Could There Already Be There An Indictment Under Seal for Trump?

Puerile ad homs that abjectly FAIL to address any of the actual CONTENT that I posted.

 

You continue to bob and weave and change the subject -- whatever it takes. Manafort's pleas and charges have nothing to do with Mueller's assigned investigation. That is nothing as in none, zero, zip, nada. The term Russian is in there somewhere but that has nothing related to Mueller, but to which you all say AHA! Gotcha now, whoever you are!
It is odd that Mueller did not pursue the same charges back when he was investigating them in real time.
Your accusing Trump of autocracy is nothing but pep rally stuff. Mueller's investigation and all of its trappings is almost perfectly Stalinistic.

 

I have no idea what you mean......

 

Unadulterated inanity.

 

I asked, "What state laws does your imagination say Trump violated?" I didn't ask what crazies are out there shouting and waving their arms.

 

Actually the SDNY did not charge Cohen or anyone else with felony campaign contribution illegalities. In the sentencing recommendation they only talked about what Cohen pled guilty to.

 

Nixon did fire Cox, and that action was not included in any obstruction of justice charge. Trump fired Comey because of incompetence shown in the Hillary investigation and because the Deputy AG recommended it. Any investigation into Russian influence in the election was not affected in the last with Comey's firing -- as opposed to, say, when Obama told his counter-intelligence people in 2016 to stop investigating Russian influence.

 

Well -- and this is getting really tough -- no, it is not part of Mueller's assignment..... much as you wish it was.

 

I know this is a difficult concept to grasp, but, for the record, the AG of NY State is not part of the federal SDNY

 

If what you say is true, then Hillary should be in prison as well as she has committed far worse crimes. Crimes where people have died and government owned Uranium was sold for profit in addition to her Foundation profits.

 

But conspiracy to violate non-crimes is not a crime. And the 2016 campaign per se is not part of Mueller's assignment.

 

Though it is really hard to slice off facts and reality at the ankles.

 

FYI. Clinton Foundation made $145 million from the Founder of the Uranium One company that involved the sale of Uranium to Russia. Who knows how the Clinton Foundation money is spent as nobody ever hears about the actual Charities they support actually receiving money as up to 90% of the Clinton Foundations expenditures goes to "operating costs". Fact is, both sides are most likely corrupt but that happens with pretty much everyone with money and power.

 

It is not obstruction of justice for the president to fire any appointee he wants, at any time he wans, or for any reason he chooses.

 

To the contrary, the SDNY has clearly indicated they have no plans or intentions of trying to file charges against Trump for anything.

 

Unadulterated inanity duly noted for the record.

 

Your BLOTUS was an active part of a CONSPIRACY to violate campaign finance laws which IS a CRIME and no about of naysaying is going to alter that REALITY.

 

You have inanity and reality confused.

 

Except of course there was no criminal violation of a campaign financing law with which to conspire against. The NYSD did not accuse nor charge trump of such, and they did not charge Cohen of such.

 

Did the Russians try to influence the US election so Trump would win, hoping he would be more amenable to their foreign policy aims? You betcha! Did Trump and his campaign collude with them? No, it would have been an utterly deniable operation, Vladimir Putin is far too good a spy to ever have let there be direct contact. Really it's filmflam, the most collaboration anyone has seen is Trump's advisors meeting with a Russian lawyer with 'links' to the Kremlin, not even an agent of the Russian government. They met her because she promised 'dirt' on Hilary Clinton and all they have to say is that if they thought she had evidence of criminal wrongdoing by a presidential candidate they had a patriotic duty to listen to her. Why not inform the FBI? Because they had doubts as to the FBI's loyalty and as the Comey affair has proven, they were right to. To say Trump and his campaign had all these links with the Russian government is essentially menaingless, you can't work in international business/politics these days without contacts with the Russians (as Hilary could tell you). You'd have to prove that they acted to the detriment of America and that is tantamount to impossible.
Did it actually have any effect? Almost certainly not. Putin didn't force Hilary to tell the people of the rust belt that her enviromental policies were going to make them very unhappy and then wonder why they voted against her? Nor did he force her to denounce Trump supporters as 'deplorables', cementing her image as an elitest snob who sneered at ordinary Americans (the 'Bill Mahler effect').
Lastly I suspect that Putin is actually ruing his support for Trump right now. So far Trump has inflicted swingeing sanctions upon him over the Sailsbury affair, launched missiles over Syria, massively increased defence spending and torn up arms limitations treaties. I really doubt Hilary would have done the same.
I seriously think all but the most derranged Dems actually ever think there was actually any collusion? They're hoping that the Mueller probe will in the course of its' investigation uncover some other corruption they can use to depose Trump, that by uncovering wrongdoing by his staff they'll eventually be able to flip one and get some real dirt on him to impeach. But it seems highly unlikely, not one of those who've been convicted so far have ever testified to anything on Trump and you'd think if they had it they'd have used it by now.
Once again, Dems have got to stop hoping for some miracle to remove Trump, they've got to reform themselves to take him on in 2 years and for that they've got to move back to the centre and stop pandering to those who shout loudest and play the victim card most effectively. Because Ruth Ginsburg isn't going to live forever (the sketch SNL should do is a bunch of Demacrazies wheeling a clearly dead Ginsburg into the Supreme Court and desperately keep trying to convince everyone she's still alive, Weekend at Bernie's style).

 

But, but, but he's an internet lawyer. Why do you waste your time with them?

Just a reading of the statutes would preclude anyone with a 3 digit IQ from making such a baseless and asinine argument which leads me to believe posters like him are just euro-trolls. They only know what their teevees tell them to think.

 

The Stormy Daniels Payments will NEVER get rid of Donald Trump! Dems like to believe it will because then they won't have to change their policies in order to win back Trump's supporters but it will never happen, even though President Pence is an interesting idea (although in practice I suspect extremely boring, I mean Jimmy Carter boring).
Firstly, paying off your mistress does not constitute a campaign finance violation, that's a stretch Reed Richards couldn't make. It was a private payment from Trump through his lawyer and didn't come from his election funds. John Edwards paid off his mistress and love child from his campaign funds and Bill Clinton arranged for Monica Lewinsky to have a lucrative job at the Pentagon and neither was prosecuted for that. In order to constitute a campaign funds violation you would have to prove that it was emphatically and specifically linked to his campaign, all that Trump has to do is say that it was to protect his private life, business image and marriage. The only person who can actually contradict him is Michael Cohen and he is now a convicted felon who confessed to lying to the FBI so his testimony is essentially worthless. If he had any proof to the contrary (tapes etc) he would have used it by now to spare himself prison.
Secondly in order to impeach Trump you would need a 2 thirds majority in the Senate. The Republicans dominate the Senate with a clear 8 seat majority over the Dems. Now if this was some serious matter (treason, murder or other 'high crimes') you could expect to get some defections from the GOP but not for something as trivial as hush money to Trump's girlfriends, even those in the GOP who dislike Trump aren't going to go for that. I mean Bill Clinton admitted perjury and the Senate didn't find him guilty.
Lastly, even if by some miracle Trump is impeached and found guilty what punishment can he expect for campaign violations? Well, Barack Obama broke the laws to the tune of some $2million in donations and all he got was a fine for $375,000 (his campaign say they simply couldn't count them all fast enough but then Trump says he didn't consider giving money to his exes as campaign expenses, neither was deliberate). Trump can also argue it wouldn't have made any difference as the electorate happy voted for him after his '*****' remarks, many Trump voters would probably have admired his womanising as they admired Brett Kavanaugh's drunken partying. Equally Bill Clinton got handsomely re-elected after all the affair allegations against him. He paid off Paula Jones to the tune of $850,000 and his only punishment was to be fined $90,000 and banned from practicing law in Arkansas for 5 years due to his obstruction of justice. Over the Whitewater affair he was found guilty of not paying thousands of dollars in taxes and all he got was a fine. Chump change to Trump.
Lastly, Stormy Daniels? What was he thinking? Karen McDougal by contrast, what a babe! Hugh sure could pick'em.

 

If she committed far worse crimes, where are the indictments from the last 2 years of Republican Control of all 3 branchs of the US govt and the Justice Dept??

Prove that she did those things.

Heck, the Uranium one scandal isn't even a scandal. If you can prove to me the connection between Clinton, and the Utah Nuclear Regulator (who signed off on the final purchase a month after she left the State Dept) then maybe I'll entertain it, but until that particular question is answered, I see it as more hoopla over nothing.

 

It's not his "right" that is being questioned but his criminal "reason", to obstruct justice. It goes straight to intent. It is malfeasance of office.

 

Perfectly true but with everything we've since learned about the FBI and their anti-Trump remarks you'd be hard pressed to prove malfeasance.