should he ever get indicted. It is, at minimum, a real legal risk.

 

Because it was his only leverage in trying to get a lesser sentence since they had him dead to rights on tax evasion and bank fraud. He was hoping if he threw Mueller a bone that he could get immunity. He was wrong. The weak ass lead he gave Mueller wasn't enough to get out of jail time because everyone knows it doesn't have any legs. Criminals often admit to involvement with other crimes in an attempt to get deals when they get caught red handed when it comes to other crimes and are facing jail time.

Cohen was facing potentially 10 years for the bank fraud alone, he had all the incentive in the world to use whatever leverage he thought he had to seek immunity. He just didn't have anything good enough to pull it off.

 

The benefit of the scenario I laid out is two fold-

A. Its quick, and can be done without the circus of impeachment with a highly discombobulated Senate. Michael Cohens plea agreement with Mueller reportedly came about in a matter of days.
B. It establishes firm precedent moving forward for the country on the idea about Presidential Immunity per the DOJ guideline about indicting a sitting president.

If the president can plea guilty during his term in office, he can also be indicted. The DOJ guideline that everyone loves to refer to is given far too broad range cover and sets a poor precedent for incoming presidents to just assume they can cheat their way to the office, get immunity during in office, and then use the Nixon/Ford precedent of dealing for a pardon after in office. The post Nixon DOJ operating policies around presidential powers are not how the founders intended. The founders never intended for a president to be able to shoot someone on 5th avenue, and law enforcement say "well... immunity".

If Mueller is able to pull this off, it blows this notion wide open, and sets a new precedent about how the DOJ can hold a sitting president accountable to the law while in office without majorly disrupting the operations of the executive branch.

Impeachment: Political removal for political crimes, and abuses
Serious Crimes: Plea, or get indicted

 

Vacation from lying and tweeting? No... expect it around the clock.

 

Context, trump quick-scheduled what I am sure was intended to be a softball interview with fox news (Harris Faulkner). I am sure his lawyers are pulling what little hair they have out...