President Trump To Call Pelosi's Bluff
Today President Trump put out a statement that unless a vote is taken on the impeachment inquiry the White House will not cooperate with any of the impeachment congressional investigations.
Any thoughts?It's like telling a judge and jury to decide the guilt of someone in a major trial without hearing all of the evidence.
Trump isn't cooperating regardless.Exactly this. How can the House proceed to a vote on impeachment articles, when it hasn't concluded an investigation. Would a prosecutor indict someone on charges without doing an investigation first? Makes no sense to me.
Makes no sense to anyone, yet many House Democrats have been crying to impeach for many months.
Perhaps they don't need evidence to impeach, particularly if it is nothing more than a political move. Technically that is true, for it is the Senate that performs as a courtroom, and nothing but dislike is required for impeachment.I think you may have misunderstood me, because I'm saying Trump is wrong and I know you'd never agree to such a thing.. My point is that it's right for the House to investigate before voting on impeachment articles, and that is what it's doing. Trump's cooperation in that investigation is not optional. It's demanded by the Constitution and the authority it confers on Congress to provide oversight of the Executive. The House could investigate this matter via the House committees alone and never impeach if it chose to. People don't get to choose when they are charged with a crime, the prosecutor does. Likewise a president doesn't get to choose when he is impeached, the House does.
All I said is that it is not technically necessary, and that much of the House doesn't give a rat's behind whether claims are true or not - they demand an impeachment.
And you and I both know that is true as well.
As far as Trump's cooperation in testifying against himself, there IS the 5th amendment, you know. Personally, I would add, given the number of so-mysterious "leaks" nowdays, that the House members should not be given anything at all of any importance for they will most surely arrange for it to be made public if they think it might help their party politically.Whether it's technically necessary or not, it would be idiotic to hold a vote on impeachment articles without an impeachment inquiry. That would be like a prosecutor charging someone without knowing exactly what they are charging them with. I can only assume Rump wants a vote on the inquiry itself.
Either way, Trump's refusal to cooperate with Congress until there is a vote is anti-constitutional. A president doesn't get to choose the manner in which Congress oversees the Executive. That's already laid out in the Constitution. An individual pleading the 5th is one thing, a president in effect putting in place a blanket ban on administration officials cooperating with Congress, is another. That is an attempt to prevent Congress from representing all the people in the country who want to know if Trump abused his authority or not. It's anti-democratic and unconstitutional.The House of Representatives is able to begin an impeachment based on anything they determine to be an impeachable offense. In fact it is not up to anyone other than the House to determine what they can or cannot do regarding an impeachment according to the Constitution. They are the people put in charge by our Founding Fathers and nobody else.
In other words, the House Can do anything they want right now and be fully within their Constitutional given duties. If they decided to vote and find that the President is guilty of the charges, it will next go to the Senate for a vote.
So my point here is that the President needs to comply with the House if he doesn't want to be charged with obstruction of justice (an impeachable offense on its own).
Source: The Constitution of The United States.
Article I, Section 2.5: "The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment."
It's my understanding president Trump is asking for a vote on the impeachment inquiry, not a vote on impeachment?
Even Breitbart said they voted.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019 … ald-trump/
Trump wants an actual impeachment vote..
https://nypost.com/2019/10/04/trump-to- … ment-vote/
By forcing a vote now, he stops Democrats from any more investigations or any more whistleblowers from coming forward.Not sure what Breitbart is referring to? There has as of yet been a vote on the impeachment inquiry.
5 hours ago update CNN
"Nancy Pelosi doesn't rule out impeachment inquiry vote"
"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi didn’t rule out a full House vote on the impeachment inquiry even though Democratic leadership aides say, per House rules, it isn’t necessary to start the inquiry.
“There’s nothing anyplace that says that we should. However, the people who are most afraid of a vote on the floor are the Republicans,” Pelosi told The Washington Post. “That’s why they’re beating their tom-toms like they want it, but they don’t. They have the most to be concerned about because for some of their members to say that we shouldn’t go forward with this is a bad vote.”
https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/ … index.html
Here are two other links that I derived my information from.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/10/ … tic-stunt/
https://www.npr.org/2019/10/04/76720517 … -lawmakers
Is that like when he said he would reveal his tax returns after he was elected? Just another BS stalling tactic.
Who would continue to fall for the lying con man's BS? Certainly not Nancy Pelosi.Maybe, maybe not. Nancy seems bamboozled by Schiff's lies.
Lol, riiiigghhhhht. She listens to Trump lie practically hourly so I'm confident she is not bamboozled. That describes Trump defenders perfectly, though.
Trump defenders? Is that the term you use to justify biased, hypocritical comments you make?
It's like when he insisted that:
- Mexico would pay for the wall
- Our economy would start growing at 6% a year
- He stopped North Korea from building ballistic missiles
- He would clean up the DC swamp
He has lost all credibility with 62% of America (and growing).
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/ … on-1487905Trump is simply delaying the inevitable. It wonk work as it didn't for Nixon. Trump's taxes will be scrutinized and he's definitely hiding something or he wouldn't be trying so hard to hide them. What's he afraid of Trumpster's?
"...he's definitely hiding something or he wouldn't be trying so hard to hide them."
You mean like Biden and friends?
You may be correct he does say things and sometimes the last we hear of it. It will be interesting to see if the White ouse follows through with the letter.
I have a feeling he will, due to being so quick to release his phone call with Zelinsky.
In regards to Pelosi, she is very aware of impeachment protocol, and most likely would have preferred to collect more info before making her statement on the impeachment inquiry.
It's a win win move. Either way, Trump wins. If they vote it down, then no impeachment and we wait for the Barr-Durham report on real corruption. If they vote to impeach, then it goes to the Republican controlled senate where they can expand the investigation to all the players. Biden, Clapper, Brennan, Schiff, and others can be brought before the Senate to be questioned and exposed. It's a lose lose for the Democrats. They seemed to have stepped into a trap. Get your popcorn out. it's going to get interesting.
Your view sounds very much right on... I think we are all in for quite a show. It appears Dem's are having what they may believe is one last-ditch effort.
Your position is to the right of Tucker Carlson. Like I said to GA, that's very far right.
Likewise, Republican senators are now coming out against Trump. He is doomed.
https://thehill.com/homenews/media/4645 … raine-call
That'll add obstruction counts to the articles of impeachment. For Nixon, a formal investigation began in October, a full vote to give power to the House Judiciary Committee was not voted on until February of the following year. It wasn't until July of that year that the three articles of impeachment were approved in the House (obstruction of justice, abuse of power, and contempt of Congress). Remember these, they will likely be the same ones Trump gets.
Have you considered that by bringing it to a vote, McConnell could then fast-track a trial before all the necessary evidence is collected much like he did with the Kavanaugh hearings?
Saw this today, and I definitely agree with it - A lot of people believe that professional wrestling is real, that's the only way I can explain Trump's support group.Why do you have the need to explain Trump's support group? It seems you need not add an insult to your otherwise acceptable comment.
You may want to worry about just how big that support group is.
" McConnell could then fast-track a trial before all the necessary evidence is collected"
The Dem's have been talking impeachment for three years now. One would think they would have something by now? This Ukraine accusation is really weak on any form of intent or factual information. Have you considered how ridiculous this all appears?I explain Trump's support group for the same reasons people have to be de-programmed from a cult. It's clear to normal people the alternate reality being fed through conservative media, as evidenced by the fact that even though Trump admitted to soliciting foreign assistance to hurt a political opponent, something clearly illegal, you call his illegal action 'really weak' and say openly breaking the laws of our country appears ridiculous.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics … y-theoriesIt turns out Rudy and Rick Perry were trying to place Trump allies on the advisory board of Ukraine's Natural gas company..
And Soundland contributed a million bucks to Trump's campaign through 4 different LLC's and was appointed head of this mission. Damn, what a conman we have for POTUS!Randy, you learn well "It appears"... Seems many have learned to take It appears as truth? Please take the time to take a look at this phenomenon.
How does that compare to the claim, (fact?), that the Obama administration set up Democrat-associated advisors to Ukraine's government recovery efforts; Greg Craig, Tad De Vine, Tony Podesta, Mark Penn, John Anzalone, Joel Benenson - all Clinton/Obama associates?
GAIs advising the govt different than placing Trump campaign contributors in control of the natural gas company? They get lucrative deals sent their way. What did those you mention receive in turn, GA? And what do you make of the WH blocking Sondland from testifying before Congress? What is Trump afraid of...the truth?
Since I don't know what the "advisors" did, or what the purpose of getting those folks onto the gas company's board/management(?) was, I can't answer your first question. Your guess about "lucrative deals" may or may not be right - it's just a guess.
I don't know what to think of the Sondland thing yet. But I do think the recent reporting that he called Pres. Trump before he answered Bill Tayor is a plus for him. Rather than assume something, he went straight to the source to get the answer.
GASo why is the WH blocking Sondland's testimony, GA? You still think they have nothing to hide? They're willing to be charged with Obstruction of Justice rather than have Sonland tell the truth in my opinion.
Sondland did call Trump to see what sort of lie he had to tell Taylor in regard to the "deal" the had been discussing Clearly Taylor was alarmed by the information. Taylor and the ousted ambassador will straighten this out if Trump allows them to. Fat chance he'll allow them to testify if he can prevent it. His goose is almost ready.
"Normal people" "de-programmed from a cult." When someone leads with these kinds of words it shows little respect for other's opinions. You clearly have a problem. I don't want to become involved with anyone that is clearly baiting.
It's called "dividing the country" and can be quite effective if you can but convince your side that they are "normal" while all other are just "deplorables". Or perhaps "cultists".
Yes, I shar your sentiment. Sad to see such groupthink happening in America. I have good faith it will pass.
What's truly sad is how people can deny the obvious violation of our laws because they are told to by their leader and his propaganda machine.
Please offer proof that Trump broke any law. Provide facts not what you have been to believe is factual. Please keep it to one example. I am not wasting my time on a crazy list... ONE
I've provided many facts previously and still you deny the lawlessness. But I'll take the easiest one, the illegal use of his foundation funds towards his campaign as well as for his own personal interests, such as settling lawsuits and purchasing decorations for his golf club.
Also, in the Cohen case, Federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York (SDNY) said in a December sentencing memo that Cohen sent monthly invoices to Trump’s company “falsely indicating” that these invoices were part of some retainer agreement, and that the Trump Organization falsely accounted for the payments as legal expenses. That is quite literally the definition of fraud.
I could continue, but you'll just try and rebut the obvious violation of our laws, even when both of these cases were handled by an attorney general of the State of New York and Federal prosecutors in New York.I'm sure you know the difference between an accusation and a proven crime. Before you launch, you know there of volumes of legal book defining what is and is not proof in a criminal trial. I will agree President Donald Trump has been accused of many crimes. Proven guilty of them is something else.
So why did Trump block Sondland from testifying this morning, Mike? Too innocent?
We have a Constitution that is supposed to protect us and our government with checks and balances.
Trump undermines the Constitution when he sabotages a Congressional probe.Trump said he would not cooperate until the Congress vote on impeachment inquiry. Seems he will block anything he can. They should vote and get on with their investigation. By voting the Republicans can question and supeania witnesses
https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/ … osi-doesntSorry to say that's inaccurate. Republicans are on the investigating committees. They can ask questions all day long.
They are supposed to investigate and then vote, not the other way around.
Even if they did vote, Trump still wouldn't cooperate.Are you questioning the LA Times? I have other publications that have the same report.
"WASHINGTON — Beneath the heated argument of whether the House should have a formal resolution to open an impeachment inquiry is a potential benefit for Republicans if they can force a vote: the chance to subpoena their own witnesses and information."
Pelosi admitted today she would not vote due to Republicans could gain subpoena power? This is very unfair and goes against what was done in previous impeachments. This is a problem, and clearly shows the Dems to be playing bias games.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/08/politics … index.htmlThe LA Times also says: "Subpoenas were still subject to a vote of the committee, giving the majority party a way to block them."
So it doesn't matter.
https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/ … osi-doesnt
Regardless, my point remains. Republicans can:
- Ask all the questions they want
- Try to discredit witnesses
- Demand to hear from witnesses they would subpoena anyway- Ask all the questions they want
- Try to discredit witnesses
- Demand to hear from witnesses they would subpoena anyway
I disagree so far the Republicans have not been able to question witnesses. They have been all over the news confirming the fact they have not been allowed to question witnesses? And they have no supeana power.
Why would it not be fair to vote and have a fair investigation? Pelosi admitted yesterday she did not want the Republicans to have supeana power...
The reasons Pelosi is not planning a vote are both practical and political: Taking the step of passing a formal impeachment inquiry resolution is a complicated and time-consuming endeavor that has political downsides, from drafting the exact language of the resolution, to holding a complicated floor debate and to putting some members in a tough spot.
Moreover, having a vote on an impeachment inquiry resolution would give Republicans an opening to argue they should have subpoena power like in past impeachment proceedings, something that Democrats would almost certainly never allow."
https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/08/politics … index.html
"1. What questions? No witnesses have appeared other than the intel inspector general. Republicans had plenty of questions for him.
2. If necessary, the Repubs can challenge the Dems in court, which the Dems have been forced to do over and over again because of Trump obstruction.
Show me the rule that Repubs can't ask questions in hearings or file court challenges, and I'll concede your point.
Otherwise, you can't insist on one favorable set of rules for Repubs and an unfavorable set for Dems."You can't insist on one favorable set of rules for Repubs and an unfavorable set for Dems."
I have repeatedly stated my opinion that I feel it would be fair and prudent to take a vote on the inquiry and set a fair atmosphere for an investigation. I am in favor of no time limits as some have accused me of just wanting to rush the investigation.
I am for the following precedent in regards to how impeachment was handled prior to Trump.
Not sure why I have garnered so much animosity in regard to my opinion?
I am in no way trying to impose my opinion on anyone. I also am not willing at this point to change it. I feel this party infighting is disgusting, they need to move on with this impeachment, and make sure there is a fair play for both sides.
And just last week Volker was before the committee and the republicans were not able to question him...
https://www.rollcall.com/news/congress/ … -testimony
https://gop-foreignaffairs.house.gov/pr … -tomorrow/
https://gop-foreignaffairs.house.gov/pr … -tomorrow/Fair play? Like the witness intimidation where Trump says the whistleblower should be treated as a spy, in clear violation of the laws governing whistleblower protections. Give us a break. When has Trump played fair?
I have no animosity toward you or your opinion.
That said, your opinion supports a Trump strategy to destroy the impeachment inquiry before it reaches a vote.
Your opinion also doesn't reflect the reality of Washington politics. Both sides play by the same rules.
Your links are misleading. They don't say that Republicans were gagged. If they were, it would be illegal and a first in U.S. history.Why do you feel by Trump making an attempt to have a vote he is seeking to destroy the impeachment inquiry?
I agree both sides play by the same rules. However, in this case, we need transparency and fairness for both sides.
No, my resources do not speak of anyone being gaged. However, in the Volker questioning, they did not get to ask questions. My links were to provide some evidence of that.
Would it not be wise to have a fair playing field, where both sides play by the same rules?
Congress is not required to vote, Shar. Trump is using the non-vote as a delaying tactic as usual. He certainly don't want his taxes revealed either. What do you think he's afraid of, Shar?
Randy, if they don't vote this would result in a one-sided investigation? Are you OK with that?
Nancy Pelosi is the only one that can give the Republicans supeana power.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/08/politics … index.html
https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/ … osi-doesnt
https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/ … -questionsNot sure why you find these articles irrelevant, but we all have opinions... I must ask, do you think it fair that we are not following precedent, and do you feel the republicans should have the power to call witnesses? You can keep your answers to yes or no if you desire. Sms we have very different opinions on how this investigation should be conducted.
And I'm just fine with the investigation being conducted by one side for now when the other side has so thoroughly proven that they have no interest in the truth of what has occurred. The Cohen hearings were proof of the GOP intent.
You're listening to too much Fox as usual, Shar. Do you really believe Trump would stop stonewalling the witnesses if they had a vote? Seriously, the cretin will fight any sort of evidence against him no matter the Constitutional rules of oversight by Congress.
This has nothing to do with Trump. Congress conducts the investigation. Trump could try as you put it stonewalling. However, this certainly would show him as uncooperative, and obstructing justice. Which could be added to the impeachment complaint.
At any rate we need a solution and hopefully, Congress just follows up with a vote. Let the investigation be fair or as you fear very revealing of Trump and his willingness to stonewall.
I'm sure you know that these prosecutors, under the law, are unable to indict until Trump leaves office. So using the proven guilty argument is a false front to hide his guilt since he won't have his day in court until after he is removed from office.
It's why the Trump Foundation was shuttered by lawsuit, as that could accomplish the goal of ending this illegal operation immediately. And he had no defense for it. That investigation is one of the 17 Trump is currently under and need to answer for after his term.
As for the fraud, Cohen was sentenced for illegally using campaign funds. The checks from the Trump Organization reimbursing him have been established as payments for that charge. That's proof of the fraud that already exists. As soon as Trump leaves office, he will be indicted on that crime as well."And he had no defense for it."
That is an assumption I wouldn't make.
"The checks from the Trump Organization reimbursing him have been established as payments for that charge."
It is important to establish the relationship between Cohen and the Trump Organization.
Did you know that the Trump organization had Cohen on a monthly retainer for years? The money used for anything was taken from the monthly retainer amount paid.Of course you wouldn't make it, because you cannot face hard truths. Trump fights everything else, but rolls over on this one should be a clear sign.
As for Cohen, your failure to do simple research makes that statement you just made completely false.
The SDNY memorandum describes—page 14 to be exact—how the Trump Organization (aka “The Company”) handled Cohen’s reimbursement of the hush money payments, referenced as election-related payments in the memorandum:
“Executives of the Company decided to pay the $420,000 in monthly installments of $35,000 over the course of a year.
At the instruction of an executive for the Company, Cohen sent monthly invoices to the Company for these $35,000 payments, falsely indicating that the invoices were being sent pursuant to a “retainer agreement.” The Company then falsely accounted for these payments as “legal expenses.” In fact, no such retainer agreement existed and these payments were not legal expenses – Cohen in fact, provided negligible legal services for Individual-1 or the Company in 2017 — but were reimbursement payments.”
See, this is using official sentencing documents filed in the courts to make an argument. Not some falsehoods taken from your propaganda sites.You cannot make the willfully blind see, Val. No matter the proof, Mike and his ilk will deny the truth as long as Trump does the same.
I appreciate you citing this document
On page 14 it also states Cohen sought reimbursement for election related expenses including $130,000....he presented a copy of a wire transfer for $130,000. He also wanted $50,000 for campaign related tech services...Cohen sent $35,000 monthly invoices...no such retainer agreement existed (No evidence of this is provided and there is a good reason).
So, what this document tells me it that Cohen requested reimbursement for expenses HE deemed as election related expenses. It is a sentencing memorandum, not the actual sentencing document that covers what happened during the actual court sentencing.
It only makes a recommendation. Read the conclusion on page 38.Here are the parts of the memo that mention Cohen’s efforts to shape the election (Individual-1 is Trump, while Woman-1 and Woman-2 appear to refer to McDougal and Clifford, respectively):
“During the campaign, Cohen played a central role in two similar schemes to purchase the rights to stories – each from women who claimed to have had an affair with Individual-1 – so as to suppress the stories and thereby prevent them from influencing the election. With respect to both payments, Cohen acted with the intent to influence the 2016 presidential election. Cohen coordinated his actions with one or more members of the campaign, including through meetings and phone calls, about the fact, nature, and timing of the payments. In particular, and as Cohen himself has now admitted, with respect to both payments, he acted in coordination with and at the direction of Individual-1. As a result of Cohen’s actions, neither woman spoke to the press prior to the election.”
The memo says the “principal purpose” of an agreement with “Woman-1″ was to “prevent [her] story from influencing the election.”
“After the election, Cohen sought reimbursement for election-related expenses, including the $130,000 payment he had made to Woman-2.”
The government argues Cohen’s “offenses strike at several pillars of our society,” including “transparent and fair elections.”
“First, Cohen’s commission of two campaign finance crimes on the eve of the 2016 election for President of the United States struck a blow to one of the core goals of the federal campaign finance laws: transparency. While many Americans who desired a particular outcome to the election knocked on doors, toiled at phone banks, or found any number of other legal ways to make their voices heard, Cohen sought to influence the election from the shadows. He did so by orchestrating secret and illegal payments to silence two women who otherwise would have made public their alleged extramarital affairs with Individual-1. In the process, Cohen deceived the voting public by hiding alleged facts that he believed would have had a substantial effect on the election.”
“After the election, he arranged for his own reimbursement via fraudulent invoices for non-existent legal services ostensibly performed pursuant to a non-existent ‘retainer’ agreement. And even when public reports of the payments began to surface, Cohen told shifting and misleading stories about the nature of the payment, his coordination with the candidate, and the fact that he was reimbursed."
In sentencing request for Cohen, they confirm that the reimbursements to him through the Trump Organization were fraudulent. They confirm that the illegal payments to Clifford and buying of the squashing of the McDougal story was done in coordination with Individual-1, which is Trump. I'm sorry that you still deny these facts, but it just confirms what I'm claiming. In the face of clear cut fraud and illegality during the 2016 election, you still think Trump is innocent.Co-conspirator. Do you know what it means, Mike?
I didn't understand why the document didn't have any supporting documents such as discovery documents, etc. I spoke with an attorney friend. He pointed out Cohen never went to trial. He pleaded guilty. There was no court trial, no discovery, witnesses being interviewed, etc. So the document is just a reflection of what Cohen says happened and nothing more. Since he pleaded guilty, no evidence was produced to confirm or deny what he said. So, again, it is a document of accusations with no proof or evidence because it wasn't necessary with a guilty plea. It was also pointed out that everything about that deal was probably negotiated prior to the memo being drafted. Now the document not referencing any evidence makes sense.
So you're saying Cohen decided to plead guilty to all those charges after not seeing any evidence of his (and by association, Trump's) guilt. And that audio tape that they have (and can be searched on the internet) of Cohen and Trump discussing the payment to David Pecker where Trump tells Cohen to use cash to suppress the story was not real? Or the checks that Cohen produced from the Trump Organization where he was not on retainer? There was plenty of evidence produced, but just none that you care to acknowledge.
Mike's excuses are beyond belief, Val. This doesn't prevent him from trying to avail himself from any sort of excuse for supporting the POS though. It's actually pitiful to observe an otherwise intelligent person debase himself all for someone who is the pits of the world.
But then, Hitler had many advocates.
You need to have a friend who is a prosecutor. Deals like this are made ALL the time. I think Cohen made the deal so he could get past it and on with his life as soon as possible. I bet a trial would have brought out even more things about Cohen he didn't want people to know. I don't think you understand the concept of proof and evidence. You keep saying "Individual 1 is Trump." Yet, there is NO proof of that only assumptions. The problem with this document is it is ALL one sided. We see Cohen's view, but there is no rebuttal. Nobody has an opportunity to tell the other side of the story. I agree with everything you said, but there is no proof or evidence produced to explain anything. So, again, this is filled with unproven allegations against the Trump organization. It will remain that way unless they go after the Trump organization for these alleged crimes. They haven't done it, which leads me to believe they don't have a sufficient amount of proof or evidence to win a case. I believe if they felt they could win a case, they would file the papers the next day. Now, I'm sorry you're uncomfortable with THESE facts.
THESE facts? You just used words 'which leads me to believe' and 'I believe' to make a claim that the things you said are factual. Those seem clearly like opinions.
Let me give you an example of a fact. Here is actual sworn testimony from Michael Cohen to the House Oversight Committee on February 27, 2019 - “I pled guilty in federal court to felonies for the benefit of, at the direction of, and in coordination with ‘Individual 1,’” Cohen said, reading from his prepared statement. “And for the record: ‘Individual 1’ is Donald J. Trump.”
I'll tend to accept sworn testimony as factual and would offset that big NO you just wrote. Again, some simple research might help you understand just how much evidence is out there.
I agree with you Cohen made that statement. I agree that is a fact. I also believe nobody from the Trump organization has been given an opportunity to respond to his accusations. It's a fact the government never filed any criminal proceedings against the Trump organization based on Cohen's testimony. So, it also is a fact the document you provided is one-sided and only provides Cohen's view of things. Why do YOU think no criminal charges were leveled against the Trump organization because of Cohen's testimony?
Yes, I will deny any crime has been committed until he is charged. Which he could be when he leaves office. Thanks you for providing what you feel is a crime, unfortunately it is not...
Cohen was on retainer for many years, and last I heard he worked as a story for Trump for many years. It is not illegal to pay an attorney a retainer. I guess Trump would have the right to pay any attorney a retainer, that would be his choice to make. Trump would be in trouble if he did account the payments?
I suggest you check out this article.
"But the big unanswered question is whether prosecutors in the US Attorney’s Office of the Southern District of New York hope to pursue the hush-money case further — by implicating the Trump Organization or even the president himself.
According to legal and campaign finance experts, the checks themselves DON"T PROVE A CRIME. But they could be one piece of evidence in a potential case against Trump."
https://www.vox.com/2019/3/6/18253467/t … my-danielsAgain, since you clearly skip other posts I write:
Here are the parts of the memo that mention Cohen’s efforts to shape the election (Individual-1 is Trump, while Woman-1 and Woman-2 appear to refer to McDougal and Clifford, respectively):
“During the campaign, Cohen played a central role in two similar schemes to purchase the rights to stories – each from women who claimed to have had an affair with Individual-1 – so as to suppress the stories and thereby prevent them from influencing the election. With respect to both payments, Cohen acted with the intent to influence the 2016 presidential election. Cohen coordinated his actions with one or more members of the campaign, including through meetings and phone calls, about the fact, nature, and timing of the payments. In particular, and as Cohen himself has now admitted, with respect to both payments, he acted in coordination with and at the direction of Individual-1. As a result of Cohen’s actions, neither woman spoke to the press prior to the election.”
The memo says the “principal purpose” of an agreement with “Woman-1″ was to “prevent [her] story from influencing the election.”
“After the election, Cohen sought reimbursement for election-related expenses, including the $130,000 payment he had made to Woman-2.”
The government argues Cohen’s “offenses strike at several pillars of our society,” including “transparent and fair elections.”
“First, Cohen’s commission of two campaign finance crimes on the eve of the 2016 election for President of the United States struck a blow to one of the core goals of the federal campaign finance laws: transparency. While many Americans who desired a particular outcome to the election knocked on doors, toiled at phone banks, or found any number of other legal ways to make their voices heard, Cohen sought to influence the election from the shadows. He did so by orchestrating secret and illegal payments to silence two women who otherwise would have made public their alleged extramarital affairs with Individual-1. In the process, Cohen deceived the voting public by hiding alleged facts that he believed would have had a substantial effect on the election.”
“After the election, he arranged for his own reimbursement via fraudulent invoices for non-existent legal services ostensibly performed pursuant to a non-existent ‘retainer’ agreement. And even when public reports of the payments began to surface, Cohen told shifting and misleading stories about the nature of the payment, his coordination with the candidate, and the fact that he was reimbursed."
In sentencing request for Cohen, they confirm that the reimbursements to him through the Trump Organization were fraudulent. They confirm that the illegal payments to Clifford and buying of the squashing of the McDougal story were done in coordination with Individual-1, which is Trump. I'm sorry that you still deny these facts, but it just confirms what I'm claiming. In the face of clear cut fraud and illegality during the 2016 election, you still think Trump is innocent.I have proven my point... There is no indication that NY will charge Trump with anything once he leaves office. You ramble on and on, and your comments are all either if comes or unproven accusations.
You should save your comments as canned responses like trolls do. It would save you time and energy.No indication? I guess the fact that New York has been in court all month looking to secure Trump's taxes escaped you. Some call that investigating him and is a very clear indication that they believe him to have committed a crime.
I reported that last comment.When in a corner deflect. Not sure how the conversation took the turn into Trump's taxes?
Report? I am not sure me making a suggestion bats some of the very insulting remarks you have sent my way? I have tried to keep my comment short to be polite. I have added a resource to back my opinions, to be polite. It's time for me to step away from our conversation and agree to disagree...Deflect? Showing you that Trump is currently being investigated in New York to disprove your contention that he is walking away from the crimes he committed there is far from deflection.
We were discussing the impeachment investigation., and how it is being handled. I guess it's your prerogative to bring up anything? I just do not want to change gears.
I will offer an appolgie for my "Troll" comment... It was snarky and uncalled for.Apology accepted.
He is being impeached for his crimes, crimes you denied existed. Those include the ones he committed on the federal and state level. And that can be proved by showing you that he is already being investigated in New York for the campaign finance laws he broke with his foundation and the fraud he committed with the Trump Organization's reimbursements to Cohen for the illegal payoffs to Daniels and for the McDougal story.
He is an unindicted conspirator in the Cohen payoff case. He would be arrested if he were not POTUS. Understand now, Shar?
Unfortunately, you must have not been keeping up with that dropped allegation?
"But the big unanswered question is whether prosecutors in the US Attorney’s Office of the Southern District of New York hope to pursue the hush-money case further — by implicating the Trump Organization or even the president himself."
According to legal and campaign finance experts, the checks themselves don’t prove a crime. But they could be one piece of evidence in a potential case against Trump."
"
https://www.vox.com/2019/3/6/18253467/t … my-daniels
Volation of the law, as a rule, comes with prosecution. I this case impeachment due to the person you are accusing is the president. Did I miss something has Congress voted to impeach?
"Leader" --- Propaganda --- ir's not me that buys into groupthink... It's youYou did miss something. In the Nixon impeachment, there was a five month gap between the inquiry and an official vote. So not sure why you are asking for something that has a precedent in American history. Is Trump special?
When an entire group is in such denial such as Trump supporters appear to be about the laws he has broken and continues to openly break, applying conclusions to the entire group seem to be more than applicable.
Yes. Denial is rampant among Trump supporters. See no evil...
I am seeing plenty of evil., and it starts with a party that hope to get away with doing a one-sided impeachment investigation. And the evil spreading into our society. It is a cary situation when some of us believe this kind of justice would serve as justice.
As I have stated I feel th Congress should vote on the impeachment inquiry. It will allow the Republicans to participate in questioning witnesses, asn well as give them supeana power. This is justice. The Dem's have no right to conduct a one-sided investigation.
In regards to the time frame between the vote on the Nixson vote to conduct an impeachment inquiry.
My point was that a vote was taken. I stand with my comment, and the fact an impeachment vote was taken. Moreinportanly the vote will open up a fair investigation.
Are you OK with a one-sided investigation? It well appears you are.
Glad to hear it. I heard the democrats are avoiding that vote because if they hold it there are actual rules they must abide by. Without it, they basically completely get to write the rules as they go and prohibit Republican participation.
I'd insist Schiff be replaced. He's proven himself to be a biased liar.I think President Donald Trump is saying, "Charge me with a crime or let me walk."
They really have nothing. I don't think the Democrats have the slightest idea what they've done to themselves and their party.I have to agree, I think he hopes to have the right to defend himself and put this one behind him. I also agree the Dem's have become a party that is unrecognizable to what they were. They sm to be spinning out of control?
It seems to me that Trump is spinning out of control when he calls for the impeachment of Mitt Romney, a Republican Senator who will be voting on Trump's impeachment.
What Romney said:
"When the only American citizen President Trump singles out for China’s investigation is his political opponent in the midst of the Democratic nomination process, it strains credulity to suggest that it is anything other than politically motivated," Romney tweeted Friday.
"By all appearances, the President’s brazen and unprecedented appeal to China and to Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden is wrong and appalling," he added.
https://thehill.com/homenews/administra … ody-please
That's called courage and integrity. It's the kind of person who should be President and not Donald Trump.You are going to get a good laugh at this --- I could never stand Mitt. I voted for Obama....No true
My jaw just dropped. You are far more independent than I thought.
I attended a Mitt rally in 2012 and liked what I saw and heard. But he didn't have the charisma of Obama.
That said, I'm suspicious that he is positioning himself to go for the 2020 Republican nomination.
An Impeachment is done by Congress, not by a few unhappy members of the legislative body. Nancy can't walk the fence this time.
With impeachment of a president there is a precedent. During the impeachment of Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton the house took a formal vote to begin an impeachment inquiry. What President Donald Trump is asking is for the house to honor this precedent. Why won't this Congress do such a thing? Because THEN there would be an official record of where they stood when it came to impeachment. Too many Democrat members of Congress are in districts that support President Donald Trump. During this recess they got a lot of heat from their voters. So, I think it's right to ask for a vote before complying with an impeachment inquiry. It is one more reason the Democrats don't seem to be too serious about this.
Coincidentally I was listening to a CNN segment with Rep. Meeks as I was reading your comment.
According to CNN you are right, it is commonly viewed as a precedent because that is what they did with Nixon and Clinton.
CNN asked why not follow that precedent this time. Rep. Meeks' answer was something like; "We are not ignoring precedent, this is not going to be a long-drawn-out process, we are just looking to see if the White House will cooperate."
CNN asked again why they, (the committee), are ignoring the precedent. Also, CNN asked if they were doing it to avoid giving the Republicans the legal Rights such a vote would provide.
Rep. Meeks didn't have any answers beyond, "no" and this will be a quick process.
Sounds like you might be right Mike. It also sounds like that first NPR blurb about this issue that I posted here might be right too.
So, they might not be 'required' to hold that vote, but why ignore precedent and not do it this time?
*that CNN/Meeks segment will probably be on youtube later for more details.
GA
Related Discussions
- 23
The non-impeachment of President Trump
by Ralph Schwartz 4 years ago
Throughout the last three years, we've seen political maneuvering like never before - the Democrats have spent the entire time trying to undo an election, find a crime where one didn't exist, slander and demonize the President, go after anyone who was associated with the Trump campaign or...
- 67
House votes to approve impeachment inquiry into President Biden
by Castlepaloma 11 months ago
1 day ago — House approves impeachment inquiry into President Biden as Republicans rally behind investigation.Sounds too good to be true. Considering Three presidents have been impeached, although none were convicted: Andrew Johnson was in 1868, Bill Clinton was in 1998, and Donald Trump twice, in...
- 65
The Left Couldn't Defeat President Donald Trump
by Readmikenow 3 weeks ago
“However Much You Deny The Truth, The Truth Goes On Existing”George OrwellWhy did President Donald Trump defeat the liberals and the left? He held on to the truth.President Donald Trump has a strong character and courage. Two qualities that may not be understood by the liberals and the...
- 99
Why are we Impeaching President Trump? Am I Missing Something Here?
by The Minstrel 5 years ago
Okay, I get it that the Democrats want to win in 2020, but why bank your whole election future on an impeachment initiative that lacks any real substance. It doesn't. The whistle blower only has second hand information, he or she spoke to Adam Schiff's staff before whistling, Trump did not threaten...
- 25
US Envoy: Trump did tie aid to politically motivated investigation
by Don W 5 years ago
"The senior U.S. diplomat in Ukraine told lawmakers Tuesday that President Trump made the release of military aid contingent on public declarations from Ukraine that it would investigate the Bidens and the 2016 election, contradicting Trump’s denial that he used the money as leverage for...
- 63
What Will Happen NOW
by Grace Marguerite Williams 4 years ago
Now that President Trump is impeached, what will the ramifications be for American society? Will those who voted for Trump riot & even attack those who the former deem are responsible for this impeachment? Will sociopolitical divisions be further exacerbated than they are...