Impeachment? Crime? Where?

It does not appear to be that difficult to know what you are implying.

That took about two minutes to find. Just in the case you have not noticed, I don't see the word "alleged" used when you refer to Trump's crimes. That says in your mind he is guilty and Muellers report is not needed.

 

Historically, it has been held that POTUS is immune from any sort of prosecutorial action save impeachment while in office. Whether that's tradition, or based in law I don't claim to know, but it does seem reasonable to me. POTUS has enough on his/her plate without dealing with petty charges from dipshit low level DAs, like the new one from NY who all but said she was planning a fishing expedition against everyone in the State with the name Trump, or anyone affiliated with them. That is not how DA Offices are supposed to conduct proper investigations.

 

In terms of specifics it is very obvious how, denotatively, any efforts or ideas of breaking campaign finance laws only consist of one sole intention; Illegally influencing elections.

Not really.

There only needs to be proof that he broke the law. Because at that point, it does not matter what his motivation was when he broke the law. That does not change his debt he now owes to society, for breaking the laws.

...

But he still can feel good, and feel untouchable, since we all know that the U.S. Senate will not join in on Impeachment. Ain't happening.

So he needs to get his loose ends, tied up, before 2022. Because as soon as the next President escorts Trump out of the back of the White House, in Jan'21, to board Marine One and head back to NYC for good; Trump will then have about 1.5yrs before he's in Prison.

 

Many people fail to realize, Trump breaking the law is nothing. Totally meaningless. Russian Smushing; it really doesn't mean a thing to Congress nor Mueller.

When compared to the greatest sin, of all, which Trump committed when he exposed 'The American Politician' for all voters to see it too and therefore he pissed off both sides of the aisle forevermore ---especially the Old Guard.

And for that, he shalt pay dearly!!

 

When it relates DIRECTLY to the campaign it falls under campaign finance regulations.

 

DA's routinely investigate members of crime families.

 

SOLELY. And he can spend his own money as he sees fit.

 

But that’s the problem, he would have broken the law only if it’s proven that he paid the hush money to influence election, get it? The motivation for the hush money is what mostly counts, thus why it’s a difficult case to prosecute. Many highly intelligent legal minds have explained this ad nauseam. Trump can simply claim ‘i did it because i didn’t want this secret to come out for personal reasons - save my marriage, save emotional turmoil for my family’. If this was the motivation, it wasn’t a crime. How can this be proven otherwise? Very hard and thus why everyone knows hard case to prosecute...

 

The problem here is that you don't know what Mueller has. From watching the investigation progress, it looks like the Cohen thing will be a fart in a hurricane. Obviously, Mueller is picking all the low hanging fruit on the way to the big star on top. On the way, the low hanging fruit is spilling its juice all over the place, but we don't yet know the final flavor. You can bet a shiny new nickel that Trump has moved from "SUBJECT" to "TARGET."

Trump fans may not be worried, but their fearless leader is sweating like a guy strapped to Old Sparky. If half the stuff hitting the press is true, The Racketeer Influence and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO) will fall on the
Trump Mob like Mount Everest. Once the new House takes office, subpoenas and indictments will start looking like autumn leaves. Maybe Nunez will be indicted for obstruction of justice.

 

In other words, you don't know either.

 

That's been a given from the get go. Did you miss it?

 

An awful long discussion for a given.

 

Since when is bribery not a crime. These women were bribed with cash payments to stay quiet during the election. These women were going to come out with their stories, but were bribed to stay quiet

 

https://blog.harvardlawreview.org/the-coming-storm-hush-money-and-the-federal-election-campaign-act/

 

Great expectations lead to great disappointments.

 

Actually if there was crime it was extortion on the part of the women. That being saying paying someone for a NDA is not illegal.

 

If you have something to say then say it as I did above.

 

I did. I merely utilized an expert's opinion that informs my own. I tend to believe that expertise makes for a better argument than amateur dilettantes such we.

Perhaps you'd care to point out where this harvard law review article is amiss in their interpretation of trump's doggie pile of legal problems?

 

You copied a link, if you have something to say and something in your link supports it post it.

Would Cohen have paid Daniels anyway?
The central legal question is whether Cohen paid Daniels to help Trump’s campaign, or to help Trump. Experts agreed that the most significant consequences hinge on this point.

The Federal Election Commission rules examine this through the lens of whether campaign funds have been put to personal use; the commission applies something called the Irrespective Test. The law says that something is personal if it’s "any commitment, obligation, or expense of a person that would exist irrespective of the candidate’s election campaign."

By that standard, said Emory School of Law professor Michael Kang, "the circumstances and context here are suspicious," but it’s no slam-dunk that the payment was an expenditure on behalf of the campaign.

"Cohen may have been sufficiently involved in Trump’s personal dealings, perhaps with other similar transactions in the past, that they can credibly argue the hush payment would’ve been handled in similar fashion even if Trump were not a candidate," Kang said.

Former FEC chair Bradley Smith told us he sees evidence from Daniels that places this outside the realm of the campaign.

"Daniels herself has said that years before Trump declared for president, she was threatened about not disclosing any affair, suggesting, if she's telling the truth, that her silence was desired long before Trump became a candidate," Smith said.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...-stormy-daniels-payoff-was-it-campaign-expen/

 

Don't forget that Edwards used money donated to his campaign to keep those women quiet. Trump used his own money.

 

"Cohen has tapes"...so did Avenati, Omarosa, and Tom Arnold.....lolz!

 

I guess you've never heard of a non-disclosure agreement.

You might want to get all learned up on those things because they're quite common and certainly legal.

You lefty legal beagles really should spend less time convicting Trump in your minds on a daily basis and more time learning about how the law really works.

 

I guess you are ignoring a couple of facts,not the least of which is independent corrroboration of cohen's accusation that trump knew and directed him wrt paying out slut money by Pecker. And its backed up with documentation (emails, contracts etc) and tapes.

And as long as one of the stated motivations is to protect his campaign from the release of damaging information, that is sufficient. It doesn't have to be the sole motivation nor does it have to be something he wouldn't have done for other motivations in differing circumstances.

But then again, we'll just have to wait and see what transpires in the courts. Seems there aren't too many legal minds who think the charges are bogus. They can be found in approximately the same ratio as climate scientists who think global warming is a hoax.

 

Exactly. If he uses his own money to buy a new suit because it will make him look better in the debate that is not a campaign finance issue even though it helps his campaign. That's a personal matter.

 

And it was perfectly legal for Trump to tell them to obtain the NDA. That it ALSO helped the campaign is of no matter. That Daniels choose that time period to threaten to disclose a private matter was of her choosing and doesn't box him in to protect his reputation and family. She said on the record she had been threatened before, long before he ever said he was running for President so her own story proves that he was trying to keep it quiet for more than just a campaign.

Did you not bother to read what I posted?

" the commission applies something called the Irrespective Test. The law says that something is personal if it’s "any commitment, obligation, or expense of a person that would exist irrespective of the candidate’s election campaign.""

But even if there is something in some stretch that comes under campaign finance regulations. It's a civil matter and would be a very minor fine. So what is you expect to be done?