Mueller Investigation: Trump Likely to Be Indicted, But Will He Be Impeached?

PJ Media ^ | 12/09/2018 | Rick Moran

[antidemoncrat]

If the Democrats and never Trumper Republicans get their way and impeach him, this Republic is DEAD!

[knarf]

Everyone calling this out is complicit in their OWN indescretions

[Blue House Sue]

““I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky””

Clinton lied.

Trump tells the truth.

[knarf]

Everyone calling this out is complicit in their OWN indescretions

[knarf]

Everyone calling this out is complicit in their OWN indescretions

[Leep]

The left barely needs another side ..except to create straw men, and false scenarios that only more government can fix, in order to do battle.
And to justify their own criminality.

[odawg]

The democrats view impeaching Trump as just another strategy to weaken him so they can regain power. And it is throwing red meat to the MSM.

[odawg]

The democrats won’t wait for an indictment to try to impeach Trump. To them, it would be just icing on the cake.

[SoCal Pubbie]

I’m not sure, but I do think Trump reimbursed Cohen for the money paid to Stormy Daniels. According to the article, Karen McDougal was paid by the National Inquirer, which Cohen promised to repay, but never did. In that case the allegation will be that Trump used Cohen to solicit an unreported and illegal campaign contribution from the Enquirer.

[red-dawg]

[SmokingJoe]

the payments to the women were made “in coordination with and at the direction of” the candidate for federal office – Donald Trump.

All perfectly legal, as long as Trump

1. Paid off said women with his own money, (He did).
2. Would have paid off said women whether he was running for president or not. Trump, a married man, would have paid off any women he may or may not have had a liaison with, to prevent such info from reaching hie wife.

[libstripper]

The key to the whole thing that McCarthy ignored in his article is whether the two expenditures actually were campaign expenditures as defined by the statute. Most important, the statute and regulations exempt "personal expenditures" from reporting and generally define them as expenditures a candidate makes to cover non-campaign debts. Those debts definitely can include hush money payments to inconvenient former paramours or wannabe paramours. Indeed, if a campaign even makes such payments with the candidate's knowledge, that candidate can be prosecuted for making illegal personal expenditures from his campaign, as happened with the late Bill Scott, a former IL governor.

Thus, if PDJT had reported the two settlements as campaign expenditures, he'd have immediately admitted committing two felonies, for which he could be impeached, convicted, and prosecuted. By making those expenditures entirely from his personal funds he actually avoided committing campaign finance violations. IOW he is now being attacked for doing his best to comply with, and complying with, campaign finance law.

[Paddyboy]

The goal is not impeachment,which the libs know is a non starter,the goal is to overwhelm America with bullshit aimed towards the 2020 election

[LS]

You can’t indict a sitting president. This has been established now, twice. They can call him an “unindicted co-conspirator,” or whatever, but all they can do is use this to try to impeach him.

The 40-seat advantage in the House means impeachment is likely. Had it just been 4-5 seats, pressure on some of the red-state Ds would be too powerful. But Botoxic will “release” enough of them to maintain the margin to impeach and still let them out of it.

So, the senate. I count about 39 pretty strong Trump votes. I count another 7 who are squishes, who could go either way. There are about 7 I think will vote for removal, including Minion, Burrito, Mel Tillis, MurCowSki, Tom Collins, and perhaps two others.

In other words, McConnell would likely have enough votes for an immediate “dismissal” on no grounds rather than a trial.

The election of Braun, Hawley, Scott, Blackburn, and Cramer are going to prove absolutely KEY to keeping Trump. Honestly, I don’t think Heller or McSally would help us. I would not be sure either would be a full Trump supporter. Rosendale would have and Renacci would have. But we should have more than enough.

[Liz]

NY Democrat Jerry Nadler's comments are noteworthy in part because he was on the Judiciary Committee that voted
to impeach Bill Clinton......at the time Nadler said that vote was tantamount to an attempted coup and a
gross abuse of the House's impeachment power.

NADLER'S INCIPIENT ALZHEIMERS?

freebeacon.com BY: Jack Heretik, August 26, 2018

NY Democrat Jerry Nadler was confronted about his comments–made during former President Bill Clinton's impeachment–saying a president can't commit obstruction of justice. NBC's MTP's Chuck Todd asked Nadler about his past comments, in which he was defending Clinton during the impeachment proceedings against him.".......back in 1999, during the debate about whether or not Bill Clinton obstructed justice, you said at the time you were not convinced that a president could obstruct justice," Todd said. "Do you feel that way, that it's not one of the quote ‘might not be impeachable,’ put it this way, that obstruction of justice might not be an impeachable offense?"

A DEMOCRAT-INDUCED MEMORY---- "Well, I don't remember saying that, but if I said it, I said it, but no, I don't agree with that today. A president, anybody can obstruct justice," Nadler said. "Obstruction of justice under certain circumstances might be an impeachable offense. Remember, there is a very big difference between a crime which may or may not be impeachable and an impeachable offense which doesn't have to be a crime."

=================================

Nadler has been a member of Congress since 1992 and was part to the Clinton impeachment proceedings. In a 1998 floor speech, Nadler said Clinton perjuring himself was not an impeachable offense."Perjury is a serious crime and, if provable, should be prosecuted in a court of law. But it may or may not involve the president’s duties and performance in office. Perjury on a private matter, perjury regarding sex, is not a great and dangerous offense against the Nation. It is not an abuse of uniquely presidential power. It does not threaten our form of government. It is not an impeachable offense," Nalder said.

At the time Nadler said Clinton's perjury with regard to a private sexual affair did not threaten the Constitutional order; it is a crime but was not an impeachable offense. Perjury regarding an attempt by a president to subvert the Constitutional order, to aggrandize power probably, would be an impeachable offense."

======================================

That was then:
Nadler defended Clinton "eloquently," arguing the lewinskied Clinton shouldn't be impeached for lying to conceal his affair with an intern.

This is now:
incoming chair Nadler is itching to impeach Trump using discredited witnesses like porn star Stormy Daniels and her sleaze lawyer Michael Avenatti.

[spudville]

Would it be illegal for Congress folks to pay off for scandals with , say, a Congressional fund paid for by taxpayers?

[Dana1960]

I do not believe the Dems are so stupid as to vote impeach DJT. Yes, some of them will, but they don’t have a big enough margin of safe seats to pull this off. And they don’t have the votes in the Senate. And they know this.

They are hoping to dirty him up, cause him to throw in the towel. He is losing $$ every day he is in office.

My gut tells me he is going to tell him to F themselves.

:)

[bgill]

We need to re-elect Trump another 4 years so all jaywalking charges expire.

[metmom]

Bill Clinton raped and sexually assaulted women IN THE WHITE HOUSE, and all we heard is that what a person does in their personal life has no bearing on their ability to be a good president.

If Clinton didn’t get impeached over what he did, then Trump should not over mere accusations.

[Terry Mross]

Trump hasn’t denied the trysts under oath. As far has I know. The democrats will scream “He lied to the people”! It will be pointed out that Clinton lie about Monica. They’ll say “That was a long time ago. And Bill Clinton isn’t president”.

If he did say he didn’t have sex it’d their individual word against his. And since Cohen wasn’t there, he doesn’t know one way or the other. Trump is boisterous so he was just bey Trump.

Finally, it was his money!