Moderate Democrats warn Pelosi of impeachment obsession

Cohen was forced to compose it in part by Mueller threatening his wife.

 

Sure he did... sez who? Wait... No... Let me guess....

Somebody who exclusively told Fox News??

Your story is complete BS, since Mueller turned Taxi stuff over to SDNY....

Does it ever get old??

 

And the LEAST of the charges would usually warrant a slap on the hand and a petty fine.

 

Reality

 

So you think trump DOJ is so corrupt they make guys plead guilty to things that aren’t even illegal?

 

No I think the SDNY was piling on charges and trying to build a case of ANYTHING to discredit Trump and knowing it would not go to court threw it in.

 

The voters in their districts are to blames.

 

As I said, trumps DOJ. Who’s been fired for this miscarriage of justice?

 

Heads must roll!!

Near topic, NY State is now subpoenaing 8 years of Trumps personal and business taxes... It's NYT (firewall), but it seems to be centered around Trump reimbursing Cohen for the Stormy payment. As I recall, that debt wasn't on his financial disclosure forms....

Neat... somebody is investigating Donald Trump... I didn't think it would ever happen...

 

Trump doesn't personally run the SDNY.

 

It was a legal expense not an outstanding loan.

 

He doesn’t personally run anything lol
It’s ran by people he hires.

 

Really?? You are disagreeing with the Trump Organization now??

Keep backpedaling on that unicycle on a string over the Grand Canyon.... it's fun for all of us...

 

EDIT - I'm not even sure that matters on financial disclosures... a debt is a debt...

 

I'm pointing out the fact, it was a personal legal expense for a matter his attorney on retainer handled. It was not a campaign expense.

 

The government hires, the career prosecutors.

 

Yet Obama seemed to personally run the irs, fbi, cia, DOJ....
Trump is the least accountable president in history.

 

Not technically, no, since it wasn't reported as one.... doesn't mean it's not a CVF however, since he's repaying money Cohen fronted (plus a nice bonus and the taxes up front)...

Trump was really trying to make this particular attorney whole, wasn't he...

 

Not any way, it was a personal legal expense and not a Campaign expense therefore no campaign violation.

Former chair of the FEC, Bradley Smith, has more (via WaPo):

…[R]egardless of what Cohen agreed to in a plea bargain, hush-money payments to mistresses are not really campaign expenditures. It is true that “contribution” and “expenditure” are defined in the Federal Election Campaign Act as anything “for the purpose of influencing any election,” and it may have been intended and hoped that paying hush money would serve that end. The problem is that almost anything a candidate does can be interpreted as intended to “influence an election,” from buying a good watch to make sure he gets to places on time, to getting a massage so that he feels fit for the campaign trail, to buying a new suit so that he looks good on a debate stage. Yet having campaign donors pay for personal luxuries — such as expensive watches, massages and Brooks Brothers suits — seems more like bribery than funding campaign speech.

That’s why another part of the statute defines “personal use” as any expenditure “used to fulfill any commitment, obligation, or expense of a person that would exist irrespective of the candidate’s election campaign.” These may not be paid with campaign funds, even though the candidate might benefit from the expenditure. Not every expense that might benefit a candidate is an obligation that exists solely because the person is a candidate.

Suppose, for example, that Trump had told his lawyers, “Look, these complaints about Trump University have no merit, but they embarrass me as a candidate. Get them settled.” Are the settlements thus “campaign expenses”? The obvious answer is no, even though the payments were intended to benefit Trump as a candidate.

If the opposite were true and they were considered campaign expenses, then not only could Trump pay them with campaign funds, but also he would be required to pay these business expenses from campaign funds. Is that what campaign donations are for?

[…]

Yes, those payments were unseemly, but unseemliness doesn’t make something illegal. At the very least, the law is murky about whether paying hush money to a mistress is a “campaign expense” or a personal expense.
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattv...-hush-money-unseemly-but-not-illegal-n2512451

 

The steele dossier was written from June to December of 2016. So no it really wasn't funny that it wasn't released befor the election. Although the existence of the dossier was being thrown around earlier. According to wikki.

 

If you cannot see the difference between that Trump University example and what happened here, I truly cannot help you...

But you know what?... There might be a word to describe what can happen to a President that engages in enough or strongly "unseemly" activities, even if they are deemed legal (which hasn't happened here)...

 

True, but there were very few (if any) specifics known to the electorate at the time of the election...

The poster I was responding to said this - "How about Clinton paying for a bogus document filled with bogus documents then her staff working with corrupt officials at the DOJ and FBI to release it through the press?"

What does wiki say about how buzzfeed ("the press") got the dossier?? I know, but are you willing to discredit the statement in bold above?

 

The voters voted them in, Nancy runs the show and can’t control them

 

The Democrats will re-elect Trump to a second tour of the Oval Office if they listen to BeenoO'Roarke and the Four Toddlers and keep letting Socialist Bernie become a Democrat once every four years.

It is though to herd cats. Democrats are very much like cats they are independent, do what the hell they want, and are not loyal to leadership.
Trump is lucky that Republicans are more like dogs, loyal.

 

Yes, the dems move towards socialism will elect trump