Federal prosecutors said on Friday that President Trump directed illegal payments to ward off a potential sex scandal that threatened his chances of winning the White House in 2016, putting the weight of the Justice Department behind accusations previously made by his former lawyer.
The lawyer, Michael D. Cohen, had said that as the election neared, Mr. Trump directed payments to two women who claimed they had affairs with Mr. Trump. But in a new memo arguing for a prison term for Mr. Cohen, prosecutors in Manhattan said he “acted in coordination and at the direction of” an unnamed individual, clearly referring to Mr. Trump.
In another filing, prosecutors for the special counsel investigating Russia’s 2016 election interference said an unnamed Russian offered Mr. Cohen “government level” synergy between Russia and Mr. Trump’s campaign in November 2015. That was months earlier than other approaches detailed in indictments secured by Federal prosecutors said on Friday that President Trump directed illegal payments to ward off a potential sex scandal that threatened his chances of winning the White House in 2016, putting the weight of the Justice Department behind accusations previously made by his former lawyer.
if he broke the law, indict him while he is in office. a president is not above the law.
Agreed in principle, but the odds of that happening are pretty damn low.
that's true. it's something that we might clarify legislatively in the future if we want to deter the power mad from doing whatever they want with impunity, however.
Agreed in principle, but the odds of that happening are pretty damn low.
Also, it’s really not if he broke the law. It’s the DOJ’s conclusion that he broke at least two federal laws and are prepared to prove it in a court of law.
The DOJ’s tradition of not indicting a sitting President stems from a culture of administrations not being anywhere near as eminently corrupt as Trump’s. It does make one wonder how that tradition will hold up after trump is gone.
So in other words, it really is if he broke the law.Agreed in principle, but the odds of that happening are pretty damn low.
Also, it’s really not if he broke the law. It’s the DOJ’s conclusion that he broke at least two federal laws and are prepared to prove it in a court of law.
So in other words, it really is if he broke the law.
You two need to get a room.
Gotta remember it was hateful envious leftie investigators doing the investigating. And they were desperate to come up with a crime so they may well have invented crimes that really are not crimes. I certainly don't trust those clowns. I believe its all just a scam. The bottom line here is the fact that leftwing credibility is always suspect at best. I don't believe anything that they say. Period!
Agreed in principle, but the odds of that happening are pretty damn low.
Also, it’s really not if he broke the law. It’s the DOJ’s conclusion that he broke at least two federal laws and are prepared to prove it in a court of law.
Gotta remember it was hateful envious leftie investigators doing the investigating. And they were desperate to come up with a crime so they may well have invented crimes that really are not crimes. I certainly don't trust those clowns. I believe its all just a scam. The bottom line here is the fact that leftwing credibility is always suspect at best. I don't believe anything that they say. Period!
This is going to be an interesting situation, so I'm really curious as to how it will be handled. Given that there's 2 years left for Trump, I wonder how ready legal action could be taken in that short of a timespan considering the gravity of prosecuting a sitting president. I don't think any president should be above the law, so I have no issue with him being prosecuted if there is indeed solid evidence that he did break the law. I can't imagine any American being in favor of not supporting the law over the person if they respect this country as being a nation ruled by law.
Yes, well known envious leftist Republican Robert Mueller :lamo
I love that you ate up the propaganda so hard you think conspiracy to hide excessive campaign donations isn't a crime. It's fun to watch that.
Gotta remember it was hateful envious leftie investigators doing the investigating. And they were desperate to come up with a crime so they may well have invented crimes that really are not crimes. I certainly don't trust those clowns. I believe its all just a scam. The bottom line here is the fact that leftwing credibility is always suspect at best. I don't believe anything that they say. Period!
Was it?
Yes, well known envious leftist Republican Robert Mueller :lamo
What do you mean was?
In-kind campaign donations exceeding donation limits deliberately hidden is a crime. Directing someone to do this is also a crime. That's not in question by anyone except lunatics.
Was it?
It has to be a campaign contribution first and foremost, and it has to also be hidden in order to be a crime. Paying off women with your own money doesn't appear to be seen as a campaign contribution by people who know about such things.
Even if someone pleads guilty to it because he thinks that's what he did.
It's easy to imagine when you remember that 63 million people voted for the winning candidate as a protest or as an expression of hatred for Clinton (same result either way). So when I said, "In 2020 how will voters feel about re-electing a President whose own Justice Department has determined is a criminal?" I wasn't including trump supporters because they've made it perfectly clear how they feel about it. I don't wonder what they'll do in 2020.
It has to be a campaign contribution first and foremost, and it has to also be hidden in order to be a crime.
Paying off women with your own money doesn't appear to be seen as a campaign contribution by people who know about such things.
Even if someone pleads guilty to it because he thinks that's what he did.
Sure, but this will be a deeper descent than just voting out of hatred toward a particular candidate; though I suspect some will not care about the precedent they would be setting.
Yes. That was part of the DOJ's sentencing memorandum for Cohen.
52 U.S. Code § 30101
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30101
You can read the details beginning on page 11 under "4. Cohen’s Illegal Campaign Contributions." The detailed explanation goes on into middle of page 14.
https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthe...85a4cc24e25b7ecf4ab/optimized/full.pdf#page=1
You're uninformed. Read the part of the memorandum I linked to.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?