What we need in the US is a constitutional right to privacy, like they have in France. In France, it's illegal for papers to publish what politician is sleeping with whom, or to take pictures of people out with their dates at restaurants or on the street. The right to private life is very strong, and supersedes freedom on the press.

Of course this means that the French are able to very easily "cheat", and do, and cannot be held legally or politically accountable for it. And that's a good thing for everybody.

In the US, we shattered the Clinton Presidency over a blowjob, and we're going to see the Trump presidency shattered over hiding paramours. Men and women are never going to stop being interested in each other and having affairs, and aggressive political and police authorities will always seek to exploit that human weakness to exert power over people.

The answer is France's: to criminalize government or private prying into other people's sexual behavior. Have an affair? That's between the people having the affair and their respective spouses to work out. Publish the affair? Get arrested for violating the constitutional privacy rights of the people having the affair. Attempt to use information about an affair to pressure politicians or businessmen? That's blackmail, and you go to jail. Just publicize it without attempting to influence behavior? That's assault on private life and you go to jail.

Freedom of the press, and of the investigative branches of government, to pry into people's private sexual lives does not exist in France, and it's a criminal offense for the media or the police or politicians or anybody to do it.

That is the sane rule. The United States is destroying itself in an insane effort to control the political arms of government by weaponizing the disclosure of human sexual weakness. The law needs to be change to criminalize the people who investigate it, track it, expose it, and seek to prosecute it.

If you're going after somebody because he had an affair, YOU are the criminal, not him.

That's the better rule.

We'll never get there, for cultural reasons. Which means we will continue to twitch in our national misery, with an abusive government and press.

the Trump presidency shattered over hiding paramours.

I think it is more accurate to state that this presidency will be shattered over purposeful violations of campaign finance laws (and possibly additional crimes alluded to by Mr. Cohen)

I think it is more accurate to state that this presidency will be shattered over purposeful violations of campaign finance laws (and possibly additional crimes alluded to by Mr. Cohen)

And Clinton's was shattered by perjury.

Not really. These are just games. Clinton perjured himself because he was put into a perjury trap over sex. Prosecutors should not have the power to ask questions about consensual sex.

Campaign finance laws have no business being brought into play when it is a matter of men paying off their mistresses to be quiet. It's relevant only because the law lets it be. The law should be defanged and that be left a no- go zone of human life. It is not relevant, but it's interesting, and therefore the probing itself of that subject is what needs to be criminalized, so that men don't HAVE TO pay hush money, and the hush money they pay, on that subject, not be able to be brought into the orbit of campaign finance.

Consensual sex is private. People who seek to breach that privacy should be criminals and prosecuted for it. Otherwise, our entire political system is held hostage to the human sex drive, by soulless prosecution and investigation with nothing but a power motive. THOSE people - the investigators and political operators, are the ones who need to be made into criminals by a law that makes their prying criminal activity. THAT is what needs to be attacked. Not weak men and weak women doing what is essentially harmless activity in private.

Such is the wisdom of the French on the matter, and the French are right on this one.

The same absolutism in defense of liberty that American gun nuts have about gun ownership and privacy rights is the absolutism the French have about private sexual matters. So here's the grand political compromise: let's give the gun nuts their gun privacy rights, and give humanity their sexual privacy rights. Expand freedom where it MATTERS, not on stupid things like pot and what bathroom people piss in or what pronoun you call them.

Let people defend themselves, and let heterosexuals alone - take the state out of self-defense and sex. All of our lives will be better for it, and our government will be MUCH better for it.

Cohen told the court that he arranged for payments for porn star Stormy Daniels and Playboy playmate Karen McDougal to keep them silent about sexual relationships with Trump.

The National Enquirer paid Playboy playmate Karen McDougal $150,000 for her story then buried it. Trump paid her nothing.

"in coordination with Trump, who later reimbursed him $130,000, concealing when the payments took place"

Not only when they took place but to who. Cohen made the $130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels then later billed Trump for "miscellaneous expenses".

So here's the grand political compromise: let's give the gun nuts their gun privacy rights, and give humanity their sexual privacy rights. Expand freedom where it MATTERS, not on stupid things like pot and what bathroom people piss in or what pronoun you call them.

Please alert me when this happens..........

I think it is more accurate to state that this presidency will be shattered over purposeful violations of campaign finance laws (and possibly additional crimes alluded to by Mr. Cohen)

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton is not prosecuted for wholesale violations of national security.

Trumps mistress is a valid enforcement issue, but compromising national security and scrubbing computers isn't?

When the investigation and prosecution arms of government are that nakedly corrupt and partisan, there is no reason to trust anything they say or do. Americans are rapidly turning into what Soviet Russians were: rightly cynical people who know their government is totally rotten and evil, and who pay lip service to it as necessary.

This is why fewer and fewer people really care when cops get shot. They are turning into Redcoats as the whole government turns into Lord North.

The libertarians are essentially correct insofar as this can only really be fixed by removing the government's power to investigate, prosecute, regulate or enforce key aspects of human life. Unfortunately the libertarians are mostly addicted to pot, so that is their "liberty issue", just as the gun nuts are addicted to guns as their "liberty issue".

A "Leave Me Alone" party is what is needed.

(1) Do you have a formal partisan affiliation. (I do not. I am independent.)

(2) Do you have an informal partisan affiliation? (I do, I almost invariably vote for Republicans. The exceptions are that I voted for Perot in 1992 - and knowing that that led to Clinton being elected, would do it again. And I voted for the Democratic Representative who nominated me to Annapolis for as long as he remained in office.)

(3) Do you support your party's ("your party" is your formal or informal partisan affiliation) whole agenda. (I do not support major planks of the Republican platform.)

(4) Do prefer any aspect of the other party's agenda over your own party's agenda. (Yes. There are some aspects of the Democrat agenda that are better, in my view, than some aspects of the Republican. Overall I vote Republican as a somewhat better option.)

(5) Do you see the partisan divide as good versus evil? (No. Both sides have some good, and quite a bit of evil.)

(6) If your own party gained complete control and absolutely ran the table, enacting their entire platform agenda (as it currently exists), would you be able to live peacefully (not rebel and not emigrate) with the result? (Yes, but I would consider emigrating to France, and would if the job circumstances were right.)

(7) If the other party gained complete control and absolutely ran the table, enacting their entire platform agenda (as it currently exists), would you be able to live peacefully (not rebel and not emigrate) with the result? (Yes, but I would consider emigrating to France, and would if the job circumstances were right.)

Your answers to those questions determine how much skin you really have in the game. I don't really have all of that much, which is why hysterical partisanship pushes me away - and makes me push back.

I have a couple of questions for you.

(1) Do you have a formal partisan affiliation? (No)

(2) Do you have an informal partisan affiliation? ( - no. I believe strongly in voting at every opportunity. I have made it my practice to vote for the candidate or issue(s) that would have the most positive impact overall. In my opinion. )

(3) Do you support your party's whole agenda? (No – I don’t believe that any of the elected officials actually do either)

(4) Do prefer any aspect of the other party's agenda over your own party's agenda. (I can find parts of either party’s agenda with which I agree. However, because I don’t really believe either party as a whole care about adhering to a stated agenda – I consider the platforms as mostly just bullshit.)

(5) Do you see the partisan divide as good versus evil? (From my perspective, the Partisan divide, or simply being a “member of a party” is only useful for those who are in charge of raising money.)

(6) If your own party gained complete control and absolutely ran the table, enacting their entire platform agenda (as it currently exists), would you be able to live peacefully (not rebel and not emigrate) with the result?

(7) If the other party gained complete control and absolutely ran the table, enacting their entire platform agenda (as it currently exists), would you be able to live peacefully (not rebel and not emigrate) with the result?

(Because I do not pledge allegiance to either (or any) party I can answer both 6 & 7 together. I have no interest in emigrating. As for rebellion, I believe in standing up for what I believe, and I believe in sharing MY thoughts and opinions under the right circumstances. I’m not very interested in rallies or marches or protesting, but I 100% support everyone’s right to peacefully assemble. So I can and do live peacefully.)

Allow me to be clear. While I am not a member of any party at this time, I once considered myself to be a republican. I have never considered myself to be a Democrat, Libertarian, Green, or Silly Party member.

I believe the last Presidential election was a “worst case scenario” where whichever candidate won, we Americans would end up much worse off.

I believe that of the two, our current president would have the most damaging effect, and from my perspective I was painfully correct.

My current position is simple – I believe that the Republicans had the opportunity to run one of a dozen or so qualified candidates, and instead presented US with the orange menace.

So for the foreseeable future, I will purposely vote for ANY candidate who can win that opposes the Republican in that race.

I believe that this approach might cause a larger than usual turnover in congress, statehouse, etc. which would be desirable.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts Vic, I hope I’ve answered your questions.

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton is not prosecuted for wholesale violations of national security.

I do not defend, endorse, or support either of the clintons in any manner.

HRC was accused of, and investigated for numerous serious acts. She was found to have not done anything illegal.

I do not believe that the DOJ is corrupt. I do not believe that there is any grand conspiracy to protect her or anyone associated with her existence.

If she has violated US laws, I feel that she should be investigated and prosecuted.

I DO BELIEVE that our current president & administration have the authority and the responsibility to compel the DOJ to engage in further investigation and pursue prosecution.

If we as Americans wish to point the bony finger of indignation toward anyone for allowing HRC to "get off the hook" - we should begin with the current occupant of the White House.

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton is not prosecuted for wholesale violations of national security.

- compromising national security and scrubbing computers?

One additional thought.......

To everyone who still believes that President Obama was likewise committing criminal and/or treasonous acts, or that he is/was somehow doing the bidding of socialist/communist/marxist/racist factions....

The one you elected has the power, authority and responsibility to compel law enforcement to act.

If you have a problem with reckless malfeasance....start at 1600

To everyone who still believes that President Obama was likewise committing criminal and/or treasonous acts, or that he is/was somehow doing the bidding of socialist/communist/marxist/racist factions....

"LIKEWISE"??

"SOMEHOW"??

LMAO @ the sheer volume of 'shrooms you must be ingesting.

Few have been so utterly clueless and delusional as you. On ANY board.

To everyone who still believes that President Obama was likewise committing criminal and/or treasonous acts, or that he is/was somehow doing the bidding of socialist/communist/marxist/racist factions....

Where is the investigation?

Why hasn't dip-shit Donnie directed little Jeffy Sessions to engage the full force and might of the US Justice department against one man.

Why hasn't your president defended the sacred rule of law, and the rights of all Americans to be protected from all enemies foreign and domestic?

Two reasons:

1. It's a crock James, there is nothing upon which to base an investigation but fake internet made-up bullshit

2. He really truly is a dip-shit

She was so found by corrupt and partisan officials, and given a pass.

"I do not believe that the DOJ is corrupt."

I think it is as corrupt as the mafia - utterly untrustworthy, despicable, oppressive and violent.

"I do not believe that there is any grand conspiracy to protect her or anyone associated with her existence."

I don't think it's grand. I think that there are a "thousand points of partisan light", individuals with power and discretion, who are mad with partisanship, who so thoroughly and self-righteously hate the other side that they take a "whatever it takes" approach and grandly protect her, even though they don't get together and agree to do it.

"If she has violated US laws, I feel that she should be investigated and prosecuted."

I think she clearly has, I agree that she should be, and I am pretty sure it will never happened, as discussed below.

"I DO BELIEVE that our current president & administration have the authority and the responsibility to compel the DOJ to engage in further investigation and pursue prosecution.

If we as Americans wish to point the bony finger of indignation toward anyone for allowing HRC to "get off the hook" - we should begin with the current occupant of the White House."

You are correct. Trump DOES have the power to quell this nonsense. He has the power to pardon people he thinks are being abused, to immediately halt the Mueller investigation, etc. He has the power to do it. Of course it will launch a hellstorm if he does - and then we will be in a to-the-barricades moment politically.

Because I believe that the Mueller probe is a pure witch hunt, that government has no business investigating men's transactions with their paramours at all (and that campaign finance laws, and every other law I can think of, is superseded by the personal right to privacy of consensual sex), that Manafort and Cohen are being prosecuted by partisans because they are close to Trump, I would applaud Trump if he took the iron rod of his office and used it in an overtly abusive and partisan manner to fire and silence - and prosecute - his political enemies. I would support him in doing it, simply because I think that the people spoke in that election, that it is the duty of the losers to shut up, sit down, and accept the verdict.

They have not, and have instead tried to harness up a legal system that I consider to be evil and totally corrupt in order to undo an election. Therefore, I would support the President if he used the full power of HIS officer to overthrow the traditional corrupt politico-legal regime of the United States through abusive pardons and cutting off security clearances and prosecutions every bit as abusive as what has been launched against him - and then throw it to the people to pick sides in the November elections.

I expect that this could lead to violent insurrection and civil war, which I believe the right would win because of the preponderance of force. And I am willing to see the corruption of the country cleansed by fire and blood, rather than to see the one side win using this tactic.

But Trump does not seem to view the world the way I do. So, just as I blame Republicans for the fact that abortion on demand is the law of the land, because they control the institution that made it so and have always had the power to reverse it, I blame any leader who has the power to change something bad but who chooses to let it fester.

Trump should fire Mueller and order the appointment of a Special Counsel to prosecute Hillary Clinton, and following the precedent of the Mueller probe, every single special prosecutor should be a partisan Republican.

If he doesn't do these things, then he is willingly allowing himself and his agents to be tormented past the point he should. He should take it to the mattresses.

The one you elected has the power, authority and responsibility to compel law enforcement to act."

Yes, he does. But I would oppose the investigation of Obama. As far as I can tell, Obama did nothing illegal. He governed to the Left, and racists on the Right never forgave him for winning. So, if OBAMA were to be prosecuted, I would side with the Democrats and want to see the Republicans thrown out of office for doing it.

Hillary Clinton clearly broke many national security laws and was given a bye. SHE should be prosecuted.

But I would accept Trump being magnanimous and leaving her alone, as long as he fires Mueller, ends the probe, pardons everybody who has been prosecuted in this witch hunt, and shuts down further prosecutions.

I can accept Trump not going after Hillary.

I cannot accept going after Obama. Obama did nothing wrong.

Where is the investigation [into 0bama]?

Let me explain something to you:

For 8 years 0bama and his subversive minions embedded and entrenched ALL of Feral apparatus; Have you heard busted DNC-Dossier-GPS tool Orh refer to "Fire Wall"?? THAT was created to seal out ANY future investigations. Uh-oh. 0bama/Clinton never expected Trump to be President, so the "Fire Wall" wasn't as tight as the corrupt Democrats needed it to be, thus the "Fire Wall" has leaked. BADLY.

What will that mean should the GOP hold off the Dems-Commies in the mid-terms? Then when Trump is re-elected? The "Fire Wall" is blasted open and 0bama and his coup conspirators ARE investigated. But NOT by blackmailed Deep State tool, Jeff Sessions.

I realize that you (like most Democrats and Haters of Reality and Truth...of America, our traditions & heritage, conservatives and liberty) fully embrace an Alternative Universe where YOU become "god", judge & jury.

How and why you and your ilk dwell in willful denial, willful ignorance, willful stupidity, fully willing to accept any and all evil in exchange for YOUR warped "world" (whatever Nightmare that winds up being) is beyond puzzling to normal people...

CONT.:

0bama, Jarrett and America-Haters Inc. made it a mission, a priority that *their* subversive personnel and agenda be embedded virally into the Feral Deep State Agencies, key Courts, key DoJ, and even within key TeleComm Industries and MSM. Fact: PROVEN. It's not even arguable.

So...Do you actually believe Brennen, Comey, Stroyk, and DoJ moles etal were going to launch any investigation into 0bama?? Bwaahaa!! You really ARE this dumb, aren't you??

Why hasn't dip-shit Donnie directed little Jeffy Sessions to engage the full force and might of the US Justice department against one man.

Fair question.

1) He *could*, but because Jeff Sessions IS PART of the Deep State "Fire Wall" and apparatus along with Rosenstein and Mueller, there are still too many Sessions/Rosenstein/Mueller moles and saboteurs buried within the DoJ.

2) Because dirty cops, GOPe Ryan and McConnell would OPPOSE Sessions' ouster, creating a politically liability.

3) Once the GOPe holds plurality after mid-terms, the President will have the political muscle and room perhaps to do just that.

Why hasn't your president defended the sacred rule of law, and the rights of all Americans to be protected from all enemies foreign and domestic?

That's OUR President, Comrade. Fighting against YOUR corrupt fascist-Communist anti-America, pro-Globalist heroes.

President Trump HAS been defending the Rule of Law and USCON since Day One (and even before), exposing DOMESTIC ENEMIES like America-Hater and Jihadist 0bama and his minions' shameful record of Constitutional abuse and treason every single day (which is exactly why YOUR side is fighting tooth and nail to oust Trump.)

As to the term, "Dip-Sh*t", I truly find it amazing that someone like you can actually function in life's in day to day operations. In your irrational, counter-intuitive world of deception where "DOWN = UP", "WHITE = BLACK", DARK = LIGHT", NONSENSE = GOOD-SENSE, and LIES = TRUTH", any normal person would be constantly befuddled and bewildered. But not you.

I cannot accept going after Obama. Obama did nothing wrong.

I had NO idea you've missed this boat by THIS MUCH.

0bama directly sicced the IRS/DoJ and Feebs on Tea Party Organizers and members. He harassed, intimidated and threatened thousands of Republicans, Conservative AND Independents. Individuals AND Groups; Including businesses and their owners.

Weaponizing feral agencies and completely shutting down opponents was well known; The Clintons engaged in the same technique; Republicans were so intimidated that they demurred and crawled into fetal positions. In BOTH cases, both the Clintons and 0bama had the MSM backing their fascist strong-arm and brownshirt tactics 110%.

How 0bama aggressively went after those patriots, media and political foes who challenged his corruption, treason and selling out America was no secret...

...Except apparently to you.

Deep State "Fire Wall"

Please prove that "Fire Wall" exists. Cite a credible source.

There is none. It's made up bull-shit.

Where is the investigation?

Dip-Shit Donnie has had 2 years, a republican house & senate, and a favorable SCOTUS.

Yet he can't compel the Justice Department, which he as president commands, to open a single investigation into the crimes that you and your fellow alex jones fanboys claim have been committed.

He can replace Sessions with anyone he wants, right? Anytime he pleases! Why does he not? That dip-shit promised you a special prosecutor to investigate the investigation! LOL! what a jerk-off!

Either there is nothing to investigate, or

The Kremlin's director of US operations is criminally negligent.

That's what I want to see Trump do right now, to shake off these investigations and end the nonsense that is turning into a cancer.

Those payments are being treated as campaign violations.

Following that logic, if one treats a cat as a dog, the cat becomes a dog. The Mueller team treating the payments as campaign violations or crimes does not make it so.

This is rather like the case against a dozen or so Russians that was never intended to proceed to trial. Cohen can plead guilty to alleged counts involving the payments and get out from under the five counts involving tax evasion and the false financial statements count. Mueller gets to say that Cohen pleaded guilty to two counts of violation of campaign contributions, and CANDIDATE-1 was involved. Mueller never has to actually prove anything.

Counts 1 thru 5, tax evasion by unreported income of $893,750; $499,400; $670,667; $969,616; and $1,100,618 each carries, in part, a maximum term of 5 years imprisonment and a maximum fine of twice the pecuniary gain derived from the offense.

Count 6, false statements to a financial institution in connection with a credit decision, carries, in part, a maximum term of 30 years imprisonment, and a maximum fine of $1,000,000.

- - - - - - - - - -

In the case of John Edwards, payments were made to Rielle Hunter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Edwards_extramarital_affair

In August 2008, Fred Baron, Edwards' campaign finance chairman, told NBC News that he had been providing financial assistance to both Hunter and Young without Edwards' knowledge; he further stated that no campaign funds had been used. Reportedly, Young had also successfully solicited funds from Rachel Lambert Mellon, also known as "Bunny" Mellon, a 99-year-old heiress to the Mellon fortune. Baron passed away two months later.

[...]

On June 3, 2011, Edwards was indicted by a North Carolina grand jury on six felony charges. Edwards faced a maximum sentence of thirty years in prison and a $1.5 million fine, or a USD250,000 fine and/or five years imprisonment per charge. The indictment came after the failure of intensive negotiations for a plea bargain agreement. The agreement would have meant that Edwards would have been required to plead guilty to three misdemeanor campaign finance law violations, in addition to a six-month prison sentence, but would have allowed Edwards to keep his law license.

After delays, due to John Edwards' medical condition, jury selection for the trial began on April 12, 2012. Opening arguments began on April 23, 2012. A verdict (not guilty on one count and a mistrial on the remaining five) to the trial was reached on May 31, 2012.

The trial was criticized by Republicans, such as Michael Steele and Joe Scarborough, who referred to the procedure as "an absolute waste of resources."

Wayback Machine Link

Prison sentence doomed Edwards plea deal

BY J. ANDREW CURLISS AND JOSEPH NEFF - Staff Writers
NewsObserver.com
Published Sun, Jun 05, 2011 03:17 AM
Modified Sun, Jun 05, 2011 12:26 PM

Just before John Edwards was indicted Friday, prosecutors made a final offer: They would accept his guilty plea to three misdemeanor campaign finance law violations in the $925,000 cover-up of his affair.

With the deal, the former Democratic vice-presidential nominee would avoid a felony conviction - and almost certainly keep the law license that had made him wealthy.

[...]

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/john-edwards-guilty-count-admits-moral-failing-mistrial/story?id=16378643

John Edwards Not Guilty on 1 Count, but Admits Moral Failing; Mistrial on 5 Other Counts

By James Hill, Russell Goldman, and Beth Loyd
GREENSBORO, N.C.,
May 31, 2012

A North Carolina jury found former Sen. John Edwards not guilty today on one of six counts in a campaign-finance trial, and declared itself hopelessly deadlocked on the remaining charges, leading the judge to declare a mistrial on those counts.

Edwards, a two-time presidential candidate, accused of soliciting nearly $1 million from wealthy backers to finance a cover up of his illicit affair and illegitimate child during his 2008 bid for the White House, was found not guilty on count 3 of the six-part indictment. That count pertained only to whether Edwards illegally received several hundred thousand dollars in donations from wealthy heiress Rachel "Bunny" Mellon to cover up the affair in 2008.

[...]

The Mueller prosecutors wrote the information. It says whatever they want it to say. It does not establish that any act by Trump constituted a crime or an improper use of campaign funds.

Below are the alleged campaign contribution counts as they appear in the Plea Agreement and the government Information. Federal felony prosecutions require an Indictment by a Grand Jury, except where the defendant waives his 5th Amendment right to a Grand Jury.

After the alleged campaign contribution counts, there follows the laws cited within the counts. There is only one cited section from Title 18, United States Code, Crimes and Criminal Procedure. It is the first quoted statute following the counts.

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4779471/Michael-Cohen-s-plea-agreement.pdf

Michael Cohen Plea Agreement of 21 August 2018

Count Seven of the Information charges the defendant with willfully causing an unlawful corporate contribution. from at least in or about June 2016, up to and including in or about October 2016, in violation of 52 U.S.C. §§ 30118(a) & 30109(d)(I)(A), and 18 U.S.C. § 2(b). Count Seven carries a maximum term of imprisonment of 5 years; a maximum term of supervised release of 3 years; a maximum fine of $250.000, twice the gross pecuniary gain derived from the offense, or twice the gross pecuniary loss to persons other than the defendant resulting from the offense; and a $100 mandatory special assessment.

Count Eight of the Information charges the defendant with making an excessive campaign contribution, on or about October 27, 2016, in violation of 52 U.S.C. §§ 30116(a)(I)(A), 30116(a)(7) & 30109(d)(l)(A), and 18 U.S.C. § 2(b). Count Eight carries a maximum term of imprisonment of 5 years; a maximum term of supervised release of 3 years; a maximum fine of $250,000, twice the gross pecuniary gain derived from the offense. or twice the gross pecuniary loss to persons other than the defendant resulting from the offense, and a $100 mandatory special assessment.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4779489/Cohen-Information.pdf

Cohen Information of 21 August 2018

COUNT 7

(Causing an Unlawful Corporate Contribution)

The United States Attorney further charges:

41. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 3, and 24 through 40 are repeated and realleged as though fully set forth herein.

42. From in or about June 2016, up to and including in or about October 2016, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, MICHAEL COHEN, the defendant, knowingly and willfully caused a corporation to make a contribution and expenditure, aggregating $25,000 and more during the 2016 calendar year, to the campaign of a candidate for President of the United States, to wit, COHEN caused Corporation-1 to make and advance a $150,000 payment to Woman-1, including through the promise of reimbursement, so as to ensure that Woman-1 did not publicize damaging allegations before the 2016 presidential election and thereby influence that election.

(Title 52, United States Code, Sections 30118(a) and 30109(d) (1) (A), and Title 18, United States Code, Section 2(b).)

COUNT 8

(Excessive Campaign Contribution)

The United States Attorney further charges:

43. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 3, and 24 through 40 are repeated and realleged as though fully set forth herein.

44. On or about October 27, 2016, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, MICHAEL COHEN, the defendant, knowingly and willfully made and caused to be made a contribution to Individual-1, a candidate for Federal office, and his authorized political committee in excess of the limits of the Election Act, which aggregated $25,000 and more in calendar year 2016, and did so by making and causing to be made an expenditure, in cooperation, consultation, and concert with, and at the request and suggestion of one or more members of the campaign, to wit, COHEN made a $130,000 payment to Woman-2 to ensure that she did not publicize damaging allegations before the 2016 presidential election and thereby influence that election.

(Title 52, United States Code, Sections 30116(a) (1) (A), 30116(a) (7), and 30109(d) (1) (A), and Title 18, United States Code, Section 2(b).)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

https://law.justia.com/codes/us/2016/title-18/part-i/chapter-1/sec.-2/

2016 US Code
Title 18 - Crimes and Criminal Procedure
Part I - Crimes
Chapter 1 - General Provisions
Sec. 2 - Principals

18 U.S.C. § 2 (2016)

§2. Principals

(a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.

(b) Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense against the United States, is punishable as a principal.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 684; Oct. 31, 1951, ch. 655, §17b, 65 Stat. 717.)

HISTORICAL AND REVISION NOTES

Based on title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §550 (Mar. 4, 1909, ch. 321, §332, 35 Stat. 1152).

Section 2(a) comprises section 550 of title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., without change except in minor matters of phraseology.

Section 2(b) is added to permit the deletion from many sections throughout the revision of such phrases as "causes or procures".

The section as revised makes clear the legislative intent to punish as a principal not only one who directly commits an offense and one who "aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures" another to commit an offense, but also anyone who causes the doing of an act which if done by him directly would render him guilty of an offense against the United States.

It removes all doubt that one who puts in motion or assists in the illegal enterprise but causes the commission of an indispensable element of the offense by an innocent agent or instrumentality, is guilty as a principal even though he intentionally refrained from the direct act constituting the completed offense.

This accords with the following decisions: Rothenburg v. United States, 1918, 38 S. Ct. 18, 245 U.S. 480, 62 L. Ed. 414, and United States v. Hodorowicz, C. C. A. Ill. 1939, 105 F. 2d 218, certiorari denied, 60 S. Ct. 108, 308 U.S. 584, 84 L. Ed. 489. United States v. Giles, 1937, 57 S. Ct. 340, 300 U.S. 41, 81 L. Ed. 493, rehearing denied, 57 S. Ct. 505, 300 U.S. 687, 81 L. Ed. 888.

AMENDMENTS

1951—Subsec. (a). Act Oct. 31, 1951, inserted "punishable as".

Subsec. (b). Act Oct. 31, 1951, inserted "willfully" before "causes", and "or another" after "him", and substituted "is punishable as a principal" for "is also a principal and punishable as such".

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

https://law.justia.com/codes/us/2016/title-52/subtitle-iii/chapter-301/subchapter-i/sec.-30118/

Title 52 - Voting and Elections
Subtitle III - Federal Campaign Finance
Chapter 301 - Federal Election Campaigns
Subchapter I - Disclosure of Federal Campaign Funds
Sec. 30118 - Contributions or expenditures by national banks, corporations, or labor organizations

52 U.S.C. § 30118 (2016)

§30118. Contributions or expenditures by national banks, corporations, or labor organizations

(a) In general

It is unlawful for any national bank, or any corporation organized by authority of any law of Congress, to make a contribution or expenditure in connection with any election to any political office, or in connection with any primary election or political convention or caucus held to select candidates for any political office, or for any corporation whatever, or any labor organization, to make a contribution or expenditure in connection with any election at which presidential and vice presidential electors or a Senator or Representative in, or a Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, Congress are to be voted for, or in connection with any primary election or political convention or caucus held to select candidates for any of the foregoing offices, or for any candidate, political committee, or other person knowingly to accept or receive any contribution prohibited by this section, or any officer or any director of any corporation or any national bank or any officer of any labor organization to consent to any contribution or expenditure by the corporation, national bank, or labor organization, as the case may be, prohibited by this section.

[...]

https://law.justia.com/codes/us/2016/title-52/subtitle-iii/chapter-301/subchapter-i/sec.-30109/

2016 US Code
Title 52 - Voting and Elections
Subtitle III - Federal Campaign Finance
Chapter 301 - Federal Election Campaigns
Subchapter I - Disclosure of Federal Campaign Funds
Sec. 30109 - Enforcement

52 U.S.C. § 30109 (2016)

§30109. Enforcement

[...]

(d) Penalties; defenses; mitigation of offenses

(1)(A) Any person who knowingly and willfully commits a violation of any provision of this Act which involves the making, receiving, or reporting of any contribution, donation, or expenditure—

(i) aggregating $25,000 or more during a calendar year shall be fined under title 18, or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both; or

(ii) aggregating $2,000 or more (but less than $25,000) during a calendar year shall be fined under such title, or imprisoned for not more than 1 year, or both.

[...]

https://law.justia.com/codes/us/2016/title-52/subtitle-iii/chapter-301/subchapter-i/sec.-30116/

2016 US Code
Title 52 - Voting and Elections
Subtitle III - Federal Campaign Finance
Chapter 301 - Federal Election Campaigns
Subchapter I - Disclosure of Federal Campaign Funds
Sec. 30116 - Limitations on contributions and expenditures

52 U.S.C. § 30116 (2016)

§30116. Limitations on contributions and expenditures

(a) Dollar limits on contributions

(1) Except as provided in subsection (i) and section 30117 of this title, no person shall make contributions—

(A) to any candidate and his authorized political committees with respect to any election for Federal office which, in the aggregate, exceed $2,000;

[...]

(7) For purposes of this subsection—

(A) contributions to a named candidate made to any political committee authorized by such candidate to accept contributions on his behalf shall be considered to be contributions made to such candidate;

(B)(i) expenditures made by any person in cooperation, consultation, or concert, with, or at the request or suggestion of, a candidate, his authorized political committees, or their agents, shall be considered to be a contribution to such candidate;

(ii) expenditures made by any person (other than a candidate or candidate's authorized committee) in cooperation, consultation, or concert with, or at the request or suggestion of, a national, State, or local committee of a political party, shall be considered to be contributions made to such party committee; and

(iii) the financing by any person of the dissemination, distribution, or republication, in whole or in part, of any broadcast or any written, graphic, or other form of campaign materials prepared by the candidate, his campaign committees, or their authorized agents shall be considered to be an expenditure for purposes of this paragraph; and 1

(C) if—

(i) any person makes, or contracts to make, any disbursement for any electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); and

(ii) such disbursement is coordinated with a candidate or an authorized committee of such candidate, a Federal, State, or local political party or committee thereof, or an agent or official of any such candidate, party, or committee;

such disbursement or contracting shall be treated as a contribution to the candidate supported by the electioneering communication or that candidate's party and as an expenditure by that candidate or that candidate's party; and

(D) contributions made to or for the benefit of any candidate nominated by a political party for election to the office of Vice President of the United States shall be considered to be contributions made to or for the benefit of the candidate of such party for election to the office of President of the United States.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_7

Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure
TITLE III. THE GRAND JURY, THE INDICTMENT, AND THE INFORMATION
Rule 7. The Indictment and the Information

Rule 7. The Indictment and the Information

(a) When Used.

(1) Felony. An offense (other than criminal contempt) must be prosecuted by an indictment if it is punishable:

(A) by death; or

(B) by imprisonment for more than one year.

(2) Misdemeanor. An offense punishable by imprisonment for one year or less may be prosecuted in accordance with Rule 58(b)(1).

(b) Waiving Indictment. An offense punishable by imprisonment for more than one year may be prosecuted by information if the defendant—in open court and after being advised of the nature of the charge and of the defendant's rights—waives prosecution by indictment.

(c) Nature and Contents.

(1) In General. The indictment or information must be a plain, concise, and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged and must be signed by an attorney for the government. It need not contain a formal introduction or conclusion. A count may incorporate by reference an allegation made in another count. A count may allege that the means by which the defendant committed the offense are unknown or that the defendant committed it by one or more specified means. For each count, the indictment or information must give the official or customary citation of the statute, rule, regulation, or other provision of law that the defendant is alleged to have violated. For purposes of an indictment referred to in section 3282 of title 18, United States Code, for which the identity of the defendant is unknown, it shall be sufficient for the indictment to describe the defendant as an individual whose name is unknown, but who has a particular DNA profile, as that term is defined in section 3282.

(2) Citation Error. Unless the defendant was misled and thereby prejudiced, neither an error in a citation nor a citation's omission is a ground to dismiss the indictment or information or to reverse a conviction.

(d) Surplusage. Upon the defendant's motion, the court may strike surplusage from the indictment or information.

(e) Amending an Information. Unless an additional or different offense is charged or a substantial right of the defendant is prejudiced, the court may permit an information to be amended at any time before the verdict or finding.

(f) Bill of Particulars. The court may direct the government to file a bill of particulars. The defendant may move for a bill of particulars before or within 14 days after arraignment or at a later time if the court permits. The government may amend a bill of particulars subject to such conditions as justice requires. Notes

(As amended Feb. 28, 1966, eff. July 1, 1966; Apr. 24, 1972, eff. Oct. 1, 1972; Apr. 30, 1979, eff. Aug. 1, 1979; Mar. 9, 1987, eff. Aug. 1, 1987; Apr. 17, 2000, eff. Dec. 1, 2000; Apr. 29, 2002, eff. Dec. 1, 2002; Pub. L. 108–21, title VI, §610(b), Apr. 30, 2003, 117 Stat. 692; Mar. 26, 2009, eff. Dec. 1, 2009.)

Trump will also need to do a command override of the classification system: declassify the documents and throw them to the public.

Heads need to roll, and the legal process has been captured by Mueller and co. So Trump has to override the legal process with executive power. There is no other way.

It's a perilous step.

With the latest coup, Mueller gained control of the legal battlefield. The only way to overcome that is to use Executive power to nullify the judicial results, and to eliminate Mueller and Rosenstein as public officials. Sessions will have to go too, because he is a cypher.

This does resemble an attempted coup. Rather than as a Special Prosecutor, Mueller appears to be acting as a servant of the Democratic (or anti-Trump) caucus in congress, not investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election, but crusading for manufactured grounds for impeachment.

Cohen appears to be getting a deal to plead guilty to a non-crime, just to create the appearance of criminality for the public. It is a serious pervision of the "justice" system.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/those-payments-to-mistresses-were-unseemly-that-doesnt-mean-they-were-illegal/2018/08/22/634acdf4-a63b-11e8-8fac-12e98c13528d_story.html

Those payments to mistresses were unseemly. That doesn’t mean they were illegal.

By Bradley Smith
August 22 at 6:35 PM

Bradley Smith, a former chairman of the Federal Election Commission, is chairman of the Institute for Free Speech and a visiting fellow in the James Madison Program at Princeton.

[excerpt]

However, regardless of what Cohen agreed to in a plea bargain, hush-money payments to mistresses are not really campaign expenditures. It is true that “contribution” and “expenditure” are defined in the Federal Election Campaign Act as anything “for the purpose of influencing any election,” and it may have been intended and hoped that paying hush money would serve that end. The problem is that almost anything a candidate does can be interpreted as intended to “influence an election,” from buying a good watch to make sure he gets to places on time, to getting a massage so that he feels fit for the campaign trail, to buying a new suit so that he looks good on a debate stage. Yet having campaign donors pay for personal luxuries — such as expensive watches, massages and Brooks Brothers suits — seems more like bribery than funding campaign speech.

That’s why another part of the statute defines “personal use” as any expenditure “used to fulfill any commitment, obligation, or expense of a person that would exist irrespective of the candidate’s election campaign.” These may not be paid with campaign funds, even though the candidate might benefit from the expenditure. Not every expense that might benefit a candidate is an obligation that exists solely because the person is a candidate.

Suppose, for example, that Trump had told his lawyers, “Look, these complaints about Trump University have no merit, but they embarrass me as a candidate. Get them settled.” Are the settlements thus “campaign expenses”? The obvious answer is no, even though the payments were intended to benefit Trump as a candidate.

If the opposite were true and they were considered campaign expenses, then not only could Trump pay them with campaign funds, he would be required to pay these business expenses from campaign funds. Is that what campaign donations are for?

Interim appoint Rudy Giuliani as Attorney General.

I do not believe Trump has the authority to appoint Giuliani as Interim Attorney General, as Giuliani is not in a Senate confirmed position. Such authority appears to be limited to appointing someone who currently "serves in an office for which appointment is required to be made by the President," and "by and with the advice and consent of the Senate." It is not clear if the authority applies when the incumbent officer is removed rather than "dies, resigns, or is otherwise unable to perform the functions and duties of the office."

Getting rid of Sessions and Rosenstein may only result in Trump getting the next man in succession after Rosenstein. It may look like Nixon's Saturday Night Massacre before Trump drills down to a good alternative.

There is the recess appointment, but the Senate thwarts that by technically remaining in session, even when they are gone for a month.

https://law.justia.com/codes/us/2016/title-5/part-iii/subpart-b/chapter-33/subchapter-iii/sec.-3345/

2016 US Code
Title 5 - Government Organization and Employees
Part III - Employees
Subpart B - Employment and Retention
Chapter 33 - Examination, Selection, and Placement
Subchapter III - Details, Vacancies, and Appointments
Sec. 3345 - Acting officer

5 U.S.C. § 3345 (2016)

§3345. Acting officer

(a) If an officer of an Executive agency (including the Executive Office of the President, and other than the Government Accountability Office) whose appointment to office is required to be made by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, dies, resigns, or is otherwise unable to perform the functions and duties of the office—

(1) the first assistant to the office of such officer shall perform the functions and duties of the office temporarily in an acting capacity subject to the time limitations of section 3346;

(2) notwithstanding paragraph (1), the President (and only the President) may direct a person who serves in an office for which appointment is required to be made by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to perform the functions and duties of the vacant office temporarily in an acting capacity subject to the time limitations of section 3346; or

(3) notwithstanding paragraph (1), the President (and only the President) may direct an officer or employee of such Executive agency to perform the functions and duties of the vacant office temporarily in an acting capacity, subject to the time limitations of section 3346, if—

(A) during the 365-day period preceding the date of death, resignation, or beginning of inability to serve of the applicable officer, the officer or employee served in a position in such agency for not less than 90 days; and

(B) the rate of pay for the position described under subparagraph (A) is equal to or greater than the minimum rate of pay payable for a position at GS–15 of the General Schedule.

(b)(1) Notwithstanding subsection (a)(1), a person may not serve as an acting officer for an office under this section, if—

(A) during the 365-day period preceding the date of the death, resignation, or beginning of inability to serve, such person—

(i) did not serve in the position of first assistant to the office of such officer; or

(ii) served in the position of first assistant to the office of such officer for less than 90 days; and

(B) the President submits a nomination of such person to the Senate for appointment to such office.

(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any person if—

(A) such person is serving as the first assistant to the office of an officer described under subsection (a);

(B) the office of such first assistant is an office for which appointment is required to be made by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate; and

(C) the Senate has approved the appointment of such person to such office.

(c)(1) Notwithstanding subsection (a)(1), the President (and only the President) may direct an officer who is nominated by the President for reappointment for an additional term to the same office in an Executive department without a break in service, to continue to serve in that office subject to the time limitations in section 3346, until such time as the Senate has acted to confirm or reject the nomination, notwithstanding adjournment sine die.

(2) For purposes of this section and sections 3346, 3347, 3348, 3349, 3349a, and 3349d, the expiration of a term of office is an inability to perform the functions and duties of such office. Source Credit

(Added Pub. L. 105–277, div. C, title I, §151(b), Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2681–611; amended Pub. L. 108–271, §8(b), July 7, 2004, 118 Stat. 814.)

Trump will also need to do a command override of the classification system: declassify the documents and throw them to the public.

Heads need to roll, and the legal process has been captured by Mueller and co. So Trump has to override the legal process with executive power. There is no other way.

It's a perilous step.

I agree with declassifying the documents to the maximum extent possible and releasing them. Trump could order the documents delivered to the desk of his choosing by close of business tomorrow.

Heads do need to roll. With the appointments restrictions, it would appear even more perilous than you have contemplated.

It is not clear if the authority applies

Assert the authority and do it.

That's what Mueller and the other side's bastards do. It's what Obama did.

Just assert the authority, take the act, and retain firm command over the police forces - secret service - etc.

Then you get into the situation where politicians from various offices powerlessly scream "illegal" but have no means of ENFORCING their will. Possession is 9/10ths of the law. If Giuliani is appointed, takes the seat and starts acting in the role - and those who refuse to obey him are fired - there is nobody who can send cops to remove him - because the cops answer to the Chief Executive, not the judiciary, and not to the legislature, certainly

These bastards have provoked a constitutional crisis. So double down on the crisis by asserting executive power with a strong and irreversible hand, because YOU control the hands that have all of the guns.

Do what Sulla did in Rome. Once the politics get too crazy, draw the sword. You don't have to USE the sword, just draw it to protect the people you place in office. You don't have to violently overthrow anything. You just have to wield the armed power to PREVENT those who do not command it from removing you and yours.

If the judicial, prosecutorial or intelligence arms get so overmighty that they are acting extraconstitutionally, relying on naked power - with the idea that law is power, or knowledge is power - the best answer is that POWER is power, and to use it directly.

If the judiciary, prosecutors, investigators and spies really want to provoke a civil war, well, that certainly offers the opportunity to effect rapid, sweeping legal and intelligence reform. Their corrupt force should be met by much greater physical force, thereby ending the threat they pose, and perhaps some of them along within it.

That's the problem with pressing too far. The illegal overreach may provoke an illegal response to which there is no answer, because ultimately all power flows from the barrel of a gun.

Assert the authority and do it.

Just assert the authority, take the act, and retain firm command over the police forces - secret service - etc.

So double down on the crisis by asserting executive power with a strong and irreversible hand

tyranny

a nation under cruel and oppressive government.
cruel, unreasonable, or arbitrary use of power or control.

you're advocating that a sociopath assume the role of Dictator and shred the constitutional rule of law...

Is that what you really want?

It won't work.

You've suggested repeatedly that bloody civil war is what you'd prefer....

It will never come that....

It will never come close.

Dip-shit Degenerate Donnie will be convinced to resign and go away...

The sick greedy bastards who control the GOP will NEVER allow DSD to destroy everything they've assembled...

The "swamp" is stronger than the ignorant wannabe president who imagines himself as a man worthy of respect.

The message will be delivered politely by ranking officials, and there could be a "tragedy" that underscores their intent....

Degenerate Donnie has out-kicked his coverage

This does resemble an attempted coup. Rather than as a Special Prosecutor, Mueller appears to be acting as a servant of the Democratic (or anti-Trump) caucus in congress, not investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election, but crusading for manufactured grounds for impeachment.

Nothing more than an attempt to criminalize political differences.

You've suggested repeatedly that bloody civil war is what you'd prefer....

It will never come that....

It will never come close.

What I would PREFER is for men to restrain themselves and cease breaking the bounds of decency in their use of political and legal power.

That's what clearly will never happen.

So civil war is inevitable. It's merely a matter of when.

And when it comes, it won't really make things better, but it will decisively resolve the conflict between the two sides. One will conquer and the other will be annihilated in fire and blood. What will come a generation after that will be different, with different adversaries.

Nothing more than an attempt to criminalize political differences.

A successful one.

Dip-shit Degenerate Donnie will be convinced to resign and go away...

You can hope.

Degenerate Donnie has out-kicked his coverage

Not yet.

Two words you must remember in the months to come:

Pence knew

Everyone in America knew. Trump won the election anyway. Pence was just one of millions of Americans who knew. Once the people read the leaked emails re Hillary and her crew and foundation, they decided what was more important.

There is no high crime, low crime, or misdemeanor attributable to the great, the magnificent President Donald J. Trump.

Buying the exclusive rights to publish the stories of Stephanie Clifford and Karen McDougal is not a crime. Not publishing the story is not a crime.

Nothing more than an attempt to criminalize political differences.

It is a faux criminalization in that there is no intent to ever test this nonsense at trial. It is the injection of bullshit into the judicial branch, much as the pee dossier was the injection of bought and paid for bullshit into the intelligence stream and then onward to the FISA court to support a baseless warrant.

It is similar in effect to the indictment and initial appearance against various Russians, exposed as a publicity stunt when one of the Russian companies appeared via their attorney demanding discovery and a speedy trial. The instant government response was to seek delay. They sought and made the initial appearance and then were exposed as being totally unprepared to proceed.

The whole reason for the indictment was to claim Russian involvement while evading the need to prove it. It was for public noise making. They screwed up and included a Russian corporation which could appear by their American attorney. Hell, they even indicted a Russian corporation that did not exist at the time of the alleged actions.

In the followup case, they indicted another dozen Russians, being careful to not include any corporations. In the two combined cases, the prosecution has not effected service on anybody. The only service effected was by the Russian corporation, by their appearance via their attorney, and the prosecution made fools of themselves in open court by trying to argue the corporation could not so accept service.

It is not clear if the authority applies

Assert the authority and do it.

Just to clarify the issue, the appointment of Giuliani goes directly contrary to the appointment power of 5 U.S.C. § 3345(a) which requires the appointee to already be in a senate confirmed position.

It is not clear that the President could use 5 U.S.C. § 3345(a) to appoint anyone to replace an official he fires. This code states it applies in case an official, "dies, resigns, or is otherwise unable to perform the functions and duties of the office."

That's what Mueller and the other side's bastards do. It's what Obama did.

Just assert the authority, take the act, and retain firm command over the police forces - secret service - etc.

Obama did not do that. Lincoln did.

It is a notorious fact that neither Trump nor Congress has a firm command over the police forces - secret service - FBI - CIA - etc. He has to gain such command before he can retain it.

Then you get into the situation where politicians from various offices powerlessly scream "illegal" but have no means of ENFORCING their will. Possession is 9/10ths of the law.

We are not there yet, and no such action will be taken before the midterm elections.

After the elections, other possibilities exist, assuming the GOP retains the Senate, and Trump retains the support of 34 senators.

Then Trump could pardon Manafort.

Trump could also pardon Cohen, but maybe just for Counts 1 thru 6, leaving Cohen and Mueller to figure out what to do about the alleged campaign violations in Counts 7 and 8. Oh the humanity of Cohen doing time just for the non-criminal campaign violations to which he pleaded guilty.

And Trump could anounce that the Mueller Witch Hunt is over, and that upon annoucement of any further charges not directly related to foreign interference in the 2016 election, he will immediately issue a pardon to anyone so charged.

Mueller would be deballed.

Sessions and Rosenstein could be fired.

What Trump can do now is order up the records of the FISA shit show and declassify them to the maximum extent possible, and release them to the American people. Rub the noses of the DOJ and the FISA Court in it real good. That is where Trump is likely to go before the election.

you're advocating that a sociopath assume the role of Dictator and shred the constitutional rule of law...

Your boy Obama did that.

If you leftists push to far you will all end up dead in a civil war. I don't want that but if push comes to shove that is what will happen.

you will all end up dead in a civil war.

Your "civil war" fantasy is just that... a fantasy.

I'm wondering when we'll begin hearing from the WH, how it was actually "patriotic" and "righteous"
to conspire with the russian mob to deny the American people a fair and honest election.......
because the other candidate was so dangerous!!!.....

I betting we'll hear these words from Rudy Patootie's lips before November....

Followed by chants from the paid shills, "Lock 'erup!", "lock 'erup!"

Everyone with a functioning brain now realizes, even if they struggle to admit it, that not only did DSD "know" about his family's and campaign employees' meetings to conspire with the russians, he actually planned and directed the events.

You know this is coming. It will be fun to watch!

I'm wondering when we'll begin hearing from the WH, how it was actually "patriotic" and "righteous" to conspire with the russian mob to deny the American people a fair and honest election.......

Mueller is furiously poring over income tax records of Americans and will provide evidence of Russian mob activity as soon as he finds it on the 1040's.

The American people got a fair and honest election, minus Bernie Sanders who was screwed by the Clinton mafia.

The great, the magnificant President Donald J. Trummp won.

Cankles was rejected by the American people and went down in ignominious defeat. Then she was thrown, like a side of beef, into the Scooby van/ambulance, and carted away.

she was thrown, like a side of beef, into the Scooby van/ambulance, and carted away.

Scooby van???

You're slipping Chan....

It's called The Mystery Machine!!!!

Try to do better next time!

Even without reimbursement, Cohen can claim the payment was made by him to avoid embarrassment to Melania, or to Trump's family, or to Trump's business -- not to help Trump's campaign. The non-disclosure agreement was signed by Daniels on October 28, 2016 -- just 7 days before the election -- hardly enough time for her to come forward and have the credibility to hurt Trump's campaign.

The non-disclosure agreement was signed by Daniels on October 28, 2016 -- just 7 days before the election -- hardly enough time for her to come forward and have the credibility to hurt Trump's campaign.

The existence of the non-disclosure agreement should be enough to justify a legal expense.

The contract was held enforceable by an arbitrator. It is not the same as from a court and judge, but it is non-frivolous evidence that the contract was lawful.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/07/us/politics/stormy-daniels-trump.html

Trump Lawyer Obtained Restraining Order to Silence Stormy Daniels

https://www.nytimes.com/files/stormy-Daniels-restraining-order.pdf

Count 7 of the Information reads in relevant part,

COHEN caused Corporation-1 to make and advance a $150,000 payment to Woman-1, including through the promise of reimbursement, so as to ensure that Woman-1 did not publicize damaging allegations before the 2016 presidential election and thereby influence that election.

Count 8 of the Information reads in relevant part,

COHEN made a $130,000 payment to Woman-2 to ensure that she did not publicize damaging allegations before the 2016 presidential election and thereby influence that election.

The prosecutor's Information asserts the NDAs were made for the purpose of preventing influence upon the election.

The prosecutor's Information asserts the NDAs were made for the purpose of preventing influence upon the election.

That's an assumption, not a fact. It could very well be for the reasons I listed.

Moot point. Trump is allowed to spend as much money as he wants to influence his own election.

The Mueller team treating the payments as campaign violations or crimes does not make it so....MUELLER NEVER HAS TO PROVE ANYTHING.

Spot on, Nolu. Any "burden of proof" is completely unnecessary for Team Mueller-Himmler; ONLY bogus allegations of bogus crimes based on bogus mind-reading and and bogus laws that just don't exist. Mueller himself has been defining "crime". Ironically AS A CRIMINAL and DIRTY COP, conducting an "investigation" criminally. Isn't THAT the rub?

For simply knowing and representing Trump on legal matters, Mueller and his cabal of Deep State gangstas threaten Cohen etal with Life Imprisonment for technicalities THEY INVENT. So they purposely misrepresent legal moves as "criminal", then feed it to the Left's Media Insane Shark Frenzy. (All this started when they illegally accessed Cohen's files.)

For his trouble, Cohen is then provide a simple way to escape prison and torture:

"VEE HAFF VAYS UF MAKING YOU TALK. GIVE US SOMETHING, ANYTHING with WHICH TO FRAME DONALD TRUMP...and we'll forget about your Life Imprisonment and ruining your life."

THIS is the kind "Justice" you phony Leftist sock-puppets seek?; An American Gestapo and framing the innocent is ok -- just as long as it satisfies your fascist blood-lust for bogus "justice" and "liberty"?

Mueller's entire "Russia investigation" is based on extorting and blackmailing anyone who was EVER connected to Donald Trump. How does this make him any different than Heinrich Himmler? (The MSM plays the part of Himmler's Kangaroo Court).

Not only all this, but WTH does Cohen have to do with the initial reason FOR what is proven to be a BOGUS, ILLEGAL INVESTIGATION, BASED ON LIES AND FRAMING DONALD TRUMP? The Truth is sitting there stark and naked: The DNC, Hillary, 0bama, Comey, Stryok, Ohr, Pushers of the Fake Dossier ARE GUILTY OF ACTUAL CRIMES. HIGH CRIMES AT THAT. (while the MSM provides Fairy Tale commentary as you Leftist orangutans high-five each other.)

The pro-Fascist Left and NWO deep state tools are trying to take down the President and destroy the USCON *By any means necessary*. The REAL mission: The demolition of "Privileged White-Christian, Conservative-Gun Owner, Traditional America" -- even to the extent of jaywalking changes. And the orangutans on the Left CHEER IT ALL. THAT is the kind of "American Justice" these morally bankrupt moronic Left wants. (But...but...Whatcha gonna do when they come from you??)

Guess what? EVERYONE has jaywalked. Exceeded the speed limit. Inadvertently filed wrong paperwork. Violated obscure some kind of Nuisance Law.

Do you Leftists, you Trump-Haters, you Liars and Hypocrites want to be judged and arrested and your lives ruined by the SAME Gestapo techniques and standards applied to Donald Trump?? You front door smashed and claims made against you (by some anonymous source) that you "violated the law". OH WAIT. Suddenly the law is "unfair" AND cops are "bad" again?

*snicker*

The Mueller team treating the payments as campaign violations or crimes does not make it so.

This is exactly why Trump should not sit down with Mueller under oath. If, for example, Comey told Mueller that Trump ordered him to drop the investigation and Trump says he didn't, someone's not being truthful. Mueller can say that he believes his friend Comey and charge Trump with obstruction AND perjury.

Trump would never be convicted of those charges beyond a reasonable doubt, but the damage would be done and the Democrats would be howling for impeachment before it even went to trial.

Truth isn't truth.

It's perhaps worse in some ways at home, since the tyrannical rulers are right here. The constitution is virtually used as toilet paper.

Exhibit A:

Terrorist Alliance arms deal, in the White House

This is exactly why Trump should not sit down with Mueller under oath. If, for example, Comey told Mueller that Trump ordered him to drop the investigation and Trump says he didn't, someone's not being truthful. Mueller can say that he believes his friend Comey and charge Trump with obstruction AND perjury.

Trump should not sit with Mueller because there is lots to be easily lost and absolutely nothing to be gained. If Trump were innocent of all crime, and spoke only truthfully of his innocence, that would gain him nothing with Mueller. Mueller is on a mission and it is not a search for truth or justice.

The criminal statute for false statements is 18 U.S.C. § 1001. The statement must be made to a federal agent, however, please note that being under oath is not an element of the crime. Perjury is 18 U.S.C. § 1621, and that applies to statements made under oath.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Making_false_statements

Making false statements (18 U.S.C. § 1001) is the common name for the United States federal crime laid out in Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code, which generally prohibits knowingly and willfully making false or fraudulent statements, or concealing information, in "any matter within the jurisdiction" of the federal government of the United States, even by merely denying guilt when asked by a federal agent. A number of notable people have been convicted under the section, including Martha Stewart, Rod Blagojevich, Michael T. Flynn, Rick Gates, Scooter Libby, Bernard Madoff, and Jeffrey Skilling.

[...]

Even constitutionally explicit Fifth Amendment rights do not exonerate affirmative false statements.[12] In the 1998 case Brogan v. United States, the Supreme Court rejected the "exculpatory no" doctrine that had previously been followed by seven of the courts of appeal, which had held that "the mere denial of wrongdoing" did not fall within the scope of § 1001.[13][2] The Brogan court stated:

Our legal system provides methods for challenging the Government's right to ask questions — lying is not one of them.

Convictions

A number of notable people have been convicted under the section, including Martha Stewart, Rod Blagojevich, Scooter Libby, Michael T. Flynn, Bernard Madoff, and Jeffrey Skilling.

Many famous people have been charged under this law, including Najibullah Zazi (whose lying charge was later dropped after more serious charges were preferred against him), Ali Saleh Kahlah Al-Marri, and Martha Stewart. There was also talk of prosecuting Tareq Salahi and Michaele Schon under this statute. In the wake of such cases, many observers have concluded that it is best for anyone with the slightest degree of criminal exposure to refrain from submitting to an interview by government agents. Solomon L. Wisenberg suggests simply asking for the agent's business card and saying, "[M]y attorney will be in contact with you." The invocation of counsel cannot be used against a defendant at trial. In USA vs Memar, an FBI agent, Ashley Davis, admitted to making an untrue statement to the Grand Jury and in the trial, Assistant Attorney General Stephen Chahn Lee, admitted to a misstatement, when the government repeatedly insisted that the defendant had confessed or admitted to using an IPL device for cosmetic purposes, when the defendant denied those claims, and a person present at the instance corroborated Dr. Memar's claim.

[...]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001

18 U.S. Code § 1001 - Statements or entries generally

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—

(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;

(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or

(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;

shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years.

(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party’s counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding.

(c) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only to—

(1) administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter related to the procurement of property or services, personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative branch; or

(2) any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 749; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §?330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147; Pub. L. 104–292, §?2, Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3459; Pub. L. 108–458, title VI, §?6703(a), Dec. 17, 2004, 118 Stat. 3766; Pub. L. 109–248, title I, §?141(c), July 27, 2006, 120 Stat. 603.)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1621

18 U.S. Code § 1621 - Perjury generally

Whoever—

(1) having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or

(2) in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true;

is guilty of perjury and shall, except as otherwise expressly provided by law, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. This section is applicable whether the statement or subscription is made within or without the United States.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 773; Pub. L. 88–619, §?1, Oct. 3, 1964, 78 Stat. 995; Pub. L. 94–550, §?2, Oct. 18, 1976, 90 Stat. 2534; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §?330016(1)(I), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

Trump would never be convicted of those charges beyond a reasonable doubt, but the damage would be done and the Democrats would be howling for impeachment before it even went to trial.

Truth isn't truth.

Here is some fun truth. Until last year, Congress kept an authorized fund to pay awards and settlements. Our esteemed congress critters paid for their sexual indiscretions with taxpayer money. Exactly how much was paid in total to settle such claims is not known as the financial records did not break down what sort of settlement was involved, but individual cases are known.

I guess if you use taxpayer money, the payoff is not criminal.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/300k-in-taxpayer-funds-has-been-spent-settling-sexual-harassment-claims-against-congress-report-says

$300k in taxpayer funds has been spent settling sexual harassment claims against Congress, report says

Politics Jan 12, 2018 6:42 PM EDT

WASHINGTON — Nearly $300,000 in taxpayer funds has been spent to settle 13 claims against members of Congress or their offices since 2003 that include sexual harassment or sex discrimination, according to statistics released by a House committee on Friday.

The Committee on House Administration released a list of settlements stemming from claims against member offices between 2003 and 2007 that include three cases involving sex discrimination that total more than $27,000.

The new statistics add to a running list of settlements released last month to the committee by the Office of Compliance, an office created under the 1995 Congressional Accountability Act to deal with employment disputes on Capitol Hill. The office oversees the process of filing sexual harassment or discrimination complaints.

The statistics, released as part of a committee investigation into the process of filing complaints on the Hill, do not include any identifying information aside from settlement amounts and the basis for the claim; no names are provided.

Office of Compliance Executive Director Susan Tsui Grundmann said in a letter to the committee that the office only keeps track of settlements paid out of the Treasury account.

The most recent total is significantly smaller than totals for later years: From 2008-2012, the Treasury Fund paid more than $174,000 to settle eight cases that involved either sexual harassment, sex discrimination or both. And between 2013 and 2017, two cases involving sex discrimination or harassment were settled, totaling $91,000. One of those settlements, for $84,000, stemmed from a 2014 lawsuit brought against Rep. Blake Farenthold by a woman who was his former communications director.

Farenthold denied the allegations. But after the settlement was revealed late last year Farenthold pledged to pay the money back. Last week, spokeswoman Stacey Daniels said that the congressman is now “waiting to see what changes the House makes to the Congressional Accountability Act before repaying the funds.”

Farenthold, now under investigation by the House Committee on Ethics, announced in December that he won’t run for re-election.

He’s among a half-dozen lawmakers who have been forced to resign or abandon their re-election campaigns amid allegations of sexual misconduct, as the #MeToo movement continues to roil Hollywood, the tech and media industries, and Capitol Hill.

“As I have stated from the beginning of this review, one case of sexual harassment is one case too many,” said Committee Chairman Gregg Harper, R-Miss., in a statement. Harper, who has been chairman since January of last year, announced last week that he isn’t running for re-election.

The process of filing discrimination complaints on Capitol Hill came under fire last year for being opaque and largely unknown, and for requiring staffers to sign a non-disclosure agreement in order to begin the process of mandatory mediation.

Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi said House lawmakers are expected to introduce a bill next week that will likely overhaul the process, making it more transparent.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/20/us/politics/patrick-meehan-sexual-harassment.html

Congressman Combating Harassment Settled His Own Misconduct Case

By Katie Rogers and Kenneth P. Vogel
New York Times
Jan. 20, 2018

WASHINGTON — Representative Patrick Meehan, a Pennsylvania Republican who has taken a leading role in fighting sexual harassment in Congress, used thousands of dollars in taxpayer money to settle his own misconduct complaint after a former aide accused him last year of making unwanted romantic overtures to her, according to several people familiar with the settlement.

[snip]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/1/20/16913546/meehan-settlement

Pennsylvania congressman who paid a former aide over misconduct says woman was his “soul mate”

Rep. Patrick Meehan reportedly paid a former aide thousands of dollars to settle a sexual misconduct case.

By Emily Stewart
Vox
Updated Jan 26, 2018, 9:59am EST

Rep. Patrick Meehan (R-PA) announced he will not seek reelection in 2018, after the explosive fallout from sexual harassment allegations against him from a former aide.

Meehan, who used taxpayer money to settle the sexual misconduct after the female staffer said he made unwanted romantic overtures to her, made things worse for himself this week when he said the woman “invited” his behavior and that she was his “soul mate” while at the same time denying misconduct.

Meehan initially said he would seek reelection but changed his mind this week. His decision could mean a tight 2018 race for Republicans in Pennsylvania’s Seventh District, in Philadelphia’s suburbs. Republicans have just a couple of months to come up with a replacement candidate before a March 6 deadline to submit petitions to appear on the state’s ballot.

[snip]

It is a faux criminalization in that there is no intent to ever test this nonsense at trial. It is the injection of bullshit into the judicial branch, much as the pee dossier was the injection of bought and paid for bullshit into the intelligence stream and then onward to the FISA court to support a baseless warrant.

Yes this is an attempt to make the insinuation/innuendo/guilty by association file overwhelmingly thick so it can "tried" to be used as a weapon.

But I think they've came to the conclusion that isn't going to do them any good so now they're just going to try to hurt those around Trump in a way he can't fight back. Hence the use of the NY court system where Trump can't use the power of the pardon. They want to hurt/chase away all of those who support him and hope he reacts in a way they can use to get to him. I think Trump sees Sessions (which makes you wonder why he recused himself, like maybe being paid off or has something hanging over his head that can be used against him??) as the cause of all of this so you have to wonder what he'll do to get rid of him and close the witch hunt down??

The left and their supporters have always been a pack of vindictive, lazy, childish little bitches so none of this surprises me and shouldn't surprise anybody else who follows politics to any extent. I also have no doubt they are planning & scheming at a way to get back at the "smelly Wal Mart" voters if they ever get back into power.

Truth isn't truth.

In the political world it's about as subjective as you can get.

Perjury is 18 U.S.C. § 1621, and that applies to statements made under oath.

Correct. And I'm saying that Mueller would put Trump under oath for their little tête-à-tête.

Even if Mueller didn't, he'd charge him with making false statements, subpoena him, put him under oath, then charge him with perjury.

In the political world it's about as subjective as you can get.

Subjective and selective. Many times we get the truth but only one side. If Trump raised taxes to help the poor, the headline would be, "Trump Raises Taxes".

And the MSM would claim they were truthful.