Posted on 12/08/2018 10:59:13 AM PST by Mariner
“Was you ever bit by a dead bee?” A drunken sailor asks that curious question of actress Lauren Bacall in the 1944 movie classic, “To Have and Have Not.” This week, President Trump can claim two legal stings from dead bees, in the familiar forms of Michael Cohen and Paul Manafort. Indeed, the two late-Friday court filings by special counsel Robert Mueller and one by the U.S. Attorney for New York’s Southern District are detailed accounts of how to get stung by dead bees.
First and foremost, you have to step on them. With both Cohen and Manafort, the Trump legal team could face serious complications after actively seeking out close and ongoing relationships when it should have been cutting both men a wide berth. That does not mean these filings will send Trump into legal anaphylactic shock. Yet, once again, the greatest threats facing Trump may be due to missteps in response to the Mueller investigation, as opposed to the original allegations.
Soon after the release of the filings, Trump posted a tweet declaring, “Totally clears the President. Thank you!” Few others shared his enthusiasm, however, since the accusations directed against Trump — referred to as “Individual 1” in the filings — are about as vindicating as an indictment would be liberating. Nevertheless, there are three positive elements for the president.
First, while prosecutors reveal additional alleged Russian contacts, and even an offer to create some “campaign political synergy,” there is a conspicuous absence of evidence of an alleged conspiracy or collusion by the campaign. As in the Trump Tower meeting between Russian representatives and Trump campaign officials, these limited queries and contacts seemed to go nowhere. Indeed, Cohen apparently did not even follow up on an offer to meet with one Russian official promising political help.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
If it’s an Obama appointed Judge, perhaps, but past precedent and court decision will play a role. Edwards actually used donated campaign money. Trump didn’t, and Edwards paid his mistress far more than Trump paid Daniels. And as far as I know, there’s no law banning these types of payments. But you know the Democrats, they like to change the rules to suit their needs. I really don’t think this will go anywhere anyway.
Wait till the REAL Resistance from the conservatives gets going.
Note my tagline - lots of live conservative bees that voted for the guy who showed us that Washington DC is nothing but corrupt criminal slimeballs who need a long airdance.
My understanding is that not all rulings establish precedent. (I’ve been through some legal issues).
Wonder if the Edwards ruling established precedent?
During the 1992 Clinton campaign, the Clinton’s hire a private detective to investigate and smear any woman who claimed to have had an affair with Bill.
Isn’t that a use of money to influence an election?
How is that different than Trump?
So it paying money to whores and having them sign a NDA is a crime, then it is way past time to see the entire list of who in Congress used government money to pay their whores and sign NDAs for sexual harassment.
“Fishing expeditions” and “witch hunts” are not just allegorical expressions, you know. People really do go on fishing expeditions, not knowing what they will find, looking for blue marlins, and coming back, only to be attacked by pursuing mako sharks, ending up with nothing at all.
Similarly, a “witch hunt” starts out as a peeve against a particular female, but soon turns into manufactured evidence that said woman is in fact possessed by demonic spirits, performing feats of magic that must be exposed, and she must be punished in the most severe manner possible.
Ernest Hemingway’s “The Old Man and the Sea”, and Arthur Miller’s “The Crucible” are fictionalized accounts of how fishing expeditions and witch trials proceed, and sometimes go far awry.
I am not certain, but I think the sentencing memo said Cohen told them he was reimbursed from company funds which I took to mean from Trump’s business. IOW a whole lot of nada except perhaps deducting a non deductable expense as a business expense (legal fees).
Two words liberals
You wish
My wife said today
I hear they’re going to impeach trump and pence and Nancy Pelosi is going to be president!
They actually think this stuff in city of SF
I think it would because it was the Feds who indicted him on the charges.
Paying off an extortionist is not illegal!
Now let's compare this with the Bimbo demolition operation run by Hillary when Bill was running for presideent!
100% criminal, yet the MSFNM has no problem with it.
Let's not be misdirected by fake news!
.
And they will ask “Why is it ok for Trump and not for Clinton?”
It hasn’t been proven on Trump. Clinton admitted it. Besides, I asked first.
(((YAWN)))) We’ve been hearing that crock for two years now.
The idea is to try to get Trump to agree to resign to avoid impeachment and/or prosecution by the SDNY.
This whole affair is straight out of “Through The Looking Glass’’. Mueller is The Red Queen. “Sentence first, verdict afterwards’’.
Yep - half those who want to impeach him were using the “pay the-whore-off” slush fund....
This is politics and optics, not a math equation.
Evidence doesn’t matter, sadly.
Trump lost the midterms, and the wobblers are going to abandon him. His family and associates are going to be under more pressure, and more will flip in order to survive.
Stop thinking like this is parley pro in high school, and start thinking show trials and Machiavelli. Truth, evidence, facts, don’t play a part here. Power does. Power and influence are all that matters, and Trump just lost a lot of it.
Trump knows that I fear. He will sell you and I out to survive. I expect a rather harsh anti 2nd amendment bill early next year, and more taxes. Couple that with a rather severe economic downturn (baked into the cake BTW), and Trump will become a very democrat “Republican”.
And many here will bleat about 223 degree chess and the latest “Q” drop while their rights are destroyed.
I don’t disagree. I once said that when a president first steps into the Oval office a group is waiting for him. They show him where every child has been the past year down to the minute.
Then they show him Photoshopped pictures of his kids not looking well at all.
Perot was shown a compromising picture of his daughter doing lesbian stuff. And you KNOW the government had very sophisticated and more realistic looking photoshopping software than we have even now. Back then being gay would ruun your life.
How many people would sacrifice their children to save a nation that half of the people hate you?
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.