Politicspolitics

Thu Jul 18, 2019, 12:48 PM

FBI throws Trump under the bus (again)

“The FBI told a federal judge that President Donald Trump was personally and directly involved in the hush money payments to Stormy Daniels, according to year-old court documents fully revealed on Thursday.”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jul/18/trump-hope-hicks-stormy-daniels-michael-cohen-fbi
Another stake in the heart for impeachment: paying hush money is a federal campaign finance law violation; in other words, a “high crime and misdemeanor.”

49 replies, 415 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 49 replies Author Time Post
Reply FBI throws Trump under the bus (again) (Original post)
jh4freedom Jul 18 OP
Tolk Jul 18 #1
foia Jul 18 #2
Horsefeathers Jul 18 #3
jh4freedom Jul 18 #6
rh24 Jul 18 #13
jh4freedom Jul 18 #29
rh24 Jul 18 #32
Oldgeezer Jul 18 #27
kevlar Jul 18 #4
jh4freedom Jul 18 #9
kevlar Jul 18 #11
jh4freedom Jul 18 #30
Pennsylvania Jul 18 #33
jh4freedom Jul 18 #40
kevlar Jul 18 #36
Grumpy Pickle Jul 18 #5
quad489 Jul 18 #8
Grumpy Pickle Jul 18 #12
jh4freedom Jul 18 #17
quad489 Jul 18 #7
FreeWheelBurning Jul 18 #10
jh4freedom Jul 18 #20
FreeWheelBurning Jul 18 #21
jh4freedom Jul 18 #31
quad489 Jul 18 #35
jh4freedom Jul 18 #41
quad489 Jul 18 #48
Solesurvivor Jul 18 #23
jh4freedom Jul 18 #34
kevlar Jul 18 #37
jh4freedom Jul 18 #42
Solesurvivor Jul 18 #39
jh4freedom Jul 18 #44
Solesurvivor Jul 18 #46
jh4freedom Jul 18 #18
TheShoe Jul 18 #14
Let it go Jul 18 #15
Magyar Heidinn Jul 18 #16
jh4freedom Jul 18 #19
Magyar Heidinn Jul 18 #22
DP46 Jul 18 #24
jh4freedom Jul 18 #45
LineReply .
Carlos W Bush Jul 18 #25
DP46 Jul 18 #26
Valishin Jul 18 #28
Lifelong Jul 18 #38
KittyCatIdiots Jul 18 #43
Boston Jul 18 #47
Carl Jul 18 #49

Response to jh4freedom (Original post)

Thu Jul 18, 2019, 12:53 PM

1. Leftists lose again

 

Another nail in the coffin of their soviet dreams.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jh4freedom (Original post)

Thu Jul 18, 2019, 01:00 PM

2. The Democrats should impeach for this

It will cost them dearly in 2020.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jh4freedom (Original post)

Thu Jul 18, 2019, 01:05 PM

3. *yawn, the case is closed*

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Horsefeathers (Reply #3)

Thu Jul 18, 2019, 01:12 PM

6. Not with Congress its not

The LEGAL case against Bill Clinton was closed with no criminal charges filed by Independent Counsel Ken Starr but the House impeached him anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jh4freedom (Reply #6)

Thu Jul 18, 2019, 01:32 PM

13. Because you can't indict a setting POTUS.

Ken Starr definitively found Clinton committed perjury and obstructed justice:

There is substantial and credible information supporting the following eleven possible grounds for impeachment:

1. President Clinton lied under oath in his civil case when he denied a sexual affair, a sexual relationship, or sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky.

2. President Clinton lied under oath to the grand jury about his sexual relationship with Ms. Lewinsky.

3. In his civil deposition, to support his false statement about the sexual relationship, President Clinton also lied under oath about being alone with Ms. Lewinsky and about the many gifts exchanged between Ms. Lewinsky and him.

4. President Clinton lied under oath in his civil deposition about his discussions with Ms. Lewinsky concerning her involvement in the Jones case.

5. During the Jones case, the President obstructed justice and had an understanding with Ms. Lewinsky to jointly conceal the truth about their relationship by concealing gifts subpoenaed by Ms. Jones's attorneys.

6. During the Jones case, the President obstructed justice and had an understanding with Ms. Lewinsky to jointly conceal the truth of their relationship from the judicial process by a scheme that included the following means: (i) Both the President and Ms. Lewinsky understood that they would lie under oath in the Jones case about their sexual relationship; (ii) the President suggested to Ms. Lewinsky that she prepare an affidavit that, for the President's purposes, would memorialize her testimony under oath and could be used to prevent questioning of both of them about their relationship; (iii) Ms. Lewinsky signed and filed the false affidavit; (iv) the President used Ms. Lewinsky's false affidavit at his deposition in an attempt to head off questions about Ms. Lewinsky; and (v) when that failed, the President lied under oath at his civil deposition about the relationship with Ms. Lewinsky.

7. President Clinton endeavored to obstruct justice by helping Ms. Lewinsky obtain a job in New York at a time when she would have been a witness harmful to him were she to tell the truth in the Jones case.

8. President Clinton lied under oath in his civil deposition about his discussions with Vernon Jordan concerning Ms. Lewinsky's involvement in the Jones case.

9. The President improperly tampered with a potential witness by attempting to corruptly influence the testimony of his personal secretary, Betty Currie, in the days after his civil deposition.

10. President Clinton endeavored to obstruct justice during the grand jury investigation by refusing to testify for seven months and lying to senior White House aides with knowledge that they would relay the President's false statements to the grand jury – and did thereby deceive, obstruct, and impede the grand jury.

11. President Clinton abused his constitutional authority by (i) lying to the public and the Congress in January 1998 about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky; (ii) promising at that time to cooperate fully with the grand jury investigation; (iii) later refusing six invitations to testify voluntarily to the grand jury; (iv) invoking Executive Privilege; (v) lying to the grand jury in August 1998; and (vi) lying again to the public and Congress on August 17, 1998 – all as part of an effort to hinder, impede, and deflect possible inquiry by the Congress of the United States.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rh24 (Reply #13)

Thu Jul 18, 2019, 04:09 PM

29. Sounds a lot like the Robert Mueller Report

instances of Obstruction of Justice and no ability to indict a sitting president.
“What the Mueller Report Says About Obstruction”
https://www.factcheck.org/2019/04/what-the-mueller-report-says-about-obstruction/
“Here are the 11 instances of potential obstruction of justice by Trump outlined in the Mueller report”
https://www.businessinsider.com/barr-mueller-report-10-instances-obstruction-of-justice-press-conference-2019-4

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jh4freedom (Reply #29)

Thu Jul 18, 2019, 04:26 PM

32. Wrong.

Mueller said there was no evidence of Russian coordination with the Trump campaign and whiffed on obstruction.

I know I give you crap about being off-topic, but you are generally honest.

Right??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jh4freedom (Reply #6)

Thu Jul 18, 2019, 02:41 PM

27. For actions while IN Office

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jh4freedom (Original post)

Thu Jul 18, 2019, 01:05 PM

4. Too bad they decided to go corrupt and

lost much of their credibility.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kevlar (Reply #4)

Thu Jul 18, 2019, 01:26 PM

9. The FBI wanted to keep this report secret

It was the federal judge who ordered it unsealed. And it was Trump’s former lawyer Michael Cohen who provided the all the information to the FBI.
It was a federal judge appointed by Bill Clinton who forced the FBI’s report into the public.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jh4freedom (Reply #9)

Thu Jul 18, 2019, 01:27 PM

11. None of that changes what was posted or the fact

that you are a pathetic lefty propagandist.

So why does the OP claim it was the FBI that threw him under the bus, when it was the judge?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kevlar (Reply #11)

Thu Jul 18, 2019, 04:13 PM

30. I will make this so simple

even you might understand it. The FBI prepared the report. The judge made it public today. Trump’s former personal attorney provided the information.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jh4freedom (Reply #30)

Thu Jul 18, 2019, 04:37 PM

33. But he lies right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pennsylvania (Reply #33)

Thu Jul 18, 2019, 06:30 PM

40. It was the job of the FBI

To ferret out the truth. Perpetrators tend to get honest when those prison doors clang shut and what they say can be verified. Lie and the doors stay shut even longer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jh4freedom (Reply #30)

Thu Jul 18, 2019, 05:48 PM

36. I understand fully.

"FBI throws Trump under the bus (again)"

"The FBI wanted to keep this report secret. It was the federal judge who ordered it unsealed."

You have not reconciled your conflicting statements.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jh4freedom (Original post)

Thu Jul 18, 2019, 01:07 PM

5. The Congress used to have an actual taxpayer funded " hush money slush fund " to make

sexual accusations against congress members go away.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Grumpy Pickle (Reply #5)

Thu Jul 18, 2019, 01:19 PM

8. Way past time to open that hush fund books for all to see...........

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quad489 (Reply #8)

Thu Jul 18, 2019, 01:29 PM

12. Trump ought to do that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Grumpy Pickle (Reply #5)

Thu Jul 18, 2019, 01:44 PM

17. Wrong

There is nothing “Hush” about the Office of Compliance payments for all kinds of legal claims not just sexual harassment and it applies to much more than just Congress.
The facts:
https://www.ocwr.gov/sites/default/files/correctingtherecord.pdf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jh4freedom (Original post)

Thu Jul 18, 2019, 01:18 PM

7. ''paying hush money is a federal campaign finance law violation''....link it up!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quad489 (Reply #7)

Thu Jul 18, 2019, 01:26 PM

10. I think it is only illegal if he used campaign funds

I know of no law that prevents paying hush money to hide a legal act.

Perhaps such a law exists so if anyone knows of one, link it up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FreeWheelBurning (Reply #10)

Thu Jul 18, 2019, 01:58 PM

20. Here is a discussion of both sides of the legal issues

“Donald Trump and hush money: Is it legal? Is it any worse than jaywalking?”
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2018/aug/23/donald-trump-and-hush-money-it-legal-it-worse-jayw/

Impeachment is both a legal AND a political process. For example, both Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton could have been impeached for “Abuse of Power.” There is no crime called abuse of power. Nixon resigned before impeachment and the abuse of power article in the Clinton impeachment was voted down by the House in favor of two other articles of impeachment: perjury and obstruction of justice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jh4freedom (Reply #20)

Thu Jul 18, 2019, 02:04 PM

21. Your article backs up what I said

Using personal money used to cover up a legal act is not in itself illegal.

The FEC has made those rulings in the past.

I was surprised to learn that one could legally use campaign funds to paint their house. That sort of expense should not be allowed.

I think the Dems will be disappointed if they are hanging their hats on this. Even if the did impeach Trump over it, it will work against the Dems politically.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FreeWheelBurning (Reply #21)

Thu Jul 18, 2019, 04:22 PM

31. Tell that to Congressman Duncan Hunter (R-CA)

He is currently going on trial for misuse of $250,000 worth of campaign funds.
“Judge Refuses To Toss Duncan Hunter’s Corruption Case”
https://www.kpbs.org/news/2019/jul/08/judge-will-rule-key-pretrial-motions-congressman-d/

The Dems are doing exactly what the Republicans tried to do with Obama, throwing many charges against the wall and hoping something sticks. Neither party hung their hat on any one issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jh4freedom (Reply #31)

Thu Jul 18, 2019, 05:04 PM

35. ''He is currently going on trial for misuse of $250,000 worth of campaign funds''...irrelevant to...

...this OP, unless one can PROVE that Trump used ''campaign funds'' to pay her off. Once again lefties must be reminded that the burden of proof is upon the accuser, not the accused.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quad489 (Reply #35)

Thu Jul 18, 2019, 06:36 PM

41. There is a completely different legal standard

In a court of law than in a bill of impeachment. The standard in a bill of impeachment is whatever a minimum of 218 members of the House think is a “high crime and misdemeanor.”

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jh4freedom (Reply #41)

Thu Jul 18, 2019, 08:54 PM

48. So he didn't break any criminal laws...........got it!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jh4freedom (Reply #20)

Thu Jul 18, 2019, 02:23 PM

23. I dont want to read about discussions but give me a

Actual law that Trump broke paying stormy off with his own money. Don’t want to read about how a bunch of leftists thinks it’s wrong

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Solesurvivor (Reply #23)

Thu Jul 18, 2019, 04:46 PM

34. Trumps personal attorney is already in federal prison

And is now ratting out his former employer.
Michael Cohen was charged with violating the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA). The law limits donations by individuals to $2,700 per election. It also bans corporations from making any contributions to candidates.

There were two hush money payments: $150,000 was given to former Playboy model Karen McDougal in the summer and early fall of 2016, and $130,000 went to former porn actress Stormy Daniels in late October 2016.

The hush money payments can be considered illegal campaign contributions because Cohen admitted that the payments were intended to protect Trump's election chances, they are deemed to be in-kind contributions to the Trump campaign. They exceed the donation limits, a violation, and neither was included in campaign finance reports, another violation.

The payments are considered as corporate contributions because in at least the case of the McDougal payoff, American Media Inc., the corporate parent of the National Enquirer, provided the money.

President Trump has not been charged with any crime and it is unlikely he would be while in office because of the Justice Department policy against charging sitting presidents. To win a case against President Trump would require proving the legal standard of "knowingly and willfully." Trump has said that he didn't know about the payments and described the Daniels case as a "simple private transaction," though Cohen says his former boss directed the payments.
The FBI files released today back up Michael Cohen. Under that law the Obama campaign paid a civil fine of $375,000 imposed by the Federal Election Commission after his 2008 campaign did not turn in reports for about 1,300 last-minute donations that totaled nearly $1.9 million. No criminal charges were filed.
Here’s the law:
https://www.justice.gov/criminal/file/1029066/download

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jh4freedom (Reply #34)

Thu Jul 18, 2019, 05:54 PM

37. YANAL

And neither is Bill.

Otherwise great cut and paste.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kevlar (Reply #37)

Thu Jul 18, 2019, 06:37 PM

42. Happy to help

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jh4freedom (Reply #34)

Thu Jul 18, 2019, 06:11 PM

39. again please point out what law he broke, answer the fucking question instead of

deflecting

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Solesurvivor (Reply #39)

Thu Jul 18, 2019, 06:53 PM

44. Not my job

You asked what the law was. I answered that and provided a link to the wording. Whether Trump actually broke the law or not is not up to anyone posting in an Internet forum. If Nancy Pelosi choses to proceed that will be decided by members of the House and then by members of the Senate.
Today’s release of the Stormy Daniels hush money FBI investigation provides additional evidence that Trump MAY, repeat MAY have violated the Federal Election Campaign Act (U.S.C. § 30101).

From the New York Times:
“The president’s critics in Congress, citing the new disclosures about Mr. Trump’s contact with Mr. Cohen around the time of the payments, argued that there was SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE to bring criminal charges against him but for the Justice Department policy.

“The inescapable conclusion from all of the public materials available now is that there was ample evidence to charge Donald Trump with the same criminal election law violations for which Michael Cohen pled guilty,” Representative Adam Schiff, the California Democrat who chairs the House Intelligence Committee, said in a statement.

The documents released on Thursday were related to a 2018 raid on Mr. Cohen’s home and office. The prosecutors initially had released the documents in March, with nearly every detail of the campaign finance evidence redacted.

On Wednesday, a federal judge in Manhattan, William H. Pauley III, had ordered prosecutors to release the records without redactions.

The search warrant documents shed light on the breadth of evidence the prosecutors amassed against Mr. Cohen even before searching his property and interviewing a number of witnesses. The prosecutors had access to many of his text messages with American Media executives and a lawyer for the two women as well as records of his calls with Mr. Trump.

The documents detail the lengths Mr. Cohen and Trump campaign aides went — in the final stretch of the campaign — to prevent the public from learning about Ms. Daniels and Karen McDougal, a Playboy model.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/18/nyregion/stormy-daniels-michael-cohen-documents.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jh4freedom (Reply #44)

Thu Jul 18, 2019, 07:05 PM

46. It is your job, if he broke the law there should be a law

stop with your cut and paste bullshit

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to jh4freedom (Original post)

Thu Jul 18, 2019, 01:32 PM

14. Only if you are a dem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jh4freedom (Original post)

Thu Jul 18, 2019, 01:38 PM

15. They also believed he colluded with the Russians.

They’ve destroyed their credibility.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jh4freedom (Original post)

Thu Jul 18, 2019, 01:43 PM

16. And like a fart in the wind, its gone and no one that matters cares.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Magyar Heidinn (Reply #16)

Thu Jul 18, 2019, 01:50 PM

19. Time will tell!

I’m betting that the 59,525,244 people who voted for Democratic candidates for Congress in 2018 will care. That’s a whole lot of “caring.”

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jh4freedom (Reply #19)

Thu Jul 18, 2019, 02:15 PM

22. Those are the people who do not matter, communists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jh4freedom (Reply #19)

Thu Jul 18, 2019, 02:27 PM

24. You mean all those people that thought they were voting for "Moderate" Dems in 2018?

And got the "Squad of Traitors and virulent Anti-semites" that have achieved nothing instead?

Yeah, they're going to rush out to vote for the people that lied to them again.

"Fool me once ..."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DP46 (Reply #24)

Thu Jul 18, 2019, 06:57 PM

45. You cant count

There are 235 Democrats in the House. 4 of them are in “The Squad.”

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jh4freedom (Original post)

Thu Jul 18, 2019, 02:28 PM

25. .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jh4freedom (Original post)

Thu Jul 18, 2019, 02:33 PM

26. Try again, but this time don't sound quite so desperate

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jh4freedom (Original post)

Thu Jul 18, 2019, 02:56 PM

28. It's only illegal if he used

Campaign contributions to do it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jh4freedom (Original post)

Thu Jul 18, 2019, 06:06 PM

38. Should be good once he is out of office.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jh4freedom (Original post)


Response to jh4freedom (Original post)

Thu Jul 18, 2019, 08:23 PM

47. Dems caring about campaign finance violations, now THAT is funny!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jh4freedom (Original post)

Thu Jul 18, 2019, 08:58 PM

49. The desperation is hilarious!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Politicspolitics