Ken Starr on Trump's Legal Jeopardy: 'We're Nowhere Near' Indictable or Impeachable Offenses

[Kobie]

Is Dershowitz suddenly a conservative? The crime was Stormy and Avenatti extorting Trump.

Wow, that’s a new, interesting piece of fiction.

So violating campaign finance law to pay out hush money isn’t a crime, but accepting hush money is.

The planet you guys live on must be an interesting one indeed.

 

[trixare4kids]

Which is actually why House Democrats should just go ahead and file articles of impeachment anyway. If nothing is going to move Republicans, then they're no longer a serious party to the discussion. If they don't draft articles of impeachment for the sole reason that Republicans would never go along with it no matter what, then that decision makes its own statement about our nation's values and principles, and that statement is not a good one.

I can't believe you are rallying for the House to impeach...

On second thought, I guess I can. :lol:
OK, well, it's the Democratic Party's funeral you're hoping for.
I'll be sure to send flowers along with a sincere note of condolences. :mrgreen:

 

[Cardinal]

Nobody can point to the law or statute supposedly violated. The reason is because no crime occurred.

Hatch wasn't asking for evidence of a crime. He was saying he wouldn't care even if he did become convinced of those crimes.

 

[Kobie]

So you were lying then when you ascribed past beliefs or statements to me. Next time you accuse others of saying something, I suggest you first find evidence that they ever said it.

Consider the source; he feels the need to spell out “laugh out loud” after typing “lol.”

 

[veritas1]

Newp. Still, it's fun to watch you pretend things in your imagination actually exist when you have absolutely no proof of them.

Why would Trump give them anything unless they were threatening to make his indiscretion public? I think even you can figure this out.

 

[sangha]

I think it would be pretty obvious that you would need a Democratic majority in both the House and the Senate in order to impeach Trump.

There is simply no chance of any Republicans in the Senate voting yes.

I disagree

When Senate Rs see their re-electability at risk, they will abandon Trump

 

[veritas1]

Esteemed legal scholar Jonathan Turley, a commentator and writer for MSM also can't see the there that is there regarding Trump being in hot water.
I guess we shouldn't take Turley seriously either. :lol:

No, we need only listen to the legal "experts" Pelosi, Schumer, Schiff and Waters. Anyone not slobbering with Trump hate can see this for what it is.

 

[trixare4kids]

No, the standard is that an actual crime has to occur. People refer to the John Edwards case but Edwards took money from campaign donations to cover up his affair. Trump did no such thing. If using your own money to keep derogatory information from becoming public is a crime, then probably many members of Congress could be charged. What's really funny is that taxpayers pay to maintain a fund for Congress to pay settlements with victims of sexual abuse by members. That is OK but Trump paying his own money is some crime? Not even close.

IF the left refuses to acknowledge what you have written above, there's no hope for them to ever understand this.

 

[trixare4kids]

I disagree

When Senate Rs see their re-electability at risk, they will abandon Trump

NO, they won't.
Their electability will be at risk if they abandon Trump, hence they are not going anywhere.

 

[veritas1]

Wow, that’s a new, interesting piece of fiction.

So violating campaign finance law to pay out hush money isn’t a crime, but accepting hush money is.

The planet you guys live on must be an interesting one indeed.

Whether Trump was extorted or voluntarily paid them is irrelevant. There was no crime on his part and Democrats wailing doesn't change that fact. Spending your own money is NOT a crime here, period.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Why would Trump give them anything unless they were threatening to make his indiscretion public? I think even you can figure this out.

Because he's a con-man who's bribed people for years and he didn't want the news of this affecting his chances in the election. They didn't have to make any threats. He buys silence as insurance.

Super basic stuff here. Do let's have you try and keep up, hmmmm?

 

[Mycroft]

Does this mean that you will no longer be having conversations with forum conservatives?

We can only hope...

 

[sangha]

Why would Trump give them anything unless they were threatening to make his indiscretion public? I think even you can figure this out.

Both McDougal and Daniels had already made Trumps indiscretion public before Trump paid them off only weeks before the election

 

[veritas1]

IF the left refuses to acknowledge what you have written above, there's no hope for them to ever understand this.

Third degree Trump hate is a nasty thing to observe. Law means nothing, only the objective.

 

[veritas1]

Both McDougal and Daniels had already made Trumps indiscretion public before Trump paid them off only weeks before the election

That's also irrelevant. The only crime would be if Trump used campaign funds and not his own funds.

 

[sangha]

NO, they won't.
Their electability will be at risk if they abandon Trump, hence they are not going anywhere.

That is what Nixon said

 

[sangha]

That's also irrelevant. The only crime would be if Trump used campaign funds and not his own funds.

Wrong

Dinesh DSouza did not use campaign funds

 

[JasperL]

Ken Starr on Trump's Legal Jeopardy: 'We're Nowhere Near' Indictable or Impeachable Offenses | Fox News Insider

Former Special Counsel Ken Starr disagrees with the pundits.

It would be very difficult to come up with someone whose opinion I care less about than Ken Starr, but on the narrow claims he's making, he's correct. We basically don't know anything and nothing will happen until Mueller gets done and issues a report.

 

[MovingPictures]

Ken Starr on Trump's Legal Jeopardy: 'We're Nowhere Near' Indictable or Impeachable Offenses | Fox News Insider


Former Special Counsel Ken Starr disagrees with the pundits.

This idiot has NO grounds to tell us about impeachment.

He set the bar so that one lie, in one courtroom, about a completely consensual affair, was grounds to impeach a president that was performing head and shoulders above the current clown show.

Just a few things Trump has done to be "nowhere near impeachment".

1. Asked the FBI to investigate his political opponents on no grounds whatsoever.
2. Asked the FBI to stop investigating allegations of possible criminal conduct within his campaign.
3. Asked directors of the FBI, CIA, and DIA to publicly exonerate him in an ongoing Congressional investigation.
4. Fired DOJ leadership for not closing investigations into him.
5. Attempted to intimidate the AG to not recuse himself from a federal investigation.
6. Has attempted to influence the Congressional testimony of countless people via Twitter.
7. Has coached people within his circle to lie publicly, and possibly even to investigators.
8. Has dangled presidential clemency to government witnesses, who are involved in investigations of which he is a target of.
9. Has attempted to abuse his presidential power to remove lawful investigators.
10. Illegally paid hush money to mistresses in exchange for their silence.

Conservatives have real balls claiming that Trump's committed no impeachable offenses, when his record of obstruction and conspiracy outweighs Watergate already, and this is all before Mueller shows his true hand.

 

[veritas1]

Because he's a con-man who's bribed people for years and he didn't want the news of this affecting his chances in the election. They didn't have to make any threats. He buys silence as insurance.

Super basic stuff here. Do let's have you try and keep up, hmmmm?

And STILL not a crime.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

And STILL not a crime.

In this case, it most certainly is. You simply have no idea what you're talking about, you don't care to and you are willfully, gleeful ignorant about the details in this case.

A. It is a felony to direct others to make illegal campaign contributions.
B. Trump proved his illegal intent by painstakingly covering these payments up.

Cohen borrowed $130,000 from his HELOC, washed it through a bogus corporation, paid Stormy Daniels. Then he went back to the Trump Organization, submits a bill for campaign expenses. He also submitted a $50,000 bill for campaign related IT expenses. The company then pays him $180,000, rounds it up so he breaks even on taxes (to $360,000), THEN kicks in a $60,000 bonus for $420,000. To disguise the nature of the payment - one massive payout in an illegal campaign contribution from Trump Organization - they break it up into multiple payments distributed over the year of $35,000 each. This is conspiracy, money laundering, campaign finance violations, fraud and, depending on the accounting, tax fraud.

Those are the facts. You cannot dispute them in any rational manner.

You are dismissed.

 

[JasperL]

Is Dershowitz suddenly a conservative? The crime was Stormy and Avenatti extorting Trump.

I think we're all better off going with the opinion of the SDNY than hacks like Dershowitz.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5453401-SDNY-Cohen-sentencing-memo.html

Stormy tried to sell her story to the National Enquirer. The chairman contacted Trump's team, said, hey, we got another bimbo eruption, you guys need to handle it! So they did - buying her story with an NDA. How is that extortion? If Cohen had done nothing, she'd have simply told her story, which she's entitled to do, for money or for free depending on whether bottom feeders like the National Enquirer believe her story is worth paying for.

BTW, Avenatti didn't get hired until well after the NDA, so your timeline is pathetically wrong.

And the crime isn't that Trump paid her off with his own, personal, funds. If he wasn't advised by idiots perhaps that's what he would have done. Instead, he had his fixer (Cohen) pay off Stormy, then ran that bill through his companies as 'legal expenses' over the next year or so. And Cohen cannot legally make campaign contributions on behalf of Trump for $150,000, and he sure cannot do it without the campaign disclosing the contributions. Also, companies cannot make those kinds of contributions either, which is what Trump's companies did by paying off Cohen's illegal contribution.

 

[veritas1]

Wrong

Dinesh DSouza did not use campaign funds

Please, D'Souza made an illegal campaign contribution to a Senate candidate. That is wholly different from this situation. Funny that Dershowitz also found the charges against D'Souza to be exaggerated and called it "selective prosecution".

 

[American]

This idiot has NO grounds to tell us about impeachment.

He set the bar so that one lie, in one courtroom, about a completely consensual affair, was grounds to impeach a president that was performing head and shoulders above the current clown show.

Just a few things Trump has done to be "nowhere near impeachment".

1. Asked the FBI to investigate his political opponents on no grounds whatsoever.
2. Asked the FBI to stop investigating allegations of possible criminal conduct within his campaign.
3. Asked directors of the FBI, CIA, and DIA to publicly exonerate him in an ongoing Congressional investigation.
4. Fired DOJ leadership for not closing investigations into him.
5. Attempted to intimidate the AG to not recuse himself from a federal investigation.
6. Has attempted to influence the Congressional testimony of countless people via Twitter.
7. Has coached people within his circle to lie publicly, and possibly even to investigators.
8. Has dangled presidential clemency to government witnesses, who are involved in investigations of which he is a target of.
9. Has attempted to abuse his presidential power to remove lawful investigators.
10. Illegally paid hush money to mistresses in exchange for their silence.

Conservatives have real balls claiming that Trump's committed no impeachable offenses, when his record of obstruction and conspiracy outweighs Watergate already, and this is all before Mueller shows his true hand.

Actually it was the House committee that initiated impeachment. You'll have to provide a source/link for each and every one of those points.

 

[veritas1]

In this case, it most certainly is. You simply have no idea what you're talking about, you don't care to and you are willfully, gleeful ignorant about the details in this case.

A. It is a felony to direct others to make illegal campaign contributions.
B. Trump proved his illegal intent by painstakingly covering these payments up.

Cohen borrowed $130,000 from his HELOC, washed it through a bogus corporation, paid Stormy Daniels. Then he went back to the Trump Organization, submits a bill for campaign expenses. He also submitted a $50,000 bill for campaign related IT expenses. The company then pays him $180,000, rounds it up so he breaks even on taxes (to $360,000), THEN kicks in a $60,000 bonus for $420,000. To disguise the nature of the payment - one massive payout in an illegal campaign contribution from Trump Organization - they break it up into multiple payments distributed over the year of $35,000 each. This is conspiracy, money laundering, campaign finance violations, fraud and, depending on the accounting, tax fraud.

Those are the facts. You cannot dispute them in any rational manner.

You are dismissed.

Where you fail is in calling it a "campaign contribution" It is no such thing.