• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Commentary: Mueller just brought Trump closer to prosecution (1 Viewer)

JacksinPA

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 3, 2017
Messages
26,290
Reaction score
16,773
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ght-trump-closer-to-prosecution-idUSKBN1O91X8

President Donald J. Trump, protected from criminal charges while in office, is now facing the prospect of indictment when he becomes a private citizen.

On Friday, federal prosecutors in New York accused Trump of a felony: violating campaign-finance laws with hush-money payments intended to skew the 2016 election. Specifically, they detailed how Trump’s lawyer and self-described fixer Michael Cohen bought the silence of two women who said they had sexual liaisons with Trump – and did so in order to help Trump win the presidency – with the president’s full knowledge.
======================================
Declaring the Mueller probe a 'witch hunt' is not going to keep him out of the lockup even if it turns out to be Club Fed.
 
Alas, we do not lock up presidents.
 
Alas, we do not lock up presidents.

And as an absolutist rule, that is unfortunate.

In addition, the Constitution provides a clear and unambiguous roadmap for a lawless President to serve in office with precisely zero consequence. While the founding fathers were quite thorough in their efforts to prevent a future tyrant, their efforts weren't flawless, and the pardon power is one example of that.
 
Thread is about after, not during.

Even so, seems unlikely to me a contribution violation or two would land him behind bars. If it turns out he sold the GOP Platform plank on Crimea to Putin and otherwise teamed up with Russia to corrupt the election, that might well deservedly get him there.
 
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ght-trump-closer-to-prosecution-idUSKBN1O91X8

President Donald J. Trump, protected from criminal charges while in office, is now facing the prospect of indictment when he becomes a private citizen.

On Friday, federal prosecutors in New York accused Trump of a felony: violating campaign-finance laws with hush-money payments intended to skew the 2016 election. Specifically, they detailed how Trump’s lawyer and self-described fixer Michael Cohen bought the silence of two women who said they had sexual liaisons with Trump – and did so in order to help Trump win the presidency – with the president’s full knowledge.
======================================
Declaring the Mueller probe a 'witch hunt' is not going to keep him out of the lockup even if it turns out to be Club Fed.

You do realize the state of NY has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump intended to pay off the women in order to win the presidency?
Just because Cohen said so doesn't mean it's true. We all know Cohen said so to save his own hide from a longer jail sentence.
 
Thread is about after, not during.

Even so, seems unlikely to me a contribution violation or two would land him behind bars. If it turns out he sold the GOP Platform plank on Crimea to Putin and otherwise teamed up with Russia to corrupt the election, that might well deservedly get him there.

Unless there is something more we don't know beyond what we learned from the filed sentencing memos, there is no obstruction or collusion with Russia.
 
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ght-trump-closer-to-prosecution-idUSKBN1O91X8

President Donald J. Trump, protected from criminal charges while in office, is now facing the prospect of indictment when he becomes a private citizen.

On Friday, federal prosecutors in New York accused Trump of a felony: violating campaign-finance laws with hush-money payments intended to skew the 2016 election. Specifically, they detailed how Trump’s lawyer and self-described fixer Michael Cohen bought the silence of two women who said they had sexual liaisons with Trump – and did so in order to help Trump win the presidency – with the president’s full knowledge.
======================================
Declaring the Mueller probe a 'witch hunt' is not going to keep him out of the lockup even if it turns out to be Club Fed.

Your original article is labeled a commentary aka an opinion piece.
As the saying goes, everybody has one.
 
Last edited:
You do realize the state of NY has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump intended to pay off the women in order to win the presidency?
Just because Cohen said so doesn't mean it's true. We all know Cohen said so to save his own hide from a longer jail sentence.

You do realize that jurors are entitled to draw reasonable inferences from the evidence, use common sense, and realize that both sides at trial would seek to weed out politically-minded jurors of the sort who think they've scored a point by spewing what you spewed about Cohen, right?

The common man is regularly convicted on far shakier evidence than what we know publicly, and what we know publicly is far from everything. The idiotic and dishoenst tactics displayed here on DP by Trumpsters running interference are not going to work. So, you'd better hope and pray that the situation is merely that just about everyone around Trump was/is a criminal, but that Trump somehow magically isn't despite all the shenanigans we know of.





I guess you better keep practicing this routine because it looks like you'll find yourself in a position to allege that the federal judge, the federal jurors, and perhaps even the court officers, were all part of the Vast Liberal Conspiracy that somehow manages to victimize conservatives at every turn.

Ciao.

:2wave:
 
You do realize that jurors are entitled to draw reasonable inferences from the evidence, use common sense, and realize that both sides at trial would seek to weed out politically-minded jurors of the sort who think they've scored a point by spewing what you spewed about Cohen, right?

The common man is regularly convicted on far shakier evidence than what we know publicly, and what we know publicly is far from everything. The idiotic and dishoenst tactics displayed here on DP by Trumpsters running interference are not going to work. So, you'd better hope and pray that the situation is merely that just about everyone around Trump was/is a criminal, but that Trump somehow magically isn't despite all the shenanigans we know of.





I guess you better keep practicing this routine because it looks like you'll find yourself in a position to allege that the federal judge, the federal jurors, and perhaps even the court officers, were all part of the Vast Liberal Conspiracy that somehow manages to victimize conservatives at every turn.

Ciao.

:2wave:

See my post #8.
Particularly the second line...
 
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ght-trump-closer-to-prosecution-idUSKBN1O91X8

President Donald J. Trump, protected from criminal charges while in office, is now facing the prospect of indictment when he becomes a private citizen.

On Friday, federal prosecutors in New York accused Trump of a felony: violating campaign-finance laws with hush-money payments intended to skew the 2016 election. Specifically, they detailed how Trump’s lawyer and self-described fixer Michael Cohen bought the silence of two women who said they had sexual liaisons with Trump – and did so in order to help Trump win the presidency – with the president’s full knowledge.
======================================
Declaring the Mueller probe a 'witch hunt' is not going to keep him out of the lockup even if it turns out to be Club Fed.

LOL!!

I love how you equate "facing the prospect of indictment when he becomes a private citizen" with "not going to keep him out of lockup".
 
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ght-trump-closer-to-prosecution-idUSKBN1O91X8

President Donald J. Trump, protected from criminal charges while in office, is now facing the prospect of indictment when he becomes a private citizen.

On Friday, federal prosecutors in New York accused Trump of a felony: violating campaign-finance laws with hush-money payments intended to skew the 2016 election. Specifically, they detailed how Trump’s lawyer and self-described fixer Michael Cohen bought the silence of two women who said they had sexual liaisons with Trump – and did so in order to help Trump win the presidency – with the president’s full knowledge.
======================================
Declaring the Mueller probe a 'witch hunt' is not going to keep him out of the lockup even if it turns out to be Club Fed.

Big deal.

They should go after Hillary and Chuckles, too.
 
Commentary: Mueller just brought Trump closer to prosecution
  • While Trump is the sitting POTUS:
    • Mueller hasn't done so unless the DoJ's Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel revises its policy on indicting a sitting POTUS.
  • After Trump leaves office:
    • Yes, provided the applicable statues of limitation don't preclude prosecution.

Aside and off-topic:
I think it a travesty that our federal legal system forbears and implements the notion that the mere passage of a relatively brief period time (in one's tenure as an adult) can free one from facing the legal consequences of one's otherwise criminally culpable past actions. Sure, it's plausible that a person at 25-years-old be fundamentally a different person than s/he is at 55. It is not plausible, however, to think a person at 25 or 70 is fundamentally different than they are, respectively, at 31 or 76 years of age.

That said, quintessentially different or not, I think one should be required to face the consequences of their iniquitous words and deeds. Unlawful, immoral and/or unethical acts are, IMO, rightly measured against a fixed bar of behavioral standards. All that changes over time is a society's awareness of the bar's existence and placement, not the very existence of the bar. Whether one knows so or not, wrong acts and one's aiming to or actually undertaking them are wrong.​
 
  • While Trump is the sitting POTUS:
    • Mueller hasn't done so unless the DoJ's Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel revises its policy on indicting a sitting POTUS.
  • After Trump leaves office:
    • Yes, provided the applicable statues of limitation don't preclude prosecution.

Aside and off-topic:
I think it a travesty that our federal legal system forbears and implements the notion that the mere passage of a relatively brief period time (in one's tenure as an adult) can free one from facing the legal consequences of one's otherwise criminally culpable past actions. Sure, it's plausible that a person at 25-years-old be fundamentally a different person than s/he is at 55. It is not plausible, however, to think a person at 25 or 70 is fundamentally different than they are, respectively, at 31 or 76 years of age.

That said, quintessentially different or not, I think one should be required to face the consequences of their iniquitous words and deeds. Unlawful, immoral and/or unethical acts are, IMO, rightly measured against a fixed bar of behavioral standards. All that changes over time is a society's awareness of the bar's existence and placement, not the very existence of the bar. Whether one knows so or not, wrong acts and one's aiming to or actually undertaking them are wrong.​

On the other hand, federal laws, rules, and regulations have gotten so byzantine that it's virtually impossible not to violate some of them just in going about one's business in a normal way.
 
On the other hand, federal laws, rules, and regulations have gotten so byzantine that it's virtually impossible not to violate some of them just in going about one's business in a normal way.

Are you under some impression that paying off porn stars for silence could be described as “going about ones business in a normal way”.
 
Big deal.

They should go after Hillary and Chuckles, too.

Quick, hurry up and deflect with Hillary whenever your false god Trump is attacked.
 
Are you under some impression that paying off porn stars for silence could be described as “going about ones business in a normal way”.

You mean that's illegal too? Good God. Just shred the Constitution and Bill or Rights.:2razz:
 
Quick, hurry up and deflect with Hillary whenever your false god Trump is attacked.

You guys owe us her head on a pike. We won't forget.
 
On the other hand, federal laws, rules, and regulations have gotten so byzantine that it's virtually impossible not to violate some of them just in going about one's business in a normal way.

LOL! Especially if the people involved are used to financial transactions that are done the mafia way.
 
Unless there is something more we don't know beyond what we learned from the filed sentencing memos, there is no obstruction or collusion with Russia.

All of that something will be in Mueller’s findings. Example of wishful thinking for today’s class: The tendency of Trump voters to believe Mueller has little, and will have little, because so far he has disclosed little.
 
On the other hand, federal laws, rules, and regulations have gotten so byzantine that it's virtually impossible not to violate some of them just in going about one's business in a normal way.

If Trump had opted to pay McDougal and Daniels in a straightforward manner and report the contributions, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Anyway, it's a moot argument because you've demonstrated that your real motive is actually driven by a thirst for revenge against Clinton.
 
You guys owe us her head on a pike. We won't forget.

/yawn, more deflection because your poor false god Trump is being held accountable. Must suck that Hillary is living so rent free in your head, you feel the need to deflect to her each time Trump is brought up.
 
You do realize the state of NY has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump intended to pay off the women in order to win the presidency?
Just because Cohen said so doesn't mean it's true. We all know Cohen said so to save his own hide from a longer jail sentence.

You do realize that jurors are entitled to draw reasonable inferences from the evidence, use common sense, and realize that both sides at trial would seek to weed out politically-minded jurors of the sort who think they've scored a point by spewing what you spewed about Cohen, right?

The common man is regularly convicted on far shakier evidence than what we know publicly, and what we know publicly is far from everything. The idiotic and dishoenst tactics displayed here on DP by Trumpsters running interference are not going to work. So, you'd better hope and pray that the situation is merely that just about everyone around Trump was/is a criminal, but that Trump somehow magically isn't despite all the shenanigans we know of.





I guess you better keep practicing this routine because it looks like you'll find yourself in a position to allege that the federal judge, the federal jurors, and perhaps even the court officers, were all part of the Vast Liberal Conspiracy that somehow manages to victimize conservatives at every turn.

Ciao.

:2wave:

See my post #8.
Particularly the second line...

vs.

Your original article is labeled a commentary aka an opinion piece.
As the saying goes, everybody has one.

Now that's a wonderful package of dishonesty, hypocrisy, and profane stupidity.


Let's see, the article makes argument (hence labeled "opinion piece"), which means it must be disregarded as an "opinion piece". That's bad.

You make an argument, which you choose not to label an opinion, which means it shouldn't be disregarded on the same grounds? Your opinion piece is not to be automatically rejected as an opinion?

You put forth the proposition that opinions are to be ignored completely because they are opinions, while putting forth an opinion?

Oopsie.

:lamo





At any rate, one can only note that you utterly failed to back up your position in the light of criticism. No doubt you'll spew some more stupid dishonesty and pat yourself on the back. Giod for bid you actually discuss a subject. Donnie would be proud.
 
All of that something will be in Mueller’s findings. Example of wishful thinking for today’s class: The tendency of Trump voters to believe Mueller has little, and will have little, because so far he has disclosed little.

I know that this is what you are probably hoping for, but that doesn't mean your hopes and dreams will come to fruition.
I don't know what Mueller has, but apparently you do. ;) (see your bolded statement above)
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom