Lindsey is absolutely right.

Graham: Campaign Finance Violations Have Never Been Used For Impeachment!

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/lindsey-graham-trump-impeachment-campaign-finance

“Campaign finance violations have never been used to impeach anybody,” Graham told Neil Cavuto on Fox News. “If you think that this is worthy of impeachment in the House, go ahead,” Graham said. “I think most Americans probably won’t agree with you.”
....................................................................................................................................
He's right in saying they have never been used to impeach. As for the rest of what he said.....that's another matter. Lindsey's position is the rough equivalent of what Orrin Hatch said the other day with respect to the allegation Individual-1 broke campaign finance laws. "I don't care." Given Trumpster's proclivity towards forgiving Don's immoral, incompetent behavior I'm sure they don't care either. I mean.....why not go all in and forgive illegal behavior as well. The rest of the country, however, probably does not share their willingness to look the other way.

The thing is, the founders had a real concern with the possibility of a prez obtaining the office by corrupt means according to Joshua Matz, an author of “To End a Presidency: The Power of Impeachment.”
He said, “that was one of the principal reasons they included an impeachment power in the first place.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/22/us/politics/offense-impeachable-constitution.html

Makes sense, right? It was smart to provide for a mechanism to remove the prez if he had done something illegal or corrupt in order to win the presidency. After all, once in office the prez has immense power. Not to mention, there's the current DOJ opinion a sitting prez can't be indicted. Things get even more complicated when considering that something may have happened before assuming the office. But there's a caveat to that.

"Misconduct before assuming office is not typically a fit subject for impeachment, legal scholars said. But there is one important exception.

“The main and possibly only form of pre-Inauguration Day conduct that would properly qualify as an impeachable offense is conduct relating directly to the acquisition of the presidential office,” Mr. Matz said.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/22/us/politics/offense-impeachable-constitution.html
.............................................................................................................................
So..........just hypothetically speaking of course, if a person was to win the presidency in a very tight race by illegally hiding from the voters some very harmful information about adulterous sexual affairs, one could say it might "qualify as an impeachable offense (since it) is conduct relating directly to the acquisition of the presidential office,”

 

Everyone knew Trump was an adulterer though. Pussay didn't affect the election, I don't know why they thought Karen Mcdonald and Stormy Daniels would. Hell, it'd be proof of his financial clout to be banging pornstars.

 

It's funny watching Clinton pass givers hate on trump and wonder why nobody takes their fake moral outrage seriously. As if a bill Clinton defender care about affairs, sexual assault or rape. As the me too movement shows, a lot of Democrats copy bill Clinton and expect the same pass.

 

Impeachment is a political process. They could impeach him for preferring vanilla to chocolate icecream if they wanted. No legal recourse. The Supreme Court cannot overturn. So, given this, clearly you can impeach for campaign finance violations.

I'd note that Obama had 2 million in violations and was merely fined 350k, no prison, no impeachment.

I'd also note that conviction in the Senate would spectacularly fail as there is clear doubt over whether this was in fact designed to dodge campaign finance laws, or if it was Trump paying her out like he has many times before out of campaigns.

So the Dems need to time it such that the House impeaches, but the election occurs before the Senate can acquit. Doing so is difficult, but it's pretty clear that's what they're angling at.

 

But........me thinks you are missing the point. Employing whataboutisms and admitting to the fact some Trumpster's may not have cared the Groper-in-Chief was banging a porn star while married to Malaria is all fine for message board banter. The matter at hand is whether illegally covering up said affairs constitutes an impeachable offense. The material I provided, scholars discussing provisions the founders put in place AND WHY they were put in place, strongly suggests illegally attempting to influence the outcome of the election meets the criteria they established for consideration of impeachment.

 

Trump cites 'massive' Obama campaign finance violation. Experts say Cohen's case is different.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/do...n-finance-violation-experts-say-cohen-n902921

"But there is no comparison, experts told NBC News. Cohen's admitted campaign finance law violations are indeed a crime, and they are not similar to the campaign finance violations made by Obama's 2008 campaign. Election law experts said that more minor violations are treated as regulatory or civil matters, while egregious and willful campaign finance violations are treated as criminal acts — no matter who the attorney general is."

 

By all mean, he democrats should spend the next two years pursuing an impeachment which will do nothing but waste time. On the other hand, it is probably as good a way to waste time as any other.

 

The more the dnc focuses on trump the less time they will spend fundamentally transforming America into a global socialist police state.

 

I acknowledge it must be difficult for Trumpette's to stay current with regard to the ever evolving defense of Don's illegal activities. After all, they began with the Liar-in-Chief and Team Trump denying the affairs took place in the first place. Then they admitting them but said the payoffs to the women were done without Don's knowledge. Then they were done with Don's knowledge but were legal.

Now, according to Rudy, the payments were illegal............but no big deal.

Giuliani argues that Trump’s alleged crimes were not ‘big’

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/giuliani-argues-trumps-alleged-crimes-were-not-big

“Nobody got killed, nobody got robbed… This was not a big crime,” Giuliani told The Daily Beast on Wednesday.

 

Since I am not preoccupied with it, I would say that is true.

 

No one should have to pay attention to the ever changing story line. It shouldn't be ever changing. Liars, they change their story all the time.

 

I gave up being concerned about it a long time ago. If the democrats want to waste their time, like I said, there are worse ways to waste their time. Like trying to pass new laws, for instance.

 

Precisely, so it depends on the egregious and wilful part. And whether he would have done this election or no election.

It is not, for instance, illegal to buy a $250,000 suit in the middle of a campaign without reporting is as a campaign expenditure. Even though this will benefit your campaign. Unless you make statements to the effect that you intended to influence the campaign.

So we'll see where this goes. Could be civil penalty, criminal penalty, or no illegality at all.

 

So..........I'll put you in the "I don't care if the prez committed a crime" camp.

 

Nope. We're past that.

 

I have never considered it very important where you put anyone.

 

No, it doesn't constitute an impeachable offense. The wet dream of the rabid left is nothing but a recurring nightmare they can't rid themselves of.

 

Bill Clinton committed perjury and obstruction of Justice and you gave him a pass so I guess I will put you in the "I don't care if a president commits a crime" camp.

 

The founders disagree.

"But legal scholars said that committing crimes aimed at undermining the integrity of an election could well satisfy the constitutional standard for impeachment, which is set out in Article II, Section 4: “The president, vice president and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

 

The dark cloud that is permanently over the heads of Progressives forever centers over their failure to accept precedent, and a total lack of knowledge when it comes to legal matters and the relevance of events to them.

 

But legal scholars also said that if it is something which would have been done whether an election was to be held or not, it is not a campaign expense.

 

Yes, that's the infamous Edwards' defense.

Stop Comparing Donald Trump’s Campaign Finance Fraud With John Edwards’s Case

https://abovethelaw.com/2018/12/sto...mpaign-finance-fraud-with-john-edwardss-case/

 

It doesn't change the fact that it applies.

 

Nope. Read the article.

 

Did. Written by someone who didn't want the comparison.