You quote Lanny Davis, a Duke Professor, and Bloomberg writer. Ok, everyone has an opinion.
The Trump Card...
- Thread starter muttly
- Start date
I quoted the people I did only to answer the question asked. Beyond that, it's more than an opinion. In a court of law, under oath, Cohen pleaded guilty and the court accepted that plea. No one is disputing that this plea was made and accepted. No one is disputing what the court transcripts say.
More than opinion, this is a court action that will likely result in Cohen going to jail. Further, the court transcripts (namely Cohen's allocution statement) provide strong evidence that Trump violated the law. That evidence now exists as public record in the court transcripts.
If these transcripts are used in articles of impeachment against Trump, which I believe they will, Trump and his attorneys will likely make a case against them. That's fine. In fact, that's exactly how the system is supposed to work. Both sides make their case and the ruling body makes its decision.
The video you post above may well be a good preview of the arguments Trump's attorney's will make. What's different now that Cohen has credibly implicated Trump, is that the Trump must defend himself not against fake news or the deep state or other such things, but against the specific and credible charge that Trump committed crimes.
That does not mean Trump will be immediately impeached. But as I said above, it means the high crimes and misdemeanors standard has been met.
I find this case to be especially interesting in light of the ongoing barrage of Trump's tweets. It was not about Russia. It was not about Muller. It was not about the Democrats. It was not about Comey. It was not about the deep state. It was not about fake news.It was not about illegal immigrants. It was not about Hillary or Obama. It was not about China. It was not about any of the other opposing forces Trump likes to mention.
As things turned out, it was about Trump's personal attorney pleading guilty to certain crimes he committed and implicating Trump in impeachable offenses.
When I was active in politics, the conventional wisdom among operatives was that you can trust your enemies more than you can trust your friends. You know what your enemies will do or try to do. It's your friends who are unpredictable and may do you great harm in unexpected ways. That certainly proved to be the case with Trump and Cohen. As one commentator said, the man who said he'd take a bullet for Trump now holds a gun to Trump's head.
Last edited:
Of course, the legal definition of high crimes and misdemeanors is, offenses that the U.S. Senate deems to constitute an adequate ground for removal of the president, vice president, or any civil officer as a person unfit to hold public office and deserving of impeachment.
So, I'll defer to the Senate as to whether that standard has been met.
So, I'll defer to the Senate as to whether that standard has been met.
I agree since, ultimately, s there really is no other way to answer the question. That said, it appears increasingly likely that we'll have the actual opportunity to see what the Senate decides.
Gee, brings back memories of The witch hunt against Bill Clinton. Eight years of it starting before inauguration. I remember listening to an interview of a Republican congressperson (sorry, can’t remember his name after 26 years or so), but he said that “we’re going to run this guy out of office if it’s the last thing we do”. Eight years of it and all they could get him on was lying under oath. Granted, the events that led up to that was stupid on his part but it would never have seen the light of day if not for the “witch hunt”.
And, while we’re at it, look at all the crap the “right” tried to pull on Obama. Everything from “birther” to whatever they could could come up with. The problem is they could find no skeletons in his closet. Even Trump later admitted that Obama was born here.
Sent from my iPhone using EO Forums
It's funny how the Prosecutors used the phrase " to influence the election" in Cohen's plea. Sounds similar to the accusation that the Russians colluded with Trumps associates to "influence the election". Except there aren't any Russians.
Trump could have done it to avoid embarrassment with his wife. But regardless, to make this an impeachable crime is grasping at straws. It will backfire enormously. # Boomerangeffect
Trump could have done it to avoid embarrassment with his wife. But regardless, to make this an impeachable crime is grasping at straws. It will backfire enormously. # Boomerangeffect
Yep. That's exactly what it's like. A partisan impeachment to remove a president has never worked, and isn't likely to. It failed with Andrew Jackson. It failed spectacularly with Clinton. And it'll fail with Trump. The bipartisan impeachment of Nixon, which most importantly had the support of the American people, would have been successful, which is why he resigned before he could be impeached.
What the Republicans did to Clinton was both a joke and a disgrace, and so is what the Democrats are trying to do to Trump. The end result of the Clinton impeachment is he became even more popular. Same thing happened to Jackson, and the same thing is very likely to happen with Trump.
I believe they (or Congress) can in this case. Cohen's evidence is quite clear. I'm not going to argue the point beyond saying that. This will end up in court or an impeachment hearing in congress soon enough. Then we'll know.
Which is the very point I have been making since Trump was elected. At the time, I did not expect the House and its subpoena power to return to Democratic control. But now that seems to be a possibility. Regardless, I continue to say now what I said then. Namely, the Republicans who have the power to do so will vote to get rid of flawed Trump and bring in gentleman Pence.
I think otherwise. A sea change happened last night and we are already seeing the effects. Trump has lost the initiative. Short of starting a war or initiating some other type of major crisis, which he may do, Trump no longer has the ability to drive the narrative and change the subject like he could before.
As demonstrated by the video above, Fox News has shifted to defending Trump not against Muller but against Cohen. Yet the Muller investigation continues to progress.The Senate investigation continues. If the House goes Democrat in November, the House investigation will be revived. A favorable ruling has been secured that enables the emoluments lawsuit to proceed. Three judges, including a Trump appointee, have ruled that the Manafort investigation has the legal authority to exist and continue.
Authorities in New York continue to investigate the Trump Foundation. Donald Trump Jr. is far from off the hook. Cohen's cooperation is bad news for Trump on both those fronts.
Trump can fire Sessions anytime he wants but he has not done so. He wants Rosenstein out but Rosenstein remains. He wants the investigations to end but when push comes to shove the Senate continues theirs and refuses to end the Muller probe. Trumps tweetstorms and (inappropriate) public comments about Manafort failed to influence the jury. The jury selection process ensured that no die-hard Trump supporter would hang the jury.
Cohen's attorney openly offered that Cohen is not just willing but eager to assist prosecutors. He also said he'd abide by an subpoena Avenatti might have issued and Avenatti stated his intent to so proceed. Avanatti wants to depose Trump and yesterday's developments make it easier for him to secure that result. The Senate intelligence committee is calling Cohen back and Cohen has indicated a willingness to go and to tell the truth.
Cohen has tapes. Omarosa has tapes. Who else has tapes? Omarosa has not gone away. Now she's a talking head on at least one cable news show. John Brennan did not go away. When Trump pulled his security clearance, Brennan ramped up his anti-Trump rhetoric and is threatening to sue to block Trump from similar abuses of power in the future.
The women have not gone away. Those who protested in Washington after Trump's inauguration remain active and appear to be effective in the mid-term campaigns.
The Cohen plea, Manafort conviction, previous pleas by Trump World insiders, and the conspicuous absence of Trump pardon talk sends a signal to other Trump World insiders and their attorneys that coming forward may be their single best option at this point.
With mid-term elections very close, Republican congressmen and congresswomen are treading very carefully with one purpose in mind; retain the support of the Trump base to save one's own skin (seat). But once the election is over and the Republicans receive the drubbing it appears they are in for, they will not want to go through another two years of Trump.
The Republicans who have the power to do so will vote to impeach Trump and replace him with gentleman Pence.
Last edited:
I am not assuming a partisan impeachment. It is worth noting that Nixon retained a good amount of Republican support up to the point he didn't. When convincing evidence became available, the political winds shifted and Nixon was done. Nixon retained some supporters to the very end but they were not numerous enough to make a difference. As it was with Nixon, so it will be for Trump, I believe. People are loyal until they aren't.
Last edited:
In part, yes. It's not simply about paying the mistress to go public. The payments were illegal because they violated campaign finance laws. The dollar amounts exceeded the legal limits. The intent of the payments were to influence the election. The payments were not reported as required by law. Trump personally and intentionally directed these payments to be made. Trump conspired (colluded) with others to commit these crimes and to cover them up. These violations of law are impeachable offenses.
Last edited:
So says a prosecutor in NY as a result of a plea agreement. It wasn't adjudicated. A large leap to go impeachment proceedings because Trump had a couple nondisclosure agreements. If anything, Trump would have a case for breach of contract. Nondisclosure agreements happen all the time. Now the Left wants to criminalize them. Lol.
Cohen's evidence is quite clear, if you believe him to be uber credible and that he didn't embellish in any way. A lot of people have said things under oath, especially during a plea negotiation to get a better deal, that were less than truthful.
That's one way of looking at it but it's not how the law looks at it. I have served as a campaign treasurer for state and federal campaign committees. Along with the candidate, the treasurer is on the hook for compliance with all campaign finance laws. There is a body of law and an elaborate set of rules that apply to political campaigns. If you don't understand these laws, I can see how an argument like yours would seem to make sense. It does at the common-sense level but carries no weight in the legal sense.
With the laws such as they are, the money trail, Cohen's allocution, and, now, Trump not denying that the payments were made, it's quite clear that Trump is guilty of campaign-finance crimes that are not minor violations that are usually resolved at the administrative level but serious felonies.
Last edited:
Muttly, your post prompted me to look up "adjudicated" in Wikipedia.
In court
"The legal process of resolving a dispute. The formal giving or pronouncing of a judgment or decree in a court proceeding; also the judgment or decision given. The entry of a decree by a court in respect to the parties in a case. It implies a hearing by a court, after notice, of legal evidence on the factual issue(s) involved. The equivalent of a determination. It indicates that the claims of all the parties thereto have been considered and set at rest."[2]
By this definition, it looks to me that the case was indeed adjudicated when the court accepted the plea.
You are correct. NDAs are common and there was nothing illegal in the NDAs themselves. Trump's actions relative to the NDAs with the two women are crimes because (1) he created them (or directed them to be created) to influence the outcome of an election, (2) he failed to report the money spent on them as campaign contributions, (3) the amount of the campaign contributions exceeded legal limits, (4) he tried to cover up these actions, and (5) he conspired with others to commit these crimes.
When Trump is charged with these crimes, it won't be because he had NDAs. It will be because he committed serious violations of campaign finance law.
By the way, it would be hard to say Trump, the great negotiator and wise businessman, got his money's worth out of these NDAs. Neither woman abided by them, both kept the money and neither were sued for damages.
Last edited:
Says Cohen. Just because Cohen says it doesn't make it true. Cohen has his own motivations to lie or embellish, funny forget that.
The FEC will tell you straight up that not every expenditure that influences a campaign is necessarily a campaign expenditure. If Trump has a history of paying women to shut up you'll be hard pressed to prove that these two payments were any different, especially if you're relying on the words of Cohen, who has already contradiced his testimony under path to Congress.
Remember Clinton's Chinagate, where foreign money from China flooded into the Clinton campaign, while at the same time he was feverishly declassifying nuclear secrets? Clinton should have been impeached for that, and probably indicted, but he wasn't.
Remember when Bob Dole set a record for FEC fines on his 1996 campaign for violating campaign finance laws, only to have Obama destroy that record when he was fined $375,000 for violating campaign finance laws.
Some people are convinced that Trump committed extraordinarily egregious high crimes and misdemeanors by paying off a couple of women, but that's very, very iffy at best. Even Nancy Pelosi, Trump's BFF says a lot more will have to surface before it gets even remotely close to a level warranting impeachment.
Trump has the same motivations and an equal lack of credibility. That takes us to the other evidence. There is the money trail. And, according to Cohen's attorney, there are the written directives received by Cohen from Trump's attorneys, and there are the taped phone calls between Trump and Cohen. All of this supports Cohen's side of the story. Unless Trump has strong evidence to the contrary, the decision is likely to uphold Cohen's claims, not Trump's.
As to the rest, as with the Manafort verdicts, I prefer to let the courts or impeachment hearings decide. Nothing I argue here will matter in those decisions.
Short story, Trump is weaker after yesterday's developments. The number of active Trump foes is growing and their ammunition is becoming more plentiful as more and more factual information comes to light.
Contrary to Giuliani's "Truth is not truth" claim and Conway's "alternative facts" perspective, truth is truth, and truth trumps tweets. It took a while, but statements made under oath are surfacing that undermine the power Trump's tweets used to have. The tweets did not carry the day yesterday, the truth did. In the ongoing public debate, the tweets are no longer the news story leads. The investigations and court actions are.
As I said above, Trump has lost the initiative. He has lost the ability to control the narrative that he once had.
That may well be, but the crimes provide an adequate basis on which to initiate impeachment proceedings. Impeachment is not a legal proceeding in a court of law. It's a political proceeding in the U.S. House and Senate.
I expect more impeachment ammunition to develop as additional facts come to light. But even without that, there is enough at hand to initiate the proceedings when the political sentiments of both parties shift in that direction.
There is a discussion going on about whether or not a sitting president can be indicted. To me, that's a side issue, secondary to impeachment. But I would not be surprised to see some hot-shot district attorney somewhere who wants to build one's name take it upon himself or herself to test the Justice Department rules and past precedent by seeking to indict Trump. For that to happen, evidence of a chargeable crime or crimes must exist. I believe that now exists since Cohen implicated Trump.
Again, an indictment test would be a somewhat meaningless sideshow if it happened. But it would be yet another thing Trump would have to deal with as he circles his wagons and deals with multiple challenges of various types.
Last edited:
Apples and oranges.
From NBC News: "That [Obama] case appears markedly different from the details emerging about the violation pleaded to by Cohen on Tuesday. Administrative errors by campaigns are commonplace and are often settled with fines. But willful violations of the campaign finance laws are considered crimes, and have been successfully prosecuted by the Election Crimes Branch, which is in the Public Integrity Section of the Department of Justice."