Do You Think President Trump Will Be Impeached?

by minimus 242 Replies latest jw friends

  • sir82

    OK, and suppose that everything you said is exactly as-is and can be proven 100%?

    You're looking at a fine, tops, and a paltry one at that.

    Cohen broke different laws than Obama's campaign did.

    Here is an explanation:

    Cohen's felonies:

    Cohen said that ahead of the 2016 election, he arranged payments to two women to suppress their stories of alleged affairs with Trump. He told a federal judge that he did so in coordination with the then-candidate and in an effort to influence the election.

    He admitted to committing two separate crimes that violated federal election law: He caused a corporation to make an unlawful contribution to the Trump campaign and he personally made an excessive contribution to the Trump campaign.

    In Obama's case:

    Under federal election law, campaigns must file special notices to the FEC of last-minute contributions of $1,000 or more that are received in the final weeks before Election Day.

    In April 2012, the FEC released an audit of the campaign that found that the committee did not disclose the identities of the 1,312 donors responsible for nearly $2 million in contributions in the final weeks of the campaign.

    Those donations made up one-quarter of 1 percent of the $778 million raised for his White House bid.

    The infractions found in the audit were relatively minor considering the volume of contributions, campaign finance experts said at the time.

    “Overall, this is a very clean audit report for the Obama campaign. The FEC spent two years picking over $750 million in contributions and expenses and found one violation,” former Republican FEC chairman Michael Toner told Reuters at the time.

    Cohen's actions are felonies. They carry federal prison time.

    If he committed felonies at the bequest of someone else, that "someone else" is also potentially guilty of a felony.

  • Simon
    If Mueller can prove some type of Russian Connection

    If ... if ... if ... So many "if's" - you know wishing hard for something doesn't work, right?

    We can already prove a clear "Russian connection" with Obama and Clinton and apparently that is all fine and OK, so that's not enough is it.

    What you need to impeach Trump is to prove some illegal interference with the election process and Mueller has made no hint of finding anything close to that.

    All the media noise about Cohen and Manafort is partly to distract from the fact that the Mueller investigation has turned up nothing at all todo with the thing it was purported to be about.

    What does that tell you about the "evidence" used to start the investigation? This is a party using the apparatus of government to try to cling to power. People whining about respecting democracy don't seem to care that someone was trying to drive a bus through the process. Just because you are fixated with hating the other party and the election winner, you ignore the insidious and real abuse of power and position that was on display and has come out as the motivation for the investigation and the people involved in starting and running it.

  • minimus

    For the resistance, the end justifies the means. I look at Trump on TV after all these things are being thrown at him and he still seems unflappable and seems to enjoy the circus.

  • minimus

    Remember, every time the press says this is it he’s done, he remains alive and continues to tweet. I’m so tired of the press.

  • the girl next door
    the girl next door
    I watch Trump on TV and he sounds nonsensical, Orwellianesque and looks exhausted and anxious. He tries to put on the mafia boss bravado but it is feckless because he is fighting an unwavering machine in branches of government that begin with equal power but have overwhelming advantages born from legal minds and the endless bag of tools they use to control.
  • sir82

    More good info for the ones who are interested in facts rather than name-calling and what-about-ism:

    If you think is "too liberal" you can read if from the original source:

    A few tidbits:

    Cohen told the presiding judge under oath that the payments to Clifford and McDougal were made “in coordination with and at the direction of a candidate for federal office,” a clear reference to then-candidate Trump. Cohen stated further: “I participated in this conduct … for the principal purpose of influencing the election” for president in 2016. These sworn statements by Cohen directly implicate the president in at least four violations of federal campaign finance law, which are criminally enforced, and potentially other federal offences.

    There’s added reason to trust what Cohen said in the courthouse compared with what he may have previously told the press. He made these claims under penalty of perjury. He also made the statements pending sentencing. Lying to or even just misleading the judge in that situation could have dire consequences for the amount of time he spends in prison. Lastly, if prosecutors had reason to think Cohen’s statement was false, they were under an obligation to inform the judge immediately. They didn’t.

    To be clear, I don’t mean to imply that a criminal prosecution of President Trump for campaign finance violations would be an easy case—or that it could be done at all. Some of the sharpest legal minds in the nation disagree over whether a sitting president can be prosecuted for any crimes while he remains in office. And even if prosecution were possible, conviction would require proof that Trump knew his actions were forbidden by law and violated the law notwithstanding that knowledge.

    Instead, I detail these factual distinctions between the Edwards and Trump matters to push back on the assumption that because Edwards wasn’t convicted, Trump’s actions didn’t violate the law or that federal prosecutors would not have a formidable case against him. Trump may not be held accountable for his actions in a court of law, but that doesn’t mean he didn’t break laws getting elected in 2016. That’s a matter for the court of public opinion. And the case against Trump is strong.

  • the girl next door
    the girl next door

    I like Alan Dershowitz. He brings a perspective to the table that fascillitates deeper understanding of how difficult the practice of law actually is. Any attorney will tell you they can argue both sides of any issue successfully. Alan loves to take the unpopular stance among his peers, but he is always well researched and uses impeccable reasoning. He also doesn’t shy away from the fact that his views, while completely sound in his mind, can be challenged using the exact same statutes he bases his opinions on.

    A candidate is free to contribute to his or her own campaign. It also is not criminal for a candidate to pay hush money to women whose disclosures might endanger his campaign. So if candidate Trump paid hush money to his two accusers, there would be no violation of any campaign or other laws. To be sure, if he did so for the purpose of helping his campaign - as distinguished from helping his marriage - his campaign would have to disclose any such contribution, and failure to do so might be a violation of a campaign law, but the payments themselves would be entirely lawful.”

    “Anyone reading the collection of statutes, regulations and rules that govern elections would immediately conclude - even while sitting - that they do not satisfy this Jeffersonian criteria. Reasonable people can disagree about whether these open-ended laws apply to any of the acts and omissions alleged against Trump by Cohen.”

    “An overzealous prosecutor could, of course, stretch the words of the accordion-like statute to target a political enemy, or read it more narrowly to favor a political friend.”

  • Queequeg

    This stuff is like listening to a JW and a Mormon argue about which of their religions is true.

  • sir82

    In exchange for immunity, Mr. Pecker, CEO of American Media, Inc., has met with prosecutors and shared details about payments Mr. Cohen arranged in an effort to silence two women who alleged sexual encounters with Mr. Trump, including Mr. Trump’s knowledge of the deals, some of the

    [people familiar with the matter] said. Prosecutors have indicated that Mr. Pecker won’t be criminally charged for his participation in the deals, the people said.

    One good "Titanic" reference deserves another:

    Rats are starting to scurry upward.

    Related image

  • sparky1
    "If...if...if...So many "if's" - you know wishing hard for something doesn't work, right?" - Simon

    I'm not "wishing" for anything. President Trump is the duly elected president of the United States. Even though I don't like him AT ALL, the American people have voted him into office and so he has the right to occupy the Oval Office. However, IF it is proven that he has participated in 'high crimes and misdemeanors' (which is a possibility) then he should vacate his political position. I'm not a partisan hack taking sides for or against President Trump. My point is that no one is 'above the law'; even the president, whether Republican or Democrat and should be treated the same as 'the man on the street' in the eyes of the law.

Share this