The Trump Card...

ATeam

Senior Member
Retired Expediter
Some people who hate the fact that Trump is President so very much want to make his actions criminal as retribution for him being elected.
I think it's important for people, Democrats in particular, to keep in mind is that the Mueller report is not a finding of fact. People have the attitude of, "Mueller is going to get to tie bottom of this." Well, no he's not That's not his job. His report will be an extremely one-sided prosecutorial docement full of one-sided allegations, innuendo and conclusions.

And evidence, which will be combined with the items you mention for the court's or Senate's consideration at trial, where both sides will have their best lawyers making their case. You make a good point in distinguishing between a prosecutor's findings and a court's findings.

So far, the prosecutor's findings have stood up fairly well in the courts where they have been heard. It stands to reason that Mueller will bring forward only the cases he feels he can win. I'm eager for the investigations to proceed and for all the open questions to be answered in open court. That's the arena in which both sides can argue their cases and the truth can be determined. Until then, speculation and innuendo fills the air waves and degrades the public debate.
 
Last edited:

ATeam

Senior Member
Retired Expediter
I think it's important for people, Democrats in particular, to keep in mind is that the Mueller report is not a finding of fact.

As I stated above, Turtle makes a good point with these words.

That said, it is worth noting that the election law violations ARE findings of fact determined in a court of law, after both sides had the opportunity to present their best cases. Cohen has admitted to these CRIMES (not accusations). He is going to do time in prison for committing them (and others). Trump is implicated (not yet charged) in these crimes. Specifically, prosecutors say in the Cohen sentencing document:

“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.”

I do not believe prosecutors would make such a statement if they could not back it up with evidence in a court of law. And I expect they will do so when the cases further develop. They are not questioning that the crimes occurred. Nor are they questioning Trump's guilt or innocence in the matter. They are implicating Trump and leaving it at that for now. When the Muller report comes out, I expect we'll learn more about the evidence the prosecutors seem to have.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Grizzly and Ragman

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
The rule you cite refers to campaign funds used in an improper way.
No, the rule I stated is the test the FEC uses to determine whether or not funds were used in an improper way. (" to differentiate legitimate campaign and officeholder expenses from personal expenses.") The rule applies to funds used in both proper and improper ways.

That is not what happened in the Trump/Daniels and Trump/McDougal cases. Those are cases where funds from outside the campaign were used for the benefit of a campaign and not reported.
You're still hing up on "used for the benefit of the campaign." I suggest you try and expand your imagination a little, and try to imagine those payments being made even if Trump were not a candidate.

Also, funds coming from outside the campaign are not considered a campaign contribution "if the payment would have been made irrespective of the candidacy." (Source: the same FEC) In any event, Trump reimbursed Cohen those funds out of his own pocket, not out of campaign funds.

Just because something benefits the campaign, the candidate or influences an election, does not in and of itself make it a campaign contribution or expenditure. Whether or not the campaign benefits is not the litmus test. The litmus test is the "irrespective test." Does buying nice clothes, neatly pressed and dry cleaned, to make the candidate look good in public, benefit the campaign? You betcha it does. But it's not considered to be a campaign expenditure, because it doesn't pass the "irrespective test."

An example of someone violating the personal use rule you cite would be a candidate who took a weekend mini vacation with one's spouse for strictly personal reasons and paid for it with funds from the campaign's bank account.
Correct. You cannot use campaign funds for personal expenses. But that's just one example of thousands where using campaign funds for personal expenses would be improper. But that's not what Trump is accused of.

Trump is accused of receiving an illegal campaign contribution (from himself, mind you), and not reporting it, and then using the funds to benefit his campaign in a manner in which the same money would not have been spent if he were not a candidate.

After these latest court filings, Trump tweeted that he's in the clear. And he's not wrong. There is nothing in the filings that put Trump in any kind of real trouble. But, if you read the MSM version of the world, CNN, Wapo and NYT in particular, you will see article after article of nonsense lists of things that are not crimes, and they're not going to be a big problem for Trump, but if they can amass enough of them in enough articles and on-air punditry, they can create the story where it looks like there is. You see a lot of stuff, especially from anti-Trump legal "experts" that say things like...

Well, the President, or somebody, did something that wasn't a crime, but it was veeeery close to one you could imagine could be illegal if things like that were illegal.

For example, having conversations about a project in Russia, when you're not president, and you think you probably won't win the election, and you're keeping your options open in Russia, is not a crime. But it feels like... sorta close to something... that if the situation were different... and some of the variables were sotf of opposite... such as he was president, or there was a quid pro quo, something like that,,, well that would be a crime. And then there are Manafort's crimes, which have nothing to do with Trump or collusion. And Flynn, and Papadoulis And look at the payments to Stormy and McDougal. You can argue that there's some sort of super sekrit campaign reporting problem going on, but it can also be argued that the payments were made purely for personal reasons, to keep his family out of the blowback from his affairs. But if you have a perfectly good personal reason to make those payments, and they also just so happen to benefore the campaign, it's not illegal. But dammit, <stomp><stomp><stomp> it sure feels like it should be. It feels like it sorta could be close to almost being illegal if things were just a little bit different.

Yeah, sure, I get it. That's not quite illegal. And the other stuff is not quite illegal. But if you add up everything that's not quite illegal, you see a pattern of not quite illegal, and if you add up enough of not quite illegal, you've just got to get to a point where there's a number of not quite illegal will equal illegal. Look at Paul Manafort. He committed real crimes, which have nothing to do with the president, but he was with the campaign for a few months, so while that's not exactly a crime of the president, but it's close to it, in a way that makes you reminded of a crime, so it would be illegal for Trump if just a few of those variables where different than they are. Dammit.

You can look at it all, and there's a lot of stuff. But it all has the same quality. "Well, that definitely would be a problem, it it were just a little bit different than what actually happened. And there's soooo much of it that's sooooo close to actually being illegal, that we might as well just call it illegal, impeach him, remove him from office, and throw him in prison for ever and ever Amen "

They anybody had anything real on Trump we'd know about it by now. What Mueller or anyone else comes up with, if anything at all, will be so convoluted, strained and pretzelled so as to look desperate and contrived, that the country will not get on board with it.

There is perhaps a 10 percent chance (being charitable) of the House impeaching Trump, and exactly a zero percent chance of the Senate finding him guilty and successfully removing him from office.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
I do not believe prosecutors would make such a statement if they could not back it up with evidence in a court of law.
One would certainly hope not, but prosecutors do that very thing all the time. They usually preface their statements with "We believe, and intend to prove," but after obtaining a plea agreement, they omit the preface and believe they're right. History, and a disturbing number of DNA verdict reversals, show that prosecutors are not choir boys who care more about truth than they do about winning.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Solar

ATeam

Senior Member
Retired Expediter
This guy wasn't convicted and he supposedly used other people's money to hide his affair and their new child.
Trump apparently used his own money to enter a NDA, but somehow this is crime? Give me a break.

You are correct. Cohen was not convicted. He admitted he was guilty of the crimes. They are crimes just the same. Courts do not let people plead guilty to things that are not crimes. The prosecutors, defendant and the Court all agreed that the items in question were actual crimes. If someone steals a car and later admits to it to avoid trial and get a reduced sentence, the crime -- auto theft -- still occurred.

We're past arguing about where the money came from or why the payments were made. The crimes have been acknowledged as crimes. Cohen has admitted his guilt. Prosecutors have implicated Trump.
 
Last edited:

ATeam

Senior Member
Retired Expediter
There is perhaps a 10 percent chance (being charitable) of the House impeaching Trump, and exactly a zero percent chance of the Senate finding him guilty and successfully removing him from office.

You may be right. Time will tell.
 

Solar

Expert Expediter
Owner/Operator
This guy wasn't convicted and he supposedly used other people's money to hide his affair and their new child.
Trump apparently used his own money to enter a NDA, but somehow this is crime? Give me a break.
18254

Is John Edwards verdict the last straw for campaign finance?

I believe Rand Paul recently made a statement on this.

I’ll say it, the Republicans should have left Bill Clinton alone with Monica Lewinski. They went too far.

That said, that witch hunt was brought to you by the RINO Neoconservatives.

If Democrats want to take it out on someone, take it out on the Bush family. Take it out on McCain and Romney, both RINO Neoconservatives.

But taking it out on Trump would be like taking it out on Bernie Sanders for Hillary rigging the election against Bernie Sanders.

To make Impeachment of Trump your objective seriously tells people you have nothing to stand for.
 

ATeam

Senior Member
Retired Expediter
Fox News contributor and former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy: "Why Trump is Likely to be Indicted by Manhattan US Attorney"

Excerpt: "The major takeaway from the 40-page sentencing memorandum filed by federal prosecutors Friday for Michael Cohen, President Trump’s former personal attorney, is this: The president is very likely to be indicted on a charge of violating federal campaign finance laws."

Readers will find in this piece items that support the points both Turtle and I made above. How things actually play out will be learned with the passage of time.
 
Last edited:

ATeam

Senior Member
Retired Expediter
Before my posts of the last few days, it has been months since I participated here. That's because I have a business to run and nothing substantial developed regarding my impeachment prediction. Mueller investigated, Trump tweeted, the talking heads filled the air waves; but no real news broke pertaining to impeachment. With the same conversation being rehashed I found it better to put my time into our business.

The conversation became interesting to me again when two things happened: (1) In the midterm elections, voter turnout on both sides was historically high and the Democrats took the House with a historically large net gain of 40 seats and (2) The Justice Department (SDNY) implicated Trump in two felony election law crimes. Those two items are consequential.

Everyone knows that the House Democrats will investigate Trump and Trump's operatives where Republicans protected them before. That sets a new tone and creates a new set of expectations.

In just one example, the transcripts from the closed hearings conducted earlier will be delivered to Mueller almost immediately when the Democrats take charge. This enables Mueller (and the public eventually) to find out what lies, if any, were told when Trump's people testified before. Cohen has pleaded guilty to such lies. Others may have lied too. If lies were told, we'll learn more about who lied, what was lied about and (eventually) why the lies were told. If no lies were told, we'll learn that too and that question will be laid to rest.

That would not happen if the Republicans retained the house, but they didn't. Things are different now.

Regarding the election law felonies, they are significant because that's exactly what they are (felonies) and Trump is implicated. That was not the case before. It is now.

It takes time for the investigations to proceed, evidence to be unearthed and court cases to be developed. Clearly, progress is being made. Convictions and guilty pleas are being obtained. Prosecutors are working their way up the chain. People see that too. This felony development is consequential. Like the midterm elections, it sets a different tone and is prompting different actions and responses.

An example of that, which surprised me, was the op-ed that 44 former U.S. Senators (Democrats and Republicans) published last night. They said,

As former members of the U.S. Senate, Democrats and Republicans, it is our shared view that we are entering a dangerous period, and we feel an obligation to speak up about serious challenges to the rule of law, the Constitution, our governing institutions and our national security.

We are on the eve of the conclusion of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation and the House’s commencement of investigations of the president and his administration. The likely convergence of these two events will occur at a time when simmering regional conflicts and global power confrontations continue to threaten our security, economy and geopolitical stability.

It is a time, like other critical junctures in our history, when our nation must engage at every level with strategic precision and the hand of both the president and the Senate.

We are at an inflection point in which the foundational principles of our democracy and our national security interests are at stake, and the rule of law and the ability of our institutions to function freely and independently must be upheld.

During our service in the Senate, at times we were allies and at other times opponents, but never enemies. We all took an oath swearing allegiance to the Constitution. Whatever united or divided us, we did not veer from our unwavering and shared commitment to placing our country, democracy and national interest above all else.

At other critical moments in our history, when constitutional crises have threatened our foundations, it has been the Senate that has stood in defense of our democracy. Today is once again such a time.

Regardless of party affiliation, ideological leanings or geography, as former members of this great body, we urge current and future senators to be steadfast and zealous guardians of our democracy by ensuring that partisanship or self-interest not replace national interest."


These people have been around for a long time but it was not until last night that they rose as a bipartisan group to declare a "constitutional crisis." Why now? It's now because things have substantially changed. The felony crimes are real and they matter. The ongoing investigations are expected to produce more evidence and consequences for the law breakers. Prosecutors are producing results and Trump is in their sights.

A letter from 44 former Senators will not go unnoticed by seated Senators. It is yet another indication to them that things are different now.

As I said above, Trump's lawyers, court responses, rallies, interviews, tweets and Attorney General changes have proven ineffective. I've seen nothing different in his strategy since the midterms. He is not changing but the world around him is.

Things are moving now but Trump isn't. He has lost the initiative. With court documents being published and new facts coming to light, Trump no longer controls the narrative. He was on the defensive before but that is nothing compared to what he'll be defending himself against when the House moves on numerous fronts.

All of this weakens Trump. While most of Trump's base will never stop believing in him, their willingness to act and speak up on his behalf will fade. As it does, Republican resolve to defend Trump in the Senate will also fade, thereby increasing the liklihood of impeachment.
 
Last edited:

ATeam

Senior Member
Retired Expediter
And so, it has begun...

Wanting to learn more, I Googled "adam schiff sexual harassment settlement" but found little. The Twitter post you shared here seems to have disappeared. Can you share more details about the settlement? When and where was the settlement made?

Have you been duped by fake news? Are you trying to dupe readers here with the same?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ragman

Solar

Expert Expediter
Owner/Operator
And so, it has begun...

Wanting to learn more, I Googled "adam schiff sexual harassment settlement" but found little. The Twitter post you shared here seems to have disappeared. Can you share more details about the settlement? When and where was the settlement made?

Have you been duped by fake news? Are you trying to dupe readers here with the same?

Why would you use “Google” when you know they are manipulating search results?

Get DuckDuckGo

Rumors and Facts with Adam Schiff
 

Acquisitions

Active Expediter
Recruiter
so the moral of the story of " life on Earth" .....most crooks get caught and go to prison.. but the really good ones are elected to offices in Government and live off the people's wallets they serve .... Does that sound about right??
 
Top