Impeachable? Does this change anyones lens? Probably not...

[Guest]

There isn't going to be an impeachment...No way - I said Flip wouldn't be fired too lol! 

Next up?

$5b for a wall or a Govt shut-down.

[Guest]

Stomping my Johnson...lol. 
Popcorn time will really be all it is. Don't mistake this. I think he's a slimball who some give far more credit for saving us then he deserves. Don't shoot the messenger. Impeachment is easy. Removal is near impossible. Are 12 Rep senators going join the 46 D's and 2 I's and vote to remove? That's what it would take to get 60 votes needed. So all that's going to happen is exposing more lies and corruption. Then waiting for Nov 3rd 2020 to see if it even matters. To some it won't no matter. 

[Guest]

@"BigAl99" said:
It's pretty strange how some folks just can't comprehend, reality.  Read a great piece how fake news has been sold, and why some folks never get it.  Has to do with the Dunning-Kruger effect, cool observation, not a physical law, but very repeatable.  Gets to the etymology of sophomore, the old adage that a little knowledge goes along way and the comfort and safety of being in a large perceived group, that the internet provides.

Dunning-Kruger effect:  the cognitive bias in which people of low ability have illusory superiority and mistakenly assess their cognitive ability as greater than it is.  

IOW, smug know-it-alls?  & turns out, don't know shit?

Hey!  I've seen that!  




good to know the sciency name!  skol!

[Guest]

I guess I stand corrected, good one.

[Guest]

I don’t chime in offen. But what is going to go down will be one of the most significant things to be added to history books in the next 40 years. What we are talking about here in this thread is the tip of the iceberg. The newest news today with butina cooperating and her republican boyfriend admitting in a n email that they were funneling russian money through NRA to republican campaign funding is big but even THAT is nothing compared to how this whole thing is going to go down....

Git yer popcorn indeed!

[Guest]

That is new to me Mike.
Just more and more. Pretty soon it can't all be fake.  I will admit I don't follow news as close as I should. I'm sadly disconnected by years of BS and the current climate. I usually follow the historical trends. Trends which generally end up with small fish frying and big fish swimming away. Then the small fish ending up being some kind of martyr to one side. The Oliver North, Lewis “Scooter” Libby like. There is an unusually high number of small fish in this pan.  It will be interesting indeed. I still doubt big fish ever get netted. That's really not what the system wants. 
As for Trump. I just looked at the history of this man. I've disliked him as a person since the 80's. I thought he's the one to drain a swamp? He struck me more as someone with mafia boss aspirations more then President. Then he was. Why should change my opinion of him based on what I've seen the last few years. 

[Guest]

Can someone explain to me how this works?  I guess I don’t really get what the “Illegal Campaign
Contributions” aspect of this is.


From what I understand, there’s two aspects of this:  The campaign contribution aspect of the
payments, and the illegal donation to a campaign part of it.


The argument that this is a campaign contribution is that Cohen
claims that he was contacted by the Trump Campaign rather than by Trump himself
or a Trump Corporation.  If this was made
by Trump himself or one of his business ventures, it wouldn’t an issue because
it’s a personal matter or a corporate matter, but not a Campaign matter.  Like he could hire the ladies for a 20 minute
motivational speech to one of his businesses and that would be ok?


Then there’s the illegal donation aspect of it.  It seems to me that Cohen is just the middle
man in this argument and that he’s not really paying for things out of his own
pocket but rather that he’s fronting the money for a short period of time kind
of like a loan, but the money’s coming from a Trump entity.  Is it illegal because he fronted the money?  Like if Trump had paid upfront, then it would
be ok?  Or are they trying to separate
the money Cohen got paid from the money he paid out?

[Guest]

Payment in kind, the money was used to influence the election, supress negetive news.

[Guest]

I honestly dont think this is going to be the thing that takes him down. It will ware down support for him but it isn’t going to go too far. BUT there is a lot more that is going to hit the fan over the coming weeks. Impeachment or not I don’t see how he escapes going to prison after he leaves office. 

Here’s what I think happens sometime near the end of Q1 2019.... And I think if republicans are smart they will do this to save their party. I think that the senate is going to start running away from him and those connected to him as the house is going to be up his ass in investigations. There is no waiting this thing out now. Not with SDNY after them and Mueller and the house investigation arm. 

The question is do the dems want him out only to replace with pence. And that is if they could get the senate to remove which is doubtful unless as has been hinted at that there are senators that could be wrapped up in this too. Duty says that if there is a crime you investigate it and follow it up with the corresponding mechanism. In terms of government that would be impeachment. Then there is the argument that you cannot indict a sitting president. However that os an opinion amd there is nothing in the constitution that states that. It says you remove a pres by impeachment. But impeachment is a political process NOT a criminal process.

That all gets us to a whole other conversation which is, if a president acted illegally to obtain the office and was able to appoint federal judges should those judges be able to decide cases that make precident of whether or not a president can be indicted. 

Guilty or not we are at a troubling time in our democracy. 

We laugh at people that claim the moon landing was a fake because of how many people had to be in on it. The sheer number of people that would have to be in on it for all of this smoke to exist without any spark is a bit ridiculous. 

[Guest]

@"MaroonBells" said:
 I think it's wrong to characterize this as a red/blue divide. So many on the right are just as horrified by Trump as those of us on the left. It's more MAGA'merica...vs. everyone else.

Uh...no.  
Gallup's weekly presidential tracking showed Trump's GOP approval at low 80's % right after the '16 election to low 90's right before the mid-terms.  A gain of 10 points.  
https://news.gallup.com/poll/203198/pres...trump.aspx
And I can tell you why.  Trump delivered in his first two years, and swayed many Never-Trumpers....in addition to the grossly unfair Mueller farce/coup.  

@"BigAl99" said:
Payment in kind, the money was used to influence the election, supress negetive news.

According to who?  The SDNY prosecutors working in tandem with Mueller?  In their self-serving Cohen brief?  
The insinuations you make were not challenged in court, as Cohen cut a deal.  The charges (as relates to Trump) are worthless.  Never underwent discovery, cross-ex., etc.... from 
a defendant the prosecution admits is a liar.  What a joke.  

NDA's are not illegal, even when done to prevent embarrassing information (hush money).  Especially  WAY before Trump was even a candidate. 
Do you guys not remember John Edwards?  He used campaign donations to hide his pregnant mistress DURING the 2008 presidential campaign.
Even those (much more serious/direct/timely) allegations couldn't win a Edwards guilty conviction on campaign finance violations.  And he had a dying wife with cancer. 

And payments made to the Nat. EnQ in 2014?  Good gawd, there wasn't even a Trump campaign, yet.  How can it be a campaign violation? 
“In August 2014, (Pecker) had met with Cohen and (Trump), and had offered to help deal with negative stories about (Trump’s) relationships with women by identifying such stories so that they could be purchased and ‘killed.'”
August 2014 is a full year before there even was a Trump campaign. It’s disturbing enough to have every payment made during a campaign subject to investigation as a potential campaign finance violation. But to be finding campaign law violations before there’s even a campaign is ludicrous.
The SDNY had Cohen on numerous financial shenanigans, not related to Trump.  Read the brief.  But they betrayed their CLEAR political motivation(s) in the process, throwing back a bone to Mueller for kicking Cohen their way.  

@"Mike Olson" said:
I honestly dont think this is going to be the thing that takes him down. It will ware down support for him but it isn’t going to go too far. BUT there is a lot more that is going to hit the fan over the coming weeks. Impeachment or not I don’t see how he escapes going to prison after he leaves office. 

I disagree....unless he does something in the next six years, in office.  Not likely.  What would he go to prison, on?  Tweeting too much? 

@"Mike Olson" said:Here’s what I think happens sometime near the end of Q1 2019.... And I think if republicans are smart they will do this to save their party. I think that the senate is going to start running away from him and those connected to him as the house is going to be up his ass in investigations. There is no waiting this thing out now. Not with SDNY after them and Mueller and the house investigation arm. 

Why would the GOP 'run away' from Trump in the Senate?  He personally increased their majority.  

The SDNY?   has shot its wad with Cohen.  Unless Mueller kicks 'em another bone.  
Mueller?  Even liberal Dershowitz has said Mueller's  only "skins" have been a result of his Special Counsel's creation.  Perjury traps & strong arming plea deals.
House investigation arm?  Impotent.  

@"Mike Olson" said:

That all gets us to a whole other conversation which is, if a president acted illegally to obtain the office and was able to appoint federal judges should those judges be able to decide cases that make precident of whether or not a president can be indicted. 

Non-sequitur.  The policy/law that ensures a sitting President cannot be indicted lies in the bi-partisan judgements of the DOJ, not the federal judiciary (Trump appointees).
Upheld during the Clinton/Lewinsky affair (Clinton agreed to an informal sit down, with Starr). 
Now, if you're intimating the decision ends up @ the SCOTUS, and should Gorsuch & Kavanaugh recuse themselves?  Well I admit... that'd be a novel conundrum.  
BTW,  Trump can fire Mueller, tomorrow.  

@"Mike Olson" said:

Guilty or not we are at a troubling time in our democracy. 

Very much agree...prolly for different concerns...but agree. 

So the thrust of your post seems to be Trump's on the ropes, yes?  
(Manafort, Cohen convictions)

Let me remind, that Trump has a YUGE ace up his sleeve. 
He threatened to play it, in September, an the Dem's/MSM went apoplectic... til Trump pulled it back two days after threatening it.  

He still has it.    

The Ace?  

Declassification of the FBI/DOJ/FISA  un-redacted docs that created the Mueller investigation, prove the weaponization of the Obama outgoing holdovers and expose 
the Mueller investigation as the soft-coup, it is.  There's one person with the authority to declassify....Trump.  
Those that have read them, say it's devastating to Mueller... and are begging Trump to play the card.