Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues The Trump Administration Justice is coming

I think depending on your viewpoint, this could be considered in two ways.

1. It was clear and obvious the payoff and coverup was meant to deceive Mr Trump's wife and was thus a personal affair and hence not criminal.

2. The parties involved realized the two stories would negatively impact a campaign which they did not think they could win. hmmm ... if they didn't think they could win why would they care what the impact would be?

Regardless the parties involved may have argued the case from two directions. Was it a campaign contribution or was it personal? It could only be considered a campaign contribution if the payoff was meant to deceive the public in the hope of winning the election. Since they did not believe they would win, they would have argued it was not a campaign contribution. In fact I believe every legal expert I heard stated it would be a campaign contribution if they expected the printed stories to negatively impact a winnable election. Since they did not think they could win, they would argue it was not a campaign contribution.

I think it is clear from the filing, the SCO believes it was an undeclared campaign contribution which was covered up at the direction of individual #1. However, consider this argument. Mr Trump thought he would not win. So it would stand to reason he wouldn't care if the stories came to light. In fact, if the stories were printed he may have expanded his voter support (consider the Axios video which did not negatively impact his base) and won the election. Instead he opted to hide the stories. Why? to prevent emotional trauma to his wife.

OK OK ... now suppose SP Mueller reports Mr Trump has allegedly committed some crimes. Now we come to the crux ... does DoJ file criminal charges against a sitting president? or do we have to wait until he leaves office? Impeachment? Until there are at least 20 Republicans who will vote to convict, that would be pointless.

I don;t know about that. Cohen is charged with lying about business deals. I think you have assumed there is a crime looking for a coverup. Business deals with Russians is not a crime. Secret business deals with Russians is not a crime. Lying to the public about secret business deals with Russians is not a crime.

What is a crime is if there was a conspiracy between the campaign and the Russians. If the Trump Tower Moscow deal included provisions for the Russians helping Mr Trump win an election, then we have all of the above. But the filing does not say that. It says Cohen was approached with nefarious provisions but the deal was dropped. Cohen lied to the FBI about it ergo his charges.

Unless more is known, Cohen just got caught lying.

No: The perjury was Cohen telling congress that the deal was finished in January 2016 when it kept going until June. We shall see if Trump's written answers said the deal was finished by January or June. I'd bet a thousand bucks it said January, because Cohen told everybody that "January was the story we all should tell".

Every Trump associate who testified before Congress and said "January" has committed perjury. And not just accidental perjury, but perjury with corrupt intent because they all lied together on purpose.

Indeed, business deals with Russia are not a crime unless you do something illegal like bribe an official or do business with somebody sanctioned. Lying to the public is not a crime. Lying to a Congressional investigation IS a crime, just the same as if you lied in court under oath. Lying to the FBI in the context of an investigation is too. Does not matter at all if what you were lying about was not a crime.

I think we are in agreement on the Moscow Tower situation.

Everyone who lied in the appropriate context committed a crime. The question is whether Mr Trump lied.

We are in agreement Mr Trump allegedly committed a campaign finance violation.

We still do not know if there is enough evidence to indict anyone for criminal collusion.

While there is apparently enough evidence to indict a number of people surrounding Mr Trump for a number of criminal offenses, at this time we have to ask, is the mere possibility of lying and committing campaign finance violations enough to impeach?

Still seems to me we have to wait for the other shoe to hit the pavement to find out how or if Mr Trump was involved for possible criminal proceedings or impeachment.

I watched Peggy Nunan the other night. She said all this stuff is interesting but what interests her even more is that the Jackass path is strewn with rocks and everytime one gets turned over it exposes yet another swamp full of bad things, people, actions, etc. Until the Mueller thing is done, or the Dems turn up something exculpatory in the house after they take over, this is just all speculation and little else, not unlike 'news' on TV.

I think the simple fact that Jackass has managed to surround himself with criminals, liars, racists, and the greedy, I think, is simply not said enough and should be pointed out loudly and constantly. Those in opposition don't seem to be real good getting the message out and, I fear, is a fact.

There is another truth worth mentioning. Jackass and cohorts are expert at one thing over all else - the use of distraction and misdirection. Most of the speculation, in this topic, is just parroting the distractions and misdirection of Jackass and friends.

Yes, he's a scumbag. Funny thing though: You can't indict anybody for general scumbaggery. (Congress can impeach and convict for just that though.) You want punishment for crimes, you have to pick something that is a real crime. Like Perjury, Obstruction of Justice, Conspiracy to Defraud the US, Campaign Contribution Violations, Treason, etc.

He could have been charged with Voyeurism at the 1997 Miss Teen pageant but the statute of limitations is up for that. With the recent interest in the Epstein case, there is a slight possibility he could be charged with rape of a child. I know some state have ended their statute of limitations on such sex crimes.

Trump has apparently tripped to this reality: President Trump defends payments to women as 'private transaction' (USA Today). The problem is twofold: 1) it's a lie ('natch), and 2) timing. If it was personal, it could have been taken care of in the decade it occurred. They were made only after the election possibility was real.

I should also note that Trump made this tweet immediately after the point was made by a FOX news contributor on "Fox and Friends", his favorite TV show.

LOL

I have to snicker at this because I think it is obvious from all his tweets and pressers. He does not possess the intellectual wherewithal to compete in a game of wits. All that hitting back crapola ... grade school ... he couldn't compete 1on1 at any level above 6th grade.

Yes ... he relies on others for more "intelligent" retorts

the argument presented ... picture a haystack and Mr Trump standing 10' away struggling with coat askew flailing arms reaching for that single straw sticking out from the stack

when you look at all the possibilities, the one, which is not just reasonable but most likely, will stick out