HawkShack.com

Things seem to be heading in that direction as there are reports are that even Trump himself is concerned:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... spartanntp

Impeachment itself is easy as all that's needed is a simple majority in the Democrat controlled House. But what we should keep an eye on is whether or not there exists 20 Republican Senators that would vote to remove him from office.

My guess is that the Dems won't pursue impeachment unless they figure that they have a good chance of getting those 20 Senators. They don't want to make the same mistakes the R's did 20 years ago.

Get out your popcorn!

I think he gets impeached (though perhaps not convicted), and resigns while there's still time for Pence to pardon him before the 2020 elections.

It's pretty much what I've figured all along.

c_hawkbob wrote:I think he gets impeached (though perhaps not convicted), and resigns while there's still time for Pence to pardon him before the 2020 elections.

It's pretty much what I've figured all along.

Even if he's convicted by the Senate in an impeachment trial, Pence could still pardon him (from federal crimes), so I'm not sure what advantage Trump would have if he resigned vs. going through the trial.

I still don't see impeachment/removal from office as likely. On a scale of 1 to 10, I'd put it at about a 2 or 3, but it is getting warmer. Once Mueller wraps up his investigation, we'll know for sure if there's an impeachment on the horizon or not. IMO they'd have to tie together multiple charges. A simple campaign finance violation, even if it's a criminal charge, probably won't do the trick.

He won't be impeached at all. The dems won't have the votes when they consider the members in areas that they just won or are more conservative and will flip back on them in under 2 years. Hell even Pelosi can't get all the dems to vote for her. The Dem coalition is starting to fracture and splinter thanks to the very far left going over the top.

Pence won't need to pardon Trump even if he's impeached. The only thing they'll be able to impeach Trump on is the "misdemeanors" since no crimes have been committed. I also agree with River, good luck getting a conviction on "misdemeanors" from 20 republican senators not to mention the riots that will ensue from the populace for overturning a duly elected president.

Oh, I warned you River about what news outlets you choose to listen to. Again, unnamed sources say that this is what Trump confided in. FAKE NEWS!!!!

idhawkman wrote:Oh, I warned you River about what news outlets you choose to listen to. Again, unnamed sources say that this is what Trump confided in. FAKE NEWS!!!!

Yea, right. So you warned me, what's going to happen now, is my head going to explode? If I were you, I'd worry about my own sources as you've been wrong in just about every prediction you've made.

But seriously, whether or not Trump is worried is beside the point. The point is that the talk of impeachment is getting more and more serious. Even some Republicans, like Marco Rubio, one of those 20 solons that Trump would need if an impeachment resolution ever got to the Senate, said that the latest developments are "relevant" to Trump's fitness for office.

So we'll see. It certainly is a legitimate topic for discussion.

RiverDog wrote:
Yea, right. So you warned me, what's going to happen now, is my head going to explode? If I were you, I'd worry about my own sources as you've been wrong in just about every prediction you've made.

But seriously, whether or not Trump is worried is beside the point. The point is that the talk of impeachment is getting more and more serious. Even some Republicans, like Marco Rubio, one of those 20 solons that Trump would need if an impeachment resolution ever got to the Senate, said that the latest developments are "relevant" to Trump's fitness for office.

So we'll see. It certainly is a legitimate topic for discussion.

I'm pretty sure I just saw your head go boom...

My predictions are not settled yet. Look at Flynn, the Judge is probably going to overturn that case all together. He did it before to this set of attorneys in the Enron case (against Michael Stephens) and he's just asked for all interview tapes, and documents from the Flynn case by noon tomorrow. "IF" he overturns that case based on unscrupolous prosecution tactics look out. The whole Mueller effort could crumble like a house of cards especially after the Corsi and STone allegations for criminal prosecution.

The interview I saw with Rubio yesterday, he basically poo-poo'd the idea of trying to impeach or convict Trump.

idhawkman wrote:The interview I saw with Rubio yesterday, he basically poo-poo'd the idea of trying to impeach or convict Trump.

Here's what he said last Sunday:

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) said if President Donald Trump did direct his lawyer Michael Cohen to commit federal campaign finance felonies, he was not “above the law.”

Rubio said, “It’s about our country, what the laws are and no one should be above the law. At the beginning of all of this, I said we deserve the truth. No one is beneath the law meaning everyone is entitled to the protections of it but no one is above it.

Rubio said, “If someone has violated the law the application of the law should be applied to them like it would any other citizen in this country. Obviously, if you’re in a position of great authority like the presidency, that would be the case."

I'm not sure why he'd be running around saying stuff like that if he wasn't open to impeachment.

And, I hope your really dig my fake news resource:

https://www.breitbart.com/video/2018/12 ... e-the-law/

idhawkman wrote:My predictions are not settled yet.

The midterms are over and Manafort was convicted. Better re-think where you're getting your information.

RiverDog wrote:
Here's what he said last Sunday:

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) said if President Donald Trump did direct his lawyer Michael Cohen to commit federal campaign finance felonies, he was not “above the law.”

Rubio said, “It’s about our country, what the laws are and no one should be above the law. At the beginning of all of this, I said we deserve the truth. No one is beneath the law meaning everyone is entitled to the protections of it but no one is above it.

Rubio said, “If someone has violated the law the application of the law should be applied to them like it would any other citizen in this country. Obviously, if you’re in a position of great authority like the presidency, that would be the case."

I'm not sure why he'd be running around saying stuff like that if he wasn't open to impeachment.

And, I hope your really dig my fake news resource:

https://www.breitbart.com/video/2018/12 ... e-the-law/

Deal in the hypothetical much? I've highlighted the relevant parts above. Especially the "Ifs" in all of it. I especially like where he said that he should be treated like everyone else which in this case would be a civil suit and fine - not impeachment. I like how you read into that what you wanted it to say but not what it actually said.

The midterms are over and Manafort was convicted. Better re-think where you're getting your information.

Yep and just like the Flynn case, Manafort is not over yet. Fruit of a poison tree...

idhawkman wrote:Look at Flynn, the Judge is probably going to overturn that case all together. He did it before to this set of attorneys in the Enron case (against Michael Stephens) and he's just asked for all interview tapes, and documents from the Flynn case by noon tomorrow. "IF" he overturns that case based on unscrupolous prosecution tactics look out. The whole Mueller effort could crumble like a house of cards especially after the Corsi and STone allegations for criminal prosecution.

I want to expand on this thought as it is intriguing to me.

***Warning: Hypothetical Musings Ahead ***

Would it be ironic and in my mind, funny as He|| if this judge issued an injunction to the Mueller probe if he finds overly aggressive and deceitful prosecution tactics? I mean think about this, this judge hates and is well documented as the guy you don't want to tick off with underhanded prosecution, discover, etc stuff. So like the 9th Circus Court often does to Trump, I'd love to see him put in an injunction to all Mueller operations until a review is completed. I'd assume that Mueller would appeal but he'd have to do that through the DOJ which the acting AG would never do since he thinks it is a witch hunt anyways. Boomerang would be the best description of liberal tactics if this comes true and I would be so satisfied to see a dose of their own medicine dished out...

idhawkman wrote:

Here's what he said last Sunday:

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) said if President Donald Trump did direct his lawyer Michael Cohen to commit federal campaign finance felonies, he was not “above the law.”

Rubio said, “It’s about our country, what the laws are and no one should be above the law. At the beginning of all of this, I said we deserve the truth. No one is beneath the law meaning everyone is entitled to the protections of it but no one is above it.

Rubio said, “If someone has violated the law the application of the law should be applied to them like it would any other citizen in this country. Obviously, if you’re in a position of great authority like the presidency, that would be the case."

There's really no need for your grandstanding by enlarging the word "if". Of course, Trump hasn't been proven guilty of any crime yet, I never suggested that he has. I posted the statements by Rubio to show that he's essentially saying that he's open minded to impeachment if Trump is proven to have committed a felony level crime. There's no argument that it's a big "if".

The "no man is above the law" statement is essentially a shot across the bow. It's reminiscent of both the Nixon and Clinton impeachment proceedings, a phrase I heard spoken a lot during those times. There's no other reason for Rubio to make that statement in reference to Trump. It's a clear signal that he's taking these matters very seriously.

RiverDog wrote:
There's really no need for your grandstanding by enlarging the word "if". Of course, Trump hasn't been proven guilty of any crime yet, I never suggested that he has. I posted the statements by Rubio to show that he's essentially saying that he's open minded to impeachment if Trump is proven to have committed a felony level crime. There's no argument that it's a big "if".

The "no man is above the law" statement is essentially a shot across the bow. It's reminiscent of both the Nixon and Clinton impeachment proceedings, a phrase I heard spoken a lot during those times. There's no other reason for Rubio to make that statement in reference to Trump. It's a clear signal that he's taking these matters very seriously.

As I pointed out, there is another reason for him to point it out - a civil fine is the max Trump is in jeopardy for but even that is at less than 2%.

idhawkman wrote:He won't be impeached at all. The dems won't have the votes when they consider the members in areas that they just won or are more conservative and will flip back on them in under 2 years. Hell even Pelosi can't get all the dems to vote for her. The Dem coalition is starting to fracture and splinter thanks to the very far left going over the top.

Pence won't need to pardon Trump even if he's impeached. The only thing they'll be able to impeach Trump on is the "misdemeanors" since no crimes have been committed. I also agree with River, good luck getting a conviction on "misdemeanors" from 20 republican senators not to mention the riots that will ensue from the populace for overturning a duly elected president.

You going to riot?

It is a felony to direct your attorney to commit a felony.

And yes there is evidence; in a new memo arguing for a prison term for Cohen, prosecutors in Manhattan said he “acted in coordination and at the direction of” an unnamed individual, clearly referring to Trump. A federal prosecutor may not make such a direct claim in court without corroborating information or without an intent to act on that information. Trump has more to fear from Southern District of NY prosecutors than he does from Mueller. They got something real on him and with that court filing have just signaled their intent to act on it.

BTW I'm getting this from FOX News (on TV, no link) so don't tell me to check my sources.

Here's a little more detail on what Cbob is talking about:

Friday on MSNBC’s “The Beat,” former Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal said the Michael Cohen sentencing memo was prosecutors saying President Donald Trump “committed a felony.”

Katyal said, “The big news tonight is not about Michael Cohen, it’s not about Paul Manafort, it’s about one person, Donald Trump, and this filing that you just started to highlight that was made today in the Michael Cohen case really does––for the first time you have federal prosecutors essentially saying that Donald Trump committed a felony.”


He continued, “This is not a document by Mueller, that filed by Trump’s own Justice Department, by the Southern District prosecutors in New York and there are three pieces to the claim. The first piece is the one you just read which is from page 11 of the filing which says that Cohen made these campaign finance payments at the direction of Trump, and we’re talking about payments made for two women for having alleged affairs with Trump and they were going to go public and what happened was Cohen paid those folks and did so in a time when you’re only supposed to give $2700 to a campaign, and that’s it for a very important reason. Congress said we don’t want rich people buying elections, we want transparency in our election process so in page 11 the Southern District prosecutors say no, that was done at the direction of Trump.”

He added, “Then page 12, prosecutors say the agreement’s principal purpose was to suppress this woman’s story so as to prevent the story from influence the election, so they’re taking away the Trump defense which was in the Edwards case, I was doing it to protect my private life. They’re saying no this was done with the purpose of influencing the election then page 23, a long description by the prosecutors of how serious this violation of the campaign finance laws are, how it strikes a blow to our democracy. There’s some pretty soaring language in there. You put things together. The Southern District federal prosecutors are alleging the president committed a felony. They’re not indicting him. He has any number of defenses available to him, but that’s a document I haven’t seen in my lifetime.”

https://www.breitbart.com/video/2018/12 ... d-a-felony

BTW, you never answered me as to how you like my fake news source.

Trump did manage to turn the tables on Stormy. We'll see how his lawyers do against Mueller or whoever comes after him.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Trump did manage to turn the tables on Stormy. We'll see how his lawyers do against Mueller or whoever comes after him.

I suppose you're referring to the decision that Daniels has to pay several $K of Trump's legal fees, but I don't see how that equates with "turning the tables" on her. The hush money paid to Daniels is still front and center in what Cbob was referring to and in the story I linked above.

One thing with Cohen is he is a snake Trump's lawyers will tear apart. So Cohen better have more than his testimony or it likely won't hold up in court.

Problem with Cohen is he was doing so much wrong for himself and others that his testimony to save himself won't hold up under examination, so only written records tying Trump to the acts will likely hold up in court.

People should know by now that I don't care for Trump, but the Cohen evidence absent clear and direct records is weak. Cohen's a snake trying to save his skin by giving Mueller what he wants: Trump. Any halfway decent lawyer will destroy Cohen's credibility and make him a weak witness.

Aseahawkfan wrote:One thing with Cohen is he is a snake Trump's lawyers whose credibility Trump's lawyers will tear apart. So Cohen better have more than his testimony or it likely won't hold up in court.

Problem with Cohen is he was doing so much wrong for himself and others that his testimony to save himself won't hold up under examination, so only written records tying Trump to the acts will likely hold up in court.

People should know by now that I don't care for Trump, but the Cohen evidence absent clear and direct records is weak. Cohen's a snake trying to save his skin by giving Mueller what he wants: Trump. Any halfway decent lawyer will destroy Cohen's credibility and make him a weak witness.

If it's just Cohen's word against Trump, no one's going to believe him. But there's a lot more than just Cohen for Trump to worry about:

But on an audio recording made by Mr. Cohen, and seized during an F.B.I. raid in April, Mr. Trump could be heard talking to Mr. Cohen about payments to executives at American Media Inc., the parent company of the National Enquirer, to acquire years of dirt about the candidate.

Prosecutors also revealed in a sentencing submission last week that Mr. Trump attended at least one meeting involving Mr. Cohen and David Pecker, the A.M.I. chairman, during which Mr. Pecker “offered to help deal with negative stories” about Mr. Trump’s affairs with women “by identifying such stories so that they could be purchased and ‘killed.’”

Apparently there are records of such payments being made to A.M.I.

Mueller's not going to put Cohen on the witness stand unless he has a substantial amount of corroborating evidence to support him. Trump is getting into some deep caca. Get out your popcorn!

c_hawkbob wrote:It is a felony to direct your attorney to commit a felony.

And yes there is evidence; in a new memo arguing for a prison term for Cohen, prosecutors in Manhattan said he “acted in coordination and at the direction of” an unnamed individual, clearly referring to Trump. A federal prosecutor may not make such a direct claim in court without corroborating information or without an intent to act on that information. Trump has more to fear from Southern District of NY prosecutors than he does from Mueller. They got something real on him and with that court filing have just signaled their intent to act on it.

BTW I'm getting this from FOX News (on TV, no link) so don't tell me to check my sources.

Its malpractice for an attorney to commit a felony on behalf of a client. Did he advise the client that it was a felony? Remember, for this to be a felony, he has to know it was a felony when he directed it.

RiverDog wrote:Here's a little more detail on what Cbob is talking about:

Friday on MSNBC’s “The Beat,” former Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal said the Michael Cohen sentencing memo was prosecutors saying President Donald Trump “committed a felony.”

Katyal said, “The big news tonight is not about Michael Cohen, it’s not about Paul Manafort, it’s about one person, Donald Trump, and this filing that you just started to highlight that was made today in the Michael Cohen case really does––for the first time you have federal prosecutors essentially saying that Donald Trump committed a felony.”


He continued, “This is not a document by Mueller, that filed by Trump’s own Justice Department, by the Southern District prosecutors in New York and there are three pieces to the claim. The first piece is the one you just read which is from page 11 of the filing which says that Cohen made these campaign finance payments at the direction of Trump, and we’re talking about payments made for two women for having alleged affairs with Trump and they were going to go public and what happened was Cohen paid those folks and did so in a time when you’re only supposed to give $2700 to a campaign, and that’s it for a very important reason. Congress said we don’t want rich people buying elections, we want transparency in our election process so in page 11 the Southern District prosecutors say no, that was done at the direction of Trump.”

They failed to remind everyone that there is no limit to donate to your OWN campaign. It is only a limit on outsiders such as Soros trying to buy an election for Hilliary.

He added, “Then page 12, prosecutors say the agreement’s principal purpose was to suppress this woman’s story so as to prevent the story from influence the election, so they’re taking away the Trump defense which was in the Edwards case, I was doing it to protect my private life.

Remember the election laws state that if there is a dual purpose then it is not a campaign donation. This can be demonstrated as a "common practice" by Trump if he has ever settled a case like this elsewhere or before this time. Are they seriously trying to say that they knew what Trump was "thinking" when he directed the payments?

They’re saying no this was done with the purpose of influencing the election then page 23, a long description by the prosecutors of how serious this violation of the campaign finance laws are, how it strikes a blow to our democracy. There’s some pretty soaring language in there. You put things together. The Southern District federal prosecutors are alleging the president committed a felony. They’re not indicting him. He has any number of defenses available to him, but that’s a document I haven’t seen in my lifetime.”

https://www.breitbart.com/video/2018/12 ... d-a-felony

BTW, you never answered me as to how you like my fake news source.

Oh, sorry I thought my response and I guess I didn't put it down. Glad to see you expanding your mind and applaud Cbob also. That said, they give both sides of the issue so its not surprising that they have the takes you two focused on.

Now back to point #3, the alluding to the President committing a felony is quite a stretch. What they are saying is that the president directed Cohen to make a payment for which he pleaded to 2 charges that are not actually against the law. Remember, this was a plea for which he is being sentenced for but it was never adjudicated in a court of law and found to be guilty or valid in front of a jury.

If you told me to post my thoughts on this forum and then I copped to a plea deal saying that posting my thoughts on this forum is a felony does that make you complicit in the felony I admited to? Think about that for a minute. Pretty shady stuff there by the govt to try and get a charge on someone isn't it?

Aseahawkfan wrote:Trump did manage to turn the tables on Stormy. We'll see how his lawyers do against Mueller or whoever comes after him.

RiverDog wrote:
I suppose you're referring to the decision that Daniels has to pay several $K of Trump's legal fees, but I don't see how that equates with "turning the tables" on her. The hush money paid to Daniels is still front and center in what Cbob was referring to and in the story I linked above.

I can't speak for Asea but I think he definitely did turn the tables on Stormy. Remember, she was gold digging and now has a $400k legal fee to pay to Trump. Not only that but now she's suing her sleazy porn lawyer for misrepresentation. E.g. Avanate (not sure of the spelling) is being sued by Stormy now saying he is doing fund raisers off her story without her permission.

So, yes, Trump definitely turned the table on STormy. Her original intent wasn't to get Trump, it was to extort money from him and after she got a little money she wanted more when he started running for office.

Aseahawkfan wrote:One thing with Cohen is he is a snake Trump's lawyers whose credibility Trump's lawyers will tear apart. So Cohen better have more than his testimony or it likely won't hold up in court.

Problem with Cohen is he was doing so much wrong for himself and others that his testimony to save himself won't hold up under examination, so only written records tying Trump to the acts will likely hold up in court.

People should know by now that I don't care for Trump, but the Cohen evidence absent clear and direct records is weak. Cohen's a snake trying to save his skin by giving Mueller what he wants: Trump. Any halfway decent lawyer will destroy Cohen's credibility and make him a weak witness.

RiverDog wrote:
If it's just Cohen's word against Trump, no one's going to believe him. But there's a lot more than just Cohen for Trump to worry about:

But on an audio recording made by Mr. Cohen, and seized during an F.B.I. raid in April, Mr. Trump could be heard talking to Mr. Cohen about payments to executives at American Media Inc., the parent company of the National Enquirer, to acquire years of dirt about the candidate.

Prosecutors also revealed in a sentencing submission last week that Mr. Trump attended at least one meeting involving Mr. Cohen and David Pecker, the A.M.I. chairman, during which Mr. Pecker “offered to help deal with negative stories” about Mr. Trump’s affairs with women “by identifying such stories so that they could be purchased and ‘killed.’”

Apparently there are records of such payments being made to A.M.I.

Again, dual purpose which does not make it a campaign donation. Without Trump saying "I don't care if my family finds out about this stuff" they have no case to say he wasn't thinking of Barron and Melania in addition to the campaign. What they can prove is that the campaign compressed the time frame for his actions but not his intent.

Mueller's not going to put Cohen on the witness stand unless he has a substantial amount of corroborating evidence to support him. Trump is getting into some deep caca. Get out your popcorn!

I've been munching on it for the past few days already. Great punch - counterpunch stuff going on here but I wonder to what impact to the country.

Remember, for this to be a felony, he has to know it was a felony when he directed it

I don't believe that's altogether accurate. I don't think claiming "but I didn't know paying them to keep quiet was illegal" (or whatever the specific charge) is a viable defense.

idhawkman wrote:Again, dual purpose which does not make it a campaign donation. Without Trump saying "I don't care if my family finds out about this stuff" they have no case to say he wasn't thinking of Barron and Melania in addition to the campaign. What they can prove is that the campaign compressed the time frame for his actions but not his intent.

That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it.

But the SDNY does not agree. The hush money was funneled through a corporation, A.M.I., the parent company of the National Enquirer, which had the rights to the stories on Trump's affairs with Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougall. Trump's surrogates gave money to a corporation so the stories could be "killed", and they did so just weeks before the election. A.M.I. has already admitted to making a $150K payment to McDougall on behalf of "Team Trump." That's illegal, and according to Cohen, Trump knew it was illegal. If they can prove that Trump knowingly approved of making an illegal campaign contribution, then it elevates it to a felony. That's what makes this case different from the John Edwards case a decade ago. As a matter of fact, payments to Edwards mistress continued after the election, which was evidence of the dual purpose you are referring to. None of Trump's payments to either woman were made after the election.

We'll have to wait and see just what kind of evidence they have that Trump knew what his team was doing was against the law. They obviously have some evidence or else they wouldn't have filed charges.

Mueller's not going to put Cohen on the witness stand unless he has a substantial amount of corroborating evidence to support him. Trump is getting into some deep caca. Get out your popcorn!

I've been munching on it for the past few days already. Great punch - counterpunch stuff going on here but I wonder to what impact to the country.

The markets for sure would take a hit as they don't like uncertainty and will begin pulling their money out of certain funds until a final judgement is reached, but they won't crash. My take is I don't want to see impeachment unless a good 30-40% of Republicans want him out and that they already have the 20 solons they'd need to remove him from office before proceedings start in the House.

I didn't much care for Trump saying that there would be a revolt if he were impeached, essentially making what could be a self fufilling prophecy. But if it happens, so be it. As painful as it might be, the country needs an enema.

c_hawkbob wrote:I don't believe that's altogether accurate. I don't think claiming "but I didn't know paying them to keep quiet was illegal" (or whatever the specific charge) is a viable defense.

There's two links I'm going to post - I sincerely hope you read them both. The first one here: https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/12/michael-cohen-sentencing-campaign-finance-law/
eplains that FEC laws were not broken but strictly adhered to.

The second is about intent (knowingly and Wittingly): Its pretty far down there but the whole article is a good read on what is going on with this whole situation including the end game for the govt.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/08/trump-cohen-hush-money-president-had-lack-of-criminal-intent/

For convenience here's the excerpt from the above article in case you don't want to read the whole thing.

When the non-disclosure arrangements were made, Trump may well have been thinking about the impact on his election chances that disclosure of extramarital affairs with a Playboy model and a porn star might have — especially after the infamous Access Hollywood tape emerged. But unlike Cohen, Trump had major concerns that had nothing to do with the election: personal embarrassment, the humiliation of his family, and the blow to his marriage.

All of this is must be weighed because the campaign-finance laws require prosecutors to establish that an accused person “knowingly and willfully” committed a violation. (See FEC Compendium of Federal Election Campaign Laws, Section 30109(d)(1)(A) of Title 52, U.S. Code.) Willfulness is the law’s most burdensome mens rea standard for prosecutors. It comes close to refuting the adage that “ignorance of the law is no excuse.” To prove that a defendant acted knowingly and willfully, the prosecutor must establish beyond a reasonable doubt that (a) he understood his conduct was illegal and (b) he acted with the purpose to disobey the law.

I do not see how the government could meet this demanding burden of proof — not unless there is as-yet-undisclosed evidence that Trump actually paused to consider the possibility that these payments were in-kind campaign expenditures, believed they might well be, yet went through with them anyway.

Thanks to Cbob making me dig even deeper, I hope everyone takes a few minutes to read the FEC law about enforcement from the url I'm including. Talk about a toothless law. No wonder so many people openly violate it. Just take some time and say, I'm sorry and all is forgiven. Unreal. Can't believe our legislative branch even cooked up such drivel.

http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:52%20section:30109%20edition:prelim)

Thanks to Cbob making me dig even deeper, I hope everyone takes a few minutes to read the FEC law about enforcement from the url I'm including. Talk about a toothless law. No wonder so many people openly violate it. Just take some time and say, I'm sorry and all is forgiven. Unreal. Can't believe our legislative branch even cooked up such drivel.

http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:52%20section:30109%20edition:prelim)

RiverDog wrote:That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it.

But the SDNY does not agree. The hush money was funneled through a corporation, A.M.I., the parent company of the National Enquirer, which had the rights to the stories on Trump's affairs with Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougall. Trump's surrogates gave money to a corporation so the stories could be "killed", and they did so just weeks before the election. A.M.I. has already admitted to making a $150K payment to McDougall on behalf of "Team Trump." That's illegal, and according to Cohen, Trump knew it was illegal. If they can prove that Trump knowingly approved of making an illegal campaign contribution, then it elevates it to a felony. That's what makes this case different from the John Edwards case a decade ago. As a matter of fact, payments to Edwards mistress continued after the election, which was evidence of the dual purpose you are referring to. None of Trump's payments to either woman were made after the election.

Please see my post to Cbob with the two links. Its not my opinon only.

The markets for sure would take a hit as they don't like uncertainty and will begin pulling their money out of certain funds until a final judgement is reached, but they won't crash. My take is I don't want to see impeachment unless a good 30-40% of Republicans want him out and that they already have the 20 solons they'd need to remove him from office before proceedings start in the House.

I didn't much care for Trump saying that there would be a revolt if he were impeached, essentially making what could be a self fufilling prophecy. But if it happens, so be it. As painful as it might be, the country needs an enema.

Agree that the country needs an enema for sure. I don't know if I would riot or not. The country that I see in front of me for my kids is not the same one I grew up in. I grew up knowing that elections have consequences but I didn't throw a Sh@t storm when Clinton or Obama was elected either. If my guy is thrown out for political reasons only, I might have to rethink it though.

RiverDog wrote:If it's just Cohen's word against Trump, no one's going to believe him. But there's a lot more than just Cohen for Trump to worry about:

But on an audio recording made by Mr. Cohen, and seized during an F.B.I. raid in April, Mr. Trump could be heard talking to Mr. Cohen about payments to executives at American Media Inc., the parent company of the National Enquirer, to acquire years of dirt about the candidate.

Prosecutors also revealed in a sentencing submission last week that Mr. Trump attended at least one meeting involving Mr. Cohen and David Pecker, the A.M.I. chairman, during which Mr. Pecker “offered to help deal with negative stories” about Mr. Trump’s affairs with women “by identifying such stories so that they could be purchased and ‘killed.’”

Apparently there are records of such payments being made to A.M.I.

Mueller's not going to put Cohen on the witness stand unless he has a substantial amount of corroborating evidence to support him. Trump is getting into some deep caca. Get out your popcorn!

I don't believe this will be enough. This opens doors no politicians want open. It has to be something they can get Trump on that they can't sink half of Congress on or it won't go with either party. These types of payouts are so ubiquitous that I doubt either party wants this to be a reason to remove from office.

They need tax evasion or financial fraud or some kind of payout to a foreign party that is illegal. Asking Congress to remove a man from office for paying off women and cleaning up campaign dirt is like asking them to stop all rich lobbyists from funding their campaigns. It isn't going to fly.

c_hawkbob wrote:I don't believe that's altogether accurate. I don't think claiming "but I didn't know paying them to keep quiet was illegal" (or whatever the specific charge) is a viable defense.

Paying off women won't get a president removed from office. I'd bet good money against that.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Paying off women won't get a president removed from office. I'd bet good money against that.

Same. As you say, when it's something that usually gets the old 'fine and a slap on the wrist' and 3/4 of Congress has done, I have trouble believing it will be some the silver bullet.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Paying off women won't get a president removed from office. I'd bet good money against that.

burrrton wrote:Same. As you say, when it's something that usually gets the old 'fine and a slap on the wrist' and 3/4 of Congress has done, I have trouble believing it will be some the silver bullet.

Make that 3 of us. Even if it's considered a felony crime, I do not think that alone is enough to remove him from office.

There is no doubt in my mind that Trump's camp bought off those women for the purpose of preventing them from going public right before the election, and I feel that it is likely that Trump knew about and approved these efforts, knew that they were illegal, and that he has been untruthful in his representation of the facts surrounding this incident (what else is new?). It's a good reason to vote him out of office, perhaps prosecute him after he leaves office, but by itself does not reach the very high bar of an impeachable crime.

If they can add paying off women weeks before the election to a proven charge of conspiring with a hostile nation to sway the election in his favor and show that the combination of those charges had a tangible effect on the outcome to the point where a rational person could deem his presidency illegitamite, or if they can prove an obstruction of justice charge...say if he fires Mueller...then I'd go along with impeachment/removal from office.

However, I reserve the right to change my mind pending the outcome of the Mueller Investigation.

But it really doesn't matter what any of us thinks. If 218 Representatives and 67 Senators think that spitting on the sidewalk is an impeachable crime and convict him of it, then he's done. That's why I said in the OP to keep your eyes on the 20 Republican Senators that will be needed to convict Trump in an impeachment trial.

RiverDog wrote:
Make that 3 of us. Even if it's considered a felony crime, I do not think that alone is enough to remove him from office.

There is no doubt in my mind that Trump's camp bought off those women for the purpose of preventing them from going public right before the election, and I feel that it is likely that Trump knew about and approved these efforts, knew that they were illegal, and that he has been untruthful in his representation of the facts surrounding this incident (what else is new?). It's a good reason to vote him out of office, perhaps prosecute him after he leaves office, but by itself does not reach the very high bar of an impeachable crime.

If they can add paying off women weeks before the election to a proven charge of conspiring with a hostile nation to sway the election in his favor and show that the combination of those charges had a tangible effect on the outcome to the point where a rational person could deem his presidency illegitamite, or if they can prove an obstruction of justice charge...say if he fires Mueller...then I'd go along with impeachment/removal from office.

However, I reserve the right to change my mind pending the outcome of the Mueller Investigation.

But it really doesn't matter what any of us thinks. If 218 Representatives and 67 Senators think that spitting on the sidewalk is an impeachable crime and convict him of it, then he's done. That's why I said in the OP to keep your eyes on the 20 Republican Senators that will be needed to convict Trump in an impeachment trial.

I think the House of Representatives is going to have its hands full doing their 88 investigations that they've already announced and trying to pass a new health care bill now that ObamaCare has been ruled unconstitutional by that Texas Federal judge last night.

Maybe they find enough time to also conduct a phony impeachment but I doubt they go down that road now especially after Moon Beam Brown, Pelosi and even McCaskill have said that the Dems have gone too far left.

idhawkman wrote:I think the House of Representatives is going to have its hands full doing their 88 investigations that they've already announced and trying to pass a new health care bill now that ObamaCare has been ruled unconstitutional by that Texas Federal judge last night.

Maybe they find enough time to also conduct a phony impeachment but I doubt they go down that road now especially after Moon Beam Brown, Pelosi and even McCaskill have said that the Dems have gone too far left.

More wishful thinking. The Dems are itching to start an impeachment investigation, more so than they were with Nixon. They just don't want to talk about it, although there's a number of them that can't resist the urge. It's their top legislative priority. You underestimate how much they hate Trump.

IMO the Dems in the House be doing the same thing I suggested we do, ie keeping an eye on the R Senators to see if they have a chance of getting to the 2/3 majority they need to boot him out.

Nice to see you're coming around RD. I been there since day one. I'm a pretty good judge of character and rejected this POS long before he bragged about assaulting women and was implicated in a scheme with Russia to overturn a US presidential election. Currently there are 6 separate investigations. His business practices are under scrutiny which morphs into the foreign influence peddling angle not only with Russia but numerous other countries. His campaign is being investigated for collusion and of course the Campaign finance felonies. Cohen told Stephanopoulos yesterday that there's plenty of evidence he cant discuss that will prove he is being truthful and it seems like the SDNY prosecutors made it clear they have more than Cohens word. We've heard one tape already. David Pecker form the inquirer has turned states evidence and its reported Trump was IN THE ROOM WITH COHEN AND PECKER IN 2015!!!!!discussing how to pay off women which occurred after the Billy Bush tape less than 2 weeks before the general election. This aint John Edwards. His inauguration fund is under scrutiny as it raised 107 million, more than twice as much as any other, more than both of obama's combined but many millions are unaccounted for and there is a suspicion that many foreign players contributed to it, totally illegal influence peddling. Ivanka is suspected of Jacking up the prices of the various events at the trump hotel for the inauguration, something her ethics lawyer cautioned her about at the time.

So much dirt. I knew it all along. There isn't a decent honest bone in this guys body. Here's to a long happy life with a big friendly inmate named Ramone in the federal pen scumbag.

RiverDog wrote:
More wishful thinking. The Dems are itching to start an impeachment investigation, more so than they were with Nixon. They just don't want to talk about it, although there's a number of them that can't resist the urge. It's their top legislative priority. You underestimate how much they hate Trump.

IMO the Dems in the House be doing the same thing I suggested we do, ie keeping an eye on the R Senators to see if they have a chance of getting to the 2/3 majority they need to boot him out.

Maybe wishful thinking - we'll find out. I think if the dems are seen as only trying to get Trump and not working hard on Health Care, Immigration/border issues, Infrastructure at a minimum over the next year they will be killed in the next election. They only have a year to do this in since it will then be campaign season and the issues will already be getting hammered endlessly on the airwaves.

idhawkman wrote:I think if the dems are seen as only trying to get Trump and not working hard on Health Care, Immigration/border issues, Infrastructure at a minimum over the next year they will be killed in the next election. They only have a year to do this in since it will then be campaign season and the issues will already be getting hammered endlessly on the airwaves.

I both agree and disagree. Yes, I agree that the Dems risk a backlash if they go after Trump and don't get him. They saw what happened to House Republicans that pushed the Clinton impeachment. That's why most Dems don't want to talk about impeachment and have chosen to keep their powder dry until Mueller is done with his investigation. However, some Dems can't help talking impeachment as the media is singing it and many of their constituents are overly anxious.

But as far as accomplishing anything in the next year, the Dems only control one legislative body, so the onus is on the R's to "get something done." IMO nothing gets done, which is fine by me.

RiverDog wrote:But as far as accomplishing anything in the next year, the Dems only control one legislative body, so the onus is on the R's to "get something done." IMO nothing gets done, which is fine by me.

Bills originate in the lower chamber so the house has to pass bills, if they don't the Repubs will have a huge sledge hammer to hit them with in the next election.