Posted on 08/22/2018 8:09:03 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
In the wake of an absolutely stunning 60 minutes of revelations on Tuesday afternoon, you might have been tempted to wonder whether President Donald Trump was in real legal jeopardy.
After all, his one-time personal lawyer Michael Cohen testified as part of a plea agreement in New York City that then-candidate Trump had "directed" and "coordinated" his efforts to hide payments discussed in the run-up to the 2016 election to two women -- porn star Stormy Daniels and ex-Playboy model Karen McDougal -- in an effort to keep their allegations of extramarital affairs with Trump out of the press. (In Daniels' case, a $130,000 payment was made, which Trump then reimbursed Cohen for, according to his lawyer.)
That is a violation of campaign finance laws, one of the eight charges that Cohen pleaded guilty to on Tuesday. And so, if Cohen admitted he broke the law and testified that he did it at the direction of the President then, well, isn't Trump in deep trouble?
Probably not. And the reason is that special counsel Robert Mueller's office has apparently signaled to the President's legal team that they will abide by longstanding Justice Department regulations that stipulate that a sitting President can't be indicted. "All they get to do is write a report," Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani told CNN's Dana Bash in May. "They can't indict. At least they acknowledged that to us after some battling, they acknowledged that to us."
On Tuesday night, a source close to the White House told Fox News' John Roberts, "Remember, the President cannot be indicted."
To be clear: There is a debate in the legal community about the prohibition on indicting a sitting president, but it seems unlikely Mueller would push for an indictment as a direct result of his investigation....
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Impeachment is one thing, conviction is another, and there aren’t 67 votes to convict.
Flake and Corker would, but fortunately they are gone in January.
Graham, Gardner, Tillis, Burr, Alexander, Rubio, Sasse, Murkowsky and Collins are possibilities.
Depends on how many they need.
Probably more available.
This talk of impeachment is the only thing that might rally the GOP base to go out and vote in the midterms.
**************
Exactly right! The GOP doesn’t inspire much confidence so the threat of impeachment is probably one of the biggest things to motivate conservatives to get out the vote. The Dems are actually incentivizing us. LOL
As usual, the Dems are blinded by hatred and their obsession with power; they can’t see the forest for the trees. They have NOTHING to run on or offer but that doesn’t seem to concern them in the least.
The Senate requires 2/3 to convict and Remove. That's 67 votes.
Right now, the Senate is 47-2-51 (D-I-R).
In NOV, nobody is showing polls that give the Dems any gains. The GOP looks to gain anywhere from 1 to 8 seats. (If the states that went for Trump over Hillary by more than 8 points all elected the Republican Senate candidate, it would be +5 GOP.) Let's call it +4 GOP. That makes it 43-2-55.
To get to 67, the Dems would need 22 of 55 GOP Senators to vote to remove a sitting President over NDA payments, which are not illegal. (The argument is that the NDAs weren't disclosed to the FEC, and that they were made for political gain, and not to protect his marriage.)
I don't see 40% of the GOP voting to change the leader of the free world, a member of their own Party, over that fuzzy issue... it would be committing political suicide. The GOP and RNC would be gone forever. The Right would form a new Party for 2020.
What part of “high CRIMES and MISDEMEANORS” do they not understand?
Aaaaannnndddd.......... fake news.
It doesn’t matter... The Senate was NEVER going to impeach Clinton, but he deserved impeached and removed from office.... The Dems will impeach, just so they can put the * by his name in the history books and pander to their crazy base...
There is no chance of Trump’s removal, just like there is no chance of Kavanaugh not being confirmed, but it doesn’t mean they won’t pander and fight and go nuts anyway.
What matters most to them is keeping the border open and the laws unenforced.
The real reason behind all the Trump-hate by Democrats and Bush League Republicans is protecting their 30 year bipartisan policy of non-enforcement of laws and borders and the 30 million people they invited here against the will of the citizens.
Trump threatens to reverse that.
Whatever it takes to stop him, they will do.
Sadly, Drudge is not smart enough, “Street Smarts” to realize no one gives a darn about either Manafort or Cohen. And Trump & the Republicans will hold both houses come the November, election. Chris....Game Over!!!
It was Cohen who directed Trump to break the law:
"As it stands, the only tape that Cohen has with Trump’s voice on it has already been heard and oddly enough, it actually helps Trump. In it, Michael Cohen initiates a conversation with then candidate Trump. He asks to make a payment for a story involving the alleged Karen McDougal affair. Trump appears clueless as to why he’s making a payment at first and questions even making it. Cohen insists it needs to be done and Trump then tells him to go ahead.
"Why is this important? Because intent is the golden standard with campaign finance laws. It doesn’t appear Trump was the initiator of the payments as a remedy but simply following his lawyer’s advice on how to handle the situation. That’s even more important when discussing intent to violate the laws in play. If you’ll notice yesterday, the attorney for the SDNY made a statement implicating the fact that Cohen was a lawyer and should have known better."
Cohen’s Guilty Plea, What It Means, And What It Doesn’t Mean(no election fraud)
I almost hope it happens to watch that overflowing toilet bowl that is the capital building get flushed.
They need 18 GOP Senator votes to get to 67... and since NOV likely has the GOP gaining 0-8 seats, let's say +4, they now need 22. You listed 9.
Name 9-13 more sitting GOP Senators who would vote to change the leader of the free world, mid-term, a member of their own Party... over a fuzzy charge of making a legal NDA payment, but not reporting it to the FEC because it was for political reasons, and not to protect his marriage. Which 9-13 GOP Senators would insist that they know his motives better than he does? Which 9-13 GOP Senators will have zero NDAs in their past, political or corporate? Which 9-13 GOP Senators want to vote for the end of the GOP as a political party, and the end of their own careers?
Trump insisted on paying by check, therefore he WANTED a paper trail.
Doesn’t sound like he was trying to hide anything.
And if he paid with his private money, not campaign funds, how is that violating campaign finance laws?
> Why would the Democrats impeach if they regain the House. There just aren’t near enough votes in the Senate to convict. This isn’t Richard Nixon. <
True. But the GOP House impeached Bill Clinton even though they knew Clinton would not be convicted in the Senate. If the Democrats take the House, the exact same thing is going to happen.
Last week I would have said “might happen”. But Cohen has given the Democrats an excuse, a reason to impeach.
Bill Clinton committed a crime. Then the GOP decided to impeach. But many Democrats decided to impeach first. They just needed a “crime”. Now they’ve got one.
If the Democrats lose Senate seats in November, all of this impeachment talk will cease quickly.
Never happen, the GOP senators are too timid and would never ever impeach a member of their own party, never happen.
Impeachment isn’t a problem for Trump. The man is a billionaire in his 70s with a beautiful wife, loving family and a reputation as one of the realest business minds in the history of the Republic.
Trump can live a life of luxuru and comfort, yet he sacrificed all of this out of pure love for country.
If the Marxists take down our President there WILL BE CIVIL WAR II
Trump doesn’t need the presidency. The presidency needs Trump.
Good question. There are good answers to this question.
1. First of all, if they win the House, Democrats would impeach to honor the will of their constituents. Not doing so would be an abdication of their responsibility as peoples' representatives, and they would be guilty of ignoring the clamor among their voters to get Trump.
2. The second reason, is to politically wound the Trump presidency, hanging the impeachment banner around him, and dragging every single Trump appointee before the House committees for endless hearings, repeatedly referring to the impeachment. It is possible this will take its toll and lead to resignations among Trump appointees (Cabinet level and non-Cabinet) and will keep the impeachment narrative and momentum alive for some time.
3. Thirdly, even if they cannot get the (presumed) Republican Senate to convict, they will insinuate that the Republican Senate is complicit in "protecting" Trump, and will hope to politically tarnish the Republicans as a strategy.
Whether or not they do this, or whether it is effective is a separate issue. But these would be rational and sensible political calculations by the Democrats, and they would be spineless if they were to not try these things.
Impeachment requires a simple majority in the House.
Still waiting on John Huber, prosecutor appointed by Sessions back in March for his report on FBI and their involvement with Trump, FISA warrant, etc.
Seriously with everything out there so far, no report on Huber yet? Knowing Sessions, he will wait until after election.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.