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

[Guest]

@Mike Olson said:

@suncoastvike said:
I can't wait till the golden showers hoax is real.

Only rumors thus far but apparently that isn't going to be the "ewwww" factor involved with it. 

It gets more entertaining then that? 

[Guest]

huh sanctions on Russian aluminum producers lifted, troops removed from syria, what’s next? Roseneft oil sanctions lifted? 

[Guest]

Sweetening the pot?

[Guest]

@savannahskol said:

@VikingOracle said:
Let me see if I can summarize the potential illegal campaign contributions (background information available here: https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-...candidate/)

1. Except for the candidate, individuals/companies, etc. are limited to how much they can contribute to the candidate's campaign.  This includes making loans or like kind contributions.  The key is whether the money was "for the purpose of influencing any election for federal office.”
2. In the present case, Cohen paid Stormy and National Enquirer paid McDougal -- if viewed as campaign contribution both were in excess of what is permit by law. 
3. The Trump Company says that they paid Cohen back for the payments but that still, arguably, was a loan by Cohen,  Moreover, from what I understand, the money came from the Trump Company, not Trump personally, and that would still amount to an impermissible campaign contribution if it was "for the purpose of influencing any election for federal office.”
4. Unclear whether National Enquirer was ever reimbursed and who reimbursed (Trump personally or the Trump Org.)  Again, same above analysis applies.
5. So, the only real question was whether these two payments were was "for the purpose of influencing any election for federal office.”  Here are the facts to consider on that issue:
6.  One.  Trump says it was to shield these purported affairs from his wife (which is the successful Edwards defense).  Two, both Cohen and National Enquirer are locked in now to stating that the payments were primarily "for the purpose of influencing any election for federal office.”  Three, the way the payments were made, through shell companies and third parties and without Trump being a party to the agreements, weighs against these payments being primarily to protect Trumps marriage because you didn't need to construct these transactions in such a manner to hide them from Melania.

So, really, the only remaining issue one needs to decide is whether these two payments were made primarily for the purposes of assisting Trump get elected.  All the other facts are largely undisputed.  
  

Not so fast... especially on points 5 & 6.  
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/12/t...ributions/
(nro is conservative...but certainly not special pleaders for Trump)

And from a Dem's take, here's Dershowitz on Cohen's statements.  
https://www.dailywire.com/news/39360/der...-paul-bois

 Hi Savannah:

Just want to keep this civil about your "not so fast"  -- I looked at the National Review article and I agree that is Trump's defense (as I stated in 6).  I think his defense is not as good as Edwards but it is a defense and may sway people (especially Trump supporters and Republican congressman).   I also agree it is not a slam dunk (on either side).  If Trump was not president, he would probably be indicted for it and criminally tried -- Edwards was on flimsier evidence of motive.  I think points 5 and 6 are valid points and the NR and I agree that is the crux of the matter.

As for Alan Dershowitz, I may be the only person on this board who actually has met Prof Dershowitz.  As a law clerk in Boston, I worked on Tison v. Arizona and I sat next to Prof. Dershowitz' brother when he argued the case in front of the US Supreme Court (it was interesting watching him and Scalia "engage").   Dershowitz has a defense lawyer mentality through and through.  He interprets everything in the most positive manner for defendants (whether they are his clients or not).  Much smarter than Giuliani but comes towards any criminal issue from a defense attorney mentality.

[Guest]

Here is a portion of the jury instructions in the Edwards case.  In that instance, where payments were also made to conceal an extramarital affair, the jury was told “the government does not have to prove that the sole or only purpose of the money was to influence the election….If you find beyond a reasonable doubt that one of [the] purposes was to influence an election, then that would be sufficient” to prove a breach of the law.

[Guest]

@VikingOracle said:
As for Alan Dershowitz, I may be the only person on this board who actually has met Prof Dershowitz.  As a law clerk in Boston, I worked on Tison v. Arizona and I sat next to Prof. Dershowitz' brother when he argued the case in front of the US Supreme Court (it was interesting watching him and Scalia "engage").   Dershowitz has a defense lawyer mentality through and through.  He interprets everything in the most positive manner for defendants (whether they are his clients or not).  Much smarter than Giuliani but comes towards any criminal issue from a defense attorney mentality.

I've never met Dershowitz, but I was a big fan of his in the 80s. Back then, I fancied myself a potential defense attorney, albeit working for Amnesty International or the ACLU. Got my undergrad in English since it was considered the best prep for law school. Then life happened. 

Something happened to Dershowitz, too, it seems. I think his public "defense" default posture distorts his objectivity at times. I wonder if he's not just a contrarian more than anything else. And his "Israel is always right" mentality bugs me a little, too. Though I will admit that he has made me look at certain things closer. No doubt, he's an interesting cat. 

[Guest]

How to win friends and influence people.....

Keep the pentagon and key senators from your own party in the dark on pulling troops from a military action.....

https://www.votwitter.com/world/2018/12/...w-decision

This goat rodeo needs to end now. 

President Donald Trump on Wednesday ordered the complete withdrawal of America’s 2,000 troops in Syria — a decision that seemed to surprise everyone, including his own administration.
And neither the Pentagon nor the State Department seems to have any idea what is supposed to happen next.
.....

“I have no idea what’s going on,” Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN), the outgoing Senate Foreign Relations Committee chair, said after the withdrawal announcement. “I did not know and I think I should have been [notified],” said Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK), the Senate Armed Services Committee chief. “I believe that they should have notified probably all of Congress but certainly our committee.”

.....

Who did hear about it? Foreign leaders close to Trump, like Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
.....

More at the link above....

[Guest]

Trump now has 17 probes being conducted at the local, state and federal level. But yeah, Obama was just as bad...

[Guest]

@Mike Olson said:
How to win friends and influence people.....

Keep the pentagon and key senators from your own party in the dark on pulling troops from a military action.....

https://www.votwitter.com/world/2018/12/...w-decision

This goat rodeo needs to end now. 

President Donald Trump on Wednesday ordered the complete withdrawal of America’s 2,000 troops in Syria — a decision that seemed to surprise everyone, including his own administration.
And neither the Pentagon nor the State Department seems to have any idea what is supposed to happen next.

.....

“I have no idea what’s going on,” Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN), the outgoing Senate Foreign Relations Committee chair, said after the withdrawal announcement. “I did not know and I think I should have been [notified],” said Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK), the Senate Armed Services Committee chief. “I believe that they should have notified probably all of Congress but certainly our committee.”

.....

Who did hear about it? Foreign leaders close to Trump, like Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
.....

More at the link above....

Surprise!  We're going to pull the plug on Syria per Putin's er I mean Trump's orders and not ask for anyone's input, approval or guidance.  Mission accomplished!  He just needs to parachute his fat ass onto the rooftop of McDonald's since we know Mr. Nationalist won't go near a combat zone.  We're just going to run our entire country's foreign policy shooting from the hip and make shit up as we go, when he is smarter than all his generals without any prior political experience or education and hey what could possibly go wrong?  No wonder his base loves him, hey we all knew Presidenting was so easy ... who needs to know anything about law, history, geography.  

"Just give him a chance and support him, he can't possibly be worse than Obummer, blah blah". Trump can't even run a charity without pilfering it for his own enrichment, what the hell makes any of his supporters think he was going to suddenly straighten out and follow the law with access to the entire country's cookie jar 10,000x as big?

The USA is operating like a fucking Indian casino.  No strategy, no planning, clueless family members making snap decisions.  If Trump manages to avoid prison between now and 2020 and the GOP is stupid enough to put him back on the ballot it's going to be a fucking bloodbath.  Gone are the independents who wanted change and voted against Hillary, gone are the fractured lefty votes for Jill Stein, and what's left of actual conservative Republicans with a soul and a conscious are going to flip blue. Republicans are committing political suicide if they continue to enable this trainwreck.

[Guest]

Remember the good old days when all we wanted was his tax returns? Is that still even a thing at this point?  I also remember way back when.  I used to think Giuliani was a bad ass lawyer. Now he seems more dumb ass then bad ass. Guess he's better at putting away Don's then defending them.