Impeachment

[Dos Equis]

L.A. Mayor Eric Garcetti, 2020 Presidential Contender: Impeach Trump!
24 Aug 2018

Los Angeles mayor Eric Garcetti, who is considering a run for president on the Democratic Party ticket in 2020, says that it is now time to talk about impeaching President Donald Trump.

Celebrity news TMZ caught up with Garcetti on the streets of the city this week and asked him if it was time to consider impeaching Trump, following the guilty plea of his former attorney, Michael Cohen, for campaign finance violations.

“I think it’s time to start talking about that, absolutely. We have a president who said, ‘I knew nothing,’ while he was on Air Force One, and who just yesterday said, ‘Of course I knew about it, and it’s not an offense.’ Gotta get your story straight.”
 
Garcetti continued: “Often times, it’s not even the offense, it’s the cover-up. And, you know, I think this is something that should inform people in November at the ballot. We don’t want a liar. We want somebody who can shoot straight [and] tell the truth.”

Asked whether Democrats should avoid the issue of impeachment during the 2018 campaign, Garcetti disagreed.

“It think it’s finally something big enough that we should talk about it.”

Garcetti added that if he were elected president, he would not pardon Trump.

Garcetti has been visiting key primary states, including Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. Critics say, however, that he has failed to deal with the homeless crisis in L.A.
 
On Thursday, the Los Angeles Times reports, an synagogue that was damaged in last year’s Skirball fire sued the City of Los Angeles, alleging that it failed to clear out a homeless encampment nearby, where the fire started.

https://www.breitbart.com/california/2018/08/24/l-a-mayor-eric-garcetti-2020-presidential-contender-impeach-trump/

[Dos Equis]

If there ever is a serious plan to impeach Trump, they better have all their ducks in a row because I've heard you only get one shot at it.

In times past when the crowd didn't like a performer they'd through rotten fruit at them. Do you suppose this is where the term impeach came from? 

Keep in mind it is a two-step process:  majority of the House must vote to impeach and, following a trial, two thirds of the Senate must vote to remove.  Never going to happen based on everything we know to do date, with the biggest problem being the lack of an impeachable offense. 

[Straw Man]

Keep in mind it is a two-step process:  majority of the House must vote to impeach and, following a trial, two thirds of the Senate must vote to remove.  Never going to happen based on everything we know to do date, with the biggest problem being the lack of an impeachable offense.  

LOL - If Trump were a Democrat he would have been impeached 8 months ago

Trump has already committed obstruction of justice and witness intimidation multiple times and in public

We can ignore all that and just look at Trump pathetic performance in Helsinki which at the very least is dereliction of duty

Here is Lindsey Graham explaining the grounds for impeachment in 1999

"You don’t even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic. If this body determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role. Because impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office."

[Dos Equis]

Are you speculating or do you really know there is no impeachable offense now or in the future?  Anyway, why are you telling me this. Didn't I as much as say impeachment is unlikely?

I didn't say anything about the future.  What said was "Never going to happen based on everything we know to do date, with the biggest problem being the lack of an impeachable offense."

We are saying impeachment is unlikely for different reasons.  I'm saying it's unlikely for two reasons:  (1) he hasn't committed an impeachable offense and (2) the makeup of Congress makes it all but impossible, because even if Democrats retake the House and Senate, they will not have enough in the Senate to remove him.  

[Dos Equis]

Okay. Gotta go now, it's time for my nap. 

lol   

[Straw Man]

I didn't say anything about the future.  What said was "Never going to happen based on everything we know to do date, with the biggest problem being the lack of an impeachable offense."

We are saying impeachment is unlikely for different reasons.  I'm saying it's unlikely for two reasons:  (1) he hasn't committed an impeachable offense and (2) the makeup of Congress makes it all but impossible, because even if Democrats retake the House and Senate, they will not have enough in the Senate to remove him.  

an impeachable offense is whatever Congress says it is

As we know Republican have two drastically different standards for what that is depending on whether you're a Republican or a Democrat

If a Democrat had done all the stuff Trump has done he/she would have been long gone by now and we'd have a whole bunch of recent videos of Republicans making passionate speeches about having to cleanse the office and return dignity to the office, etc..

[chaos]

I didn't say anything about the future.  What said was "Never going to happen based on everything we know to do date, with the biggest problem being the lack of an impeachable offense."

We are saying impeachment is unlikely for different reasons.  I'm saying it's unlikely for two reasons:  (1) he hasn't committed an impeachable offense and (2) the makeup of Congress makes it all but impossible, because even if Democrats retake the House and Senate, they will not have enough in the Senate to remove him.  

But he says mean things!!!

[polychronopolous]

an impeachable offense is whatever Congress says it is

As we know Republican have two drastically different standards for what that is depending on whether you're a Republican or a Democrat

If a Democrat had done all the stuff Trump has done he/she would have been long gone by now and we'd have a whole bunch of recent videos of Republicans making passionate speeches about having to cleanse the office and return dignity to the office, etc..

You people should come up with a coherent message.

Even the Democrat Party at large is getting sniped daily from a growing movement on the further left.

A complete cluster fuck the Democratic Party has become.

[Dos Equis]

But he says mean things!!!

Right? 

[Dos Equis]

You people should come up with a coherent message.

Even the Democrat Party at large is getting sniped daily from a growing movement on the further left.

A complete cluster fuck the Democratic Party has become.

Good luck with that.  lol

[Dos Equis]

Former election commissioner: Cohen and Trump didn't violate campaign finance law
By Hans A. von Spakovsky | Fox News

President Trump's former personal attorney Michael Cohen receives 36 months in prison for tax evasion, making false statements and campaign finance violations; chief intelligence correspondent Catherine Herridge reports.

Trump-haters hoping the president’s former personal attorney, Michael Cohen, will provide the evidence needed to impeach the president and perhaps even “lock him up” are likely headed for a bitter disappointment. The Cohen guilty pleas are likely irrelevant to the fate of President Trump.

That’s because in my judgment – as someone who served for two years as a member of the Federal Election Commission – the campaign finance law violations Cohen pleaded guilty to committing, allegedly at Donald Trump’s direction, aren’t really violations.

If I’m right – that is, if Cohen didn’t really violate campaign finance law, despite his ill-advised guilty plea – then it would be impossible for Trump to have violated campaign finance law by directing Cohen to take a perfectly legal action.

Confused? That’s understandable, because the media lump all the charges Cohen pleaded guilty to together when explaining this complex case. But in reality, Cohen was sentenced Wednesday in U.S. District Court in New York City on several separate and unrelated charges.

Cohen was sentenced to three years in prison by a federal judge and was also ordered to pay almost $2 million in fines, restitution and forfeitures after earlier pleading guilty to multiple counts of business and tax fraud. Those crimes have absolutely nothing to do with Trump, but rather involve Cohen’s own business dealings.

In addition, Cohen was sentenced on his guilty pleas to violating campaign finance law on Trump’s behalf – an action that, as I will explain, I believe was not really a crime at all.

And finally, Cohen’s sentence included punishment for his guilty plea to making false statements to Congress regarding failed efforts to build a Trump Tower in Moscow.

The applicable federal sentencing guidelines for the crimes Cohen pleaded guilty to call for a prison sentence ranging from just over four years to just over five years.

If I’m right – that is, if Cohen didn’t really violate campaign finance law, despite his ill-advised guilty plea – then it would be impossible for Trump to have violated campaign finance law by directing Cohen to take a perfectly legal action.

But federal prosecutors in New York City said Cohen should receive some credit for his limited cooperation with Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who is investigating whether the Trump presidential campaign illegally conspired with Russia to help elect Donald Trump president.

The president has frequently stated that there was “no collusion” between his campaign or him and Russia. He has denied any misconduct on his part, calling the Mueller probe a “witch hunt” by “angry Democrats.”

It’s critically important to understand that the crimes Cohen was sentenced for Wednesday have not revealed any evidence relevant to the allegations of possible Trump campaign-Russia collusion that Mueller was appointed to investigate.

Cohen’s guilty plea to lying to Congress concerned his account of negotiations on behalf of the Trump organization to build a marquee property in Moscow – a deal Trump has been working on for 30 years, albeit unsuccessfully.

Cohen originally said those negotiations ended in January 2016 and did not involve members of the Trump Organization – including Donald Trump. But he now says the negotiations ended in June 2016 and that members of the Trump Organization – including then-presidential candidate Trump – were briefed on the talks.

Because Cohen lied to Congress, he is now paying the price for doing so, as he should. The real estate negotiations for a Trump Tower in Russia were perfectly legal, although the timing could have proven embarrassing to Trump’s presidential campaign.

Cohen would not have been pleading guilty in federal court on this real estate negotiation if he had simply told the truth. There are reports that Cohen had contact with high-level political officials in Moscow, including a representative of President Vladimir Putin’s press secretary, and the Trump Organization may have planned to offer Putin a $50 million penthouse in the Moscow property.

Was the 2016 election discussed in any of those meetings and did Russian officials obtain some kind of leverage against Trump through this real estate deal that was discussed but never came to fruition?

We don’t know, but there hasn’t been any information released publicly in the Cohen case (or any other case) that provides any insight into what happened at those meetings other than discussions of the real estate deal.

But now to the most important charge as far as President Trump is concerned: the campaign finance violation that Cohen pleaded guilty to.

Many campaign finance law experts and fellow former commissioners of the Federal Election Commission agree with me that Cohen’s did not commit an actual violation of federal law.

Cohen has stated he arranged hush-money payments to two women – adult-film actress Stormy Daniels and Playboy model Karen McDougal – to not make public their unproven allegations of extramarital affairs with Donald Trump years ago. Trump has denied the allegations.

It’s my belief as a former Federal Election Commission member that such payments were not “campaign-related” – and therefore the rules and regulations governing campaign contributions don’t apply.

In fact, the only time the Justice Department has ever tried to make such a claim before – against former Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina – the Justice Department lost.

Furthermore, the Federal Election Commission – an independent federal agency responsible for civil enforcement of campaign finance law – didn’t consider the hush-money donations to the Edwards campaign to be campaign-related expenditures when it audited the Edwards campaign.

The bottom line: Cohen was “persuaded” to plead guilty to an action that was not an actual violation of the law.

Convicting Donald Trump of a criminal campaign finance violation will be extremely difficult, if not impossible. Just as Edwards was found not guilty, the same is likely to happen to President Trump if he is charged while he is president or after he leaves the White House.

As for the claim the hush-money payments would be an impeachable offense, members of Congress would have to explain why prior cases in which campaigns like that of Barack Obama paid civil penalties to the Federal Election Commission for violations of federal campaign finance law were not grounds for impeachment.

It certainly is possible that Cohen and others have provided some kind of evidence to Mueller that will prove that the Trump campaign somehow colluded with Russian officials. But if so, this evidence has not yet been publicly revealed.

In sentencing Cohen, U.S. District Judge William H. Pauley agreed with the prosecution’s claims that Cohen was motivated by “personal greed and ambition.”

But nothing in the charges Cohen pleaded guilty to provides any evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government to affect the outcome of the 2016 election, or that Trump violated campaign finance law. And even Trump’s bitterest opponents don’t claim he had any role in Cohen’s taxi business.

So while the headlines blare and Trump opponents line up on TV to say the Cohen plea could mean future criminal charges against President Trump and serve as grounds for impeachment, don’t be so sure.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/former-election-commissioner-cohen-and-trump-didnt-violate-campaign-finance-law

[Dos Equis]

Why Democrats Would Be Insane To Impeach Donald Trump
After his impeachment for lying about an affair, Bill Clinton's approval rating hit 73 percent. This should be a warning to Democrats.
By David Marcus
DECEMBER 11, 2018

When the dust settled from the impeachment of President Bill Clinton in 1999, his approval rating sat at an astounding 73 percent. That’s a note of caution to Democrats who believe that, having taken the House of Representatives, they should impeach Donald Trump.

The situation and times are not completely analogous, of course. Trump would probably be lucky to hit 73 percent approval in his own White House. But there are enough comparisons for this historical note to give Democrats serious pause.

The current calls for impeachment stem from U.S. prosecutors’ allegation that Trump directed his former attorney, Michael Cohen, to pay hush money to mistresses in what they say was a violation of campaign finance law. Assuming for a moment (although legal scholars disagree on this) that Trump did commit a campaign finance violation, or even a crime. Democrats, including likely incoming House Judiciary Committee Chair Jerry Nadler, say it would be sufficient grounds for impeachment.

But in the same breath, on a Sunday news show Nadler also said even if there is an impeachable offense, it doesn’t mean impeachment is a good idea. This brings us back to the Clinton comparison. Like Trump, Clinton’s troubles began with having a difficult time keeping his pants on. Also like Trump, lying about and trying to obfuscate an illicit tryst was eventually the high crime or misdemeanor that Republicans in the House in 1998 latched onto.

It is now, and was then, abundantly clear that Clinton lied about his affair with Monica Lewinski. Notwithstanding his “What does ‘is’ mean” argument, he almost certainly committed perjury. So what happened? How did his impeachment and eventual Senate acquittal balloon his approval to one of the highest levels ever measured?

The simplest answer is that while the American people did not believe Clinton, they also did not believe he had acted badly enough for Congress to overturn the results of a free and fair presidential election.

Impeachment Is Overreach
That potential for voters to see impeachment of Trump as an overreach must weigh very heavily on the minds of congressional Democrats even while many in their base demand the action. Assuming this alleged campaign finance violation is the basis of the impeachment, Democrats would be saying to voters, “He had affairs and paid hush money without reporting it because he was worried it would hurt his election chances.”

Let’s think about this for a minute. The thrice-married Trump, who has been known to boast about adultery like a suburban dad who won the best lawn in the neighborhood award, apparently had sex with a porn star and a Playboy playmate. That seems about par for his course. But wait! He lied about it! Well, yeah, also pretty much behavior we knew about and expected. But there’s more! He might have violated campaign finance law! Okay, but so do a lot of campaigns. Usually they pay a fine and we all move along.

House Democrats, who know their chances of a Senate conviction on such charges fall somewhere between zero and zero, would presumably bring up articles of impeachment to hurt the president politically. But what if, as happened with Clinton, that which does not kill Trump makes him stronger?

The 2020 Trump Narrative
If Democrats spend some big chunk of time trying to impeach Trump between now and the 2020 election, they will be giving his campaign exactly the narrative it wants to run on. Counterpunching Trump would like nothing more than to tell crowd after crowd at rally after rally that the angry Democrats on the elitist coasts and their friends in the deep state are attempting a coup. That even though the good, hardworking people in forgotten America elected him, they are trying to take it away. And he won’t let it happen. He will fight back.

This fight plays to Trump’s brand arguably even better than it did to Clinton’s, who managed to turn his infidelity into a vast, right-wing conspiracy. The key for Clinton was that those who hated him hated him and those who loved him loved him, but those in the middle rolled their eyes and said, “Really? For this you want to overturn an election?” Now, far fewer people have no strong feelings about Trump than did people with no strong feelings about Clinton, but they do exist, and they matter immensely.

Any attempt by Democrats to reverse the results of a presidential election on such a flimsy basis might very well push opinion into the arms of Trump just as it did for Clinton 20 years ago. By all means, conduct investigations, file subpoenas, shake your heads with dour faces and ask How can this man be president? Don’t we need and deserve better? But they should not, if they know what’s good for them, plunge the nation into its third impeachment battle.

Mission and Ctrategy
A core principle the U.S. Army teaches commanders is that strategy must be a slave to the mission. When comparing specific strategies the question is not which will most likely be successful, but which will best serve the overall mission. Clearly, the Democrats have one mission right now: to ensure that in January of 2021, someone other than Trump is inaugurated president.

In the short term, a strategy of impeachment looks attractive. It will tie the White House up in knots, it will create a few superstar House Democrats who would use their moment in the committee sun the way senators Kamala Harris and Cory Booker did during the Kavanaugh hearings. It would set the White House on its back foot and likely turn the next two years into a lame-duck presidency. But then what?

Trump’s eventual and almost certain acquittal in the Senate would be just as much a victory for him as it was for Bill Clinton. The Democrats, including presidential hopefuls, who supported it would be roundly embarrassed by having wasted the nation’s time, money, and attention tilting at an impossible windmill.

This is not a close call. If at some point Robert Mueller, CNN, or the Washington Post discover some crime that even Senate Republicans admit is disqualifying for Trump’s presidency, then by all means, impeach him. Nothing we have seen so far suggests that such a contingency is particularly likely. For the sake of the country’s sanity, and their own political chances, the Democrats should holster their impeachment pistol and worry about explaining to Americans why one of them, not Trump, should be president of the United States.

https://thefederalist.com/2018/12/11/why-democrats-would-be-insane-to-impeach-donald-trump/

[Grape Ape]

Why Democrats Would Be Insane To Impeach Donald Trump
After his impeachment for lying about an affair, Bill Clinton's approval rating hit 73 percent. This should be a warning to Democrats.
By David Marcus
DECEMBER 11, 2018

When the dust settled from the impeachment of President Bill Clinton in 1999, his approval rating sat at an astounding 73 percent. That’s a note of caution to Democrats who believe that, having taken the House of Representatives, they should impeach Donald Trump.

The situation and times are not completely analogous, of course. Trump would probably be lucky to hit 73 percent approval in his own White House. But there are enough comparisons for this historical note to give Democrats serious pause.

The current calls for impeachment stem from U.S. prosecutors’ allegation that Trump directed his former attorney, Michael Cohen, to pay hush money to mistresses in what they say was a violation of campaign finance law. Assuming for a moment (although legal scholars disagree on this) that Trump did commit a campaign finance violation, or even a crime. Democrats, including likely incoming House Judiciary Committee Chair Jerry Nadler, say it would be sufficient grounds for impeachment.

But in the same breath, on a Sunday news show Nadler also said even if there is an impeachable offense, it doesn’t mean impeachment is a good idea. This brings us back to the Clinton comparison. Like Trump, Clinton’s troubles began with having a difficult time keeping his pants on. Also like Trump, lying about and trying to obfuscate an illicit tryst was eventually the high crime or misdemeanor that Republicans in the House in 1998 latched onto.

It is now, and was then, abundantly clear that Clinton lied about his affair with Monica Lewinski. Notwithstanding his “What does ‘is’ mean” argument, he almost certainly committed perjury. So what happened? How did his impeachment and eventual Senate acquittal balloon his approval to one of the highest levels ever measured?

The simplest answer is that while the American people did not believe Clinton, they also did not believe he had acted badly enough for Congress to overturn the results of a free and fair presidential election.

Impeachment Is Overreach
That potential for voters to see impeachment of Trump as an overreach must weigh very heavily on the minds of congressional Democrats even while many in their base demand the action. Assuming this alleged campaign finance violation is the basis of the impeachment, Democrats would be saying to voters, “He had affairs and paid hush money without reporting it because he was worried it would hurt his election chances.”

Let’s think about this for a minute. The thrice-married Trump, who has been known to boast about adultery like a suburban dad who won the best lawn in the neighborhood award, apparently had sex with a porn star and a Playboy playmate. That seems about par for his course. But wait! He lied about it! Well, yeah, also pretty much behavior we knew about and expected. But there’s more! He might have violated campaign finance law! Okay, but so do a lot of campaigns. Usually they pay a fine and we all move along.

House Democrats, who know their chances of a Senate conviction on such charges fall somewhere between zero and zero, would presumably bring up articles of impeachment to hurt the president politically. But what if, as happened with Clinton, that which does not kill Trump makes him stronger?

The 2020 Trump Narrative
If Democrats spend some big chunk of time trying to impeach Trump between now and the 2020 election, they will be giving his campaign exactly the narrative it wants to run on. Counterpunching Trump would like nothing more than to tell crowd after crowd at rally after rally that the angry Democrats on the elitist coasts and their friends in the deep state are attempting a coup. That even though the good, hardworking people in forgotten America elected him, they are trying to take it away. And he won’t let it happen. He will fight back.

This fight plays to Trump’s brand arguably even better than it did to Clinton’s, who managed to turn his infidelity into a vast, right-wing conspiracy. The key for Clinton was that those who hated him hated him and those who loved him loved him, but those in the middle rolled their eyes and said, “Really? For this you want to overturn an election?” Now, far fewer people have no strong feelings about Trump than did people with no strong feelings about Clinton, but they do exist, and they matter immensely.

Any attempt by Democrats to reverse the results of a presidential election on such a flimsy basis might very well push opinion into the arms of Trump just as it did for Clinton 20 years ago. By all means, conduct investigations, file subpoenas, shake your heads with dour faces and ask How can this man be president? Don’t we need and deserve better? But they should not, if they know what’s good for them, plunge the nation into its third impeachment battle.

Mission and Ctrategy
A core principle the U.S. Army teaches commanders is that strategy must be a slave to the mission. When comparing specific strategies the question is not which will most likely be successful, but which will best serve the overall mission. Clearly, the Democrats have one mission right now: to ensure that in January of 2021, someone other than Trump is inaugurated president.

In the short term, a strategy of impeachment looks attractive. It will tie the White House up in knots, it will create a few superstar House Democrats who would use their moment in the committee sun the way senators Kamala Harris and Cory Booker did during the Kavanaugh hearings. It would set the White House on its back foot and likely turn the next two years into a lame-duck presidency. But then what?

Trump’s eventual and almost certain acquittal in the Senate would be just as much a victory for him as it was for Bill Clinton. The Democrats, including presidential hopefuls, who supported it would be roundly embarrassed by having wasted the nation’s time, money, and attention tilting at an impossible windmill.

This is not a close call. If at some point Robert Mueller, CNN, or the Washington Post discover some crime that even Senate Republicans admit is disqualifying for Trump’s presidency, then by all means, impeach him. Nothing we have seen so far suggests that such a contingency is particularly likely. For the sake of the country’s sanity, and their own political chances, the Democrats should holster their impeachment pistol and worry about explaining to Americans why one of them, not Trump, should be president of the United States.

https://thefederalist.com/2018/12/11/why-democrats-would-be-insane-to-impeach-donald-trump/

This is all true.

However, the real reason they should not do it is because of the damage it will do the country.  If they think it's divided now, it will become moreso, as his base will become rabid, which will lead to even greater partisainship for the next President.

Democrats would be better off finding a younger, more moderate, smart candidate who independents can identify with that can win the election on a platform other that "not Trump".

They need to just ride out Trump's next two years and hope they can do this.  To continue on the course of Full TDS will cause them to lose again (provided the economy is still strong).

[Dos Equis]

This is all true.

However, the real reason they should not do it is because of the damage it will do the country.  If they think it's divided now, it will become moreso, as his base will become rabid, which will lead to even greater partisainship for the next President.

Democrats would be better off finding a younger, more moderate, smart candidate who independents can identify with that can win the election on a platform other that "not Trump".

They need to just ride out Trump's next two years and hope they can do this.  To continue on the course of Full TDS will cause them to lose again (provided the economy is still strong).

This is sound and reasonable.  I just think we've already gone over the cliff in terms of division in the country.  Just look at what we did to Kavanaugh.  We accused a man who led an exemplary life of gang rape for political purposes.  And the attacks on Trump are the worst I have ever seen.  There is violence, intimidation, and vote shaming by people on the left.  The only way it gets worse is if people start getting killed, which is possible. 

And look at the younger people Democrats are uplifting:  Beto, Ocasio-Cortez, Harris, Booker.  They are all socialists who will not appeal to independents. 

Overall, I think we are screwed from a social and togetherness standpoint.  The culture war is on and I don't know how or when it stops.    

[OzmO]

This is sound and reasonable.  I just think we've already gone over the cliff in terms of division in the country.  Just look at what we did to Kavanaugh.  We accused a man who led an exemplary life of gang rape for political purposes.  And the attacks on Trump are the worst I have ever seen.  There is violence, intimidation, and vote shaming by people on the left.  The only way it gets worse is if people start getting killed, which is possible. 

And look at the younger people Democrats are uplifting:  Beto, Ocasio-Cortez, Harris, Booker.  They are all socialists who will not appeal to independents. 

Overall, I think we are screwed from a social and togetherness standpoint.  The culture war is on and I don't know how or when it stops.    

I agree.  It's unfortunate and even a war or economic disaster might not get us unpolarized again.  Impeaching Trump for campaign violations will only divide us more.  Impeaching for treason, or whatever with Russia if it were ever proven true, may not. 

[Dos Equis]

I agree.  It's unfortunate and even a war or economic disaster might not get us unpolarized again.  Impeaching Trump for campaign violations will only divide us more.  Impeaching for treason, or whatever with Russia if it were ever proven true, may not. 

And we have to keep in mind that it's a two-step process:  impeachment by the House and removal by the Senate.  They need about 20 or so Republicans to remove him after a trial in the Senate.  Never going to happen. 

[lilhawk1]

Former election commissioner: Cohen and Trump didn't violate campaign finance law
By Hans A. von Spakovsky | Fox News

President Trump's former personal attorney Michael Cohen receives 36 months in prison for tax evasion, making false statements and campaign finance violations; chief intelligence correspondent Catherine Herridge reports.

Trump-haters hoping the president’s former personal attorney, Michael Cohen, will provide the evidence needed to impeach the president and perhaps even “lock him up” are likely headed for a bitter disappointment. The Cohen guilty pleas are likely irrelevant to the fate of President Trump.

That’s because in my judgment – as someone who served for two years as a member of the Federal Election Commission – the campaign finance law violations Cohen pleaded guilty to committing, allegedly at Donald Trump’s direction, aren’t really violations.

If I’m right – that is, if Cohen didn’t really violate campaign finance law, despite his ill-advised guilty plea – then it would be impossible for Trump to have violated campaign finance law by directing Cohen to take a perfectly legal action.

Confused? That’s understandable, because the media lump all the charges Cohen pleaded guilty to together when explaining this complex case. But in reality, Cohen was sentenced Wednesday in U.S. District Court in New York City on several separate and unrelated charges.

Cohen was sentenced to three years in prison by a federal judge and was also ordered to pay almost $2 million in fines, restitution and forfeitures after earlier pleading guilty to multiple counts of business and tax fraud. Those crimes have absolutely nothing to do with Trump, but rather involve Cohen’s own business dealings.

In addition, Cohen was sentenced on his guilty pleas to violating campaign finance law on Trump’s behalf – an action that, as I will explain, I believe was not really a crime at all.

And finally, Cohen’s sentence included punishment for his guilty plea to making false statements to Congress regarding failed efforts to build a Trump Tower in Moscow.

The applicable federal sentencing guidelines for the crimes Cohen pleaded guilty to call for a prison sentence ranging from just over four years to just over five years.

If I’m right – that is, if Cohen didn’t really violate campaign finance law, despite his ill-advised guilty plea – then it would be impossible for Trump to have violated campaign finance law by directing Cohen to take a perfectly legal action.

But federal prosecutors in New York City said Cohen should receive some credit for his limited cooperation with Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who is investigating whether the Trump presidential campaign illegally conspired with Russia to help elect Donald Trump president.

The president has frequently stated that there was “no collusion” between his campaign or him and Russia. He has denied any misconduct on his part, calling the Mueller probe a “witch hunt” by “angry Democrats.”

It’s critically important to understand that the crimes Cohen was sentenced for Wednesday have not revealed any evidence relevant to the allegations of possible Trump campaign-Russia collusion that Mueller was appointed to investigate.

Cohen’s guilty plea to lying to Congress concerned his account of negotiations on behalf of the Trump organization to build a marquee property in Moscow – a deal Trump has been working on for 30 years, albeit unsuccessfully.

Cohen originally said those negotiations ended in January 2016 and did not involve members of the Trump Organization – including Donald Trump. But he now says the negotiations ended in June 2016 and that members of the Trump Organization – including then-presidential candidate Trump – were briefed on the talks.

Because Cohen lied to Congress, he is now paying the price for doing so, as he should. The real estate negotiations for a Trump Tower in Russia were perfectly legal, although the timing could have proven embarrassing to Trump’s presidential campaign.

Cohen would not have been pleading guilty in federal court on this real estate negotiation if he had simply told the truth. There are reports that Cohen had contact with high-level political officials in Moscow, including a representative of President Vladimir Putin’s press secretary, and the Trump Organization may have planned to offer Putin a $50 million penthouse in the Moscow property.

Was the 2016 election discussed in any of those meetings and did Russian officials obtain some kind of leverage against Trump through this real estate deal that was discussed but never came to fruition?

We don’t know, but there hasn’t been any information released publicly in the Cohen case (or any other case) that provides any insight into what happened at those meetings other than discussions of the real estate deal.

But now to the most important charge as far as President Trump is concerned: the campaign finance violation that Cohen pleaded guilty to.

Many campaign finance law experts and fellow former commissioners of the Federal Election Commission agree with me that Cohen’s did not commit an actual violation of federal law.

Cohen has stated he arranged hush-money payments to two women – adult-film actress Stormy Daniels and Playboy model Karen McDougal – to not make public their unproven allegations of extramarital affairs with Donald Trump years ago. Trump has denied the allegations.

It’s my belief as a former Federal Election Commission member that such payments were not “campaign-related” – and therefore the rules and regulations governing campaign contributions don’t apply.

In fact, the only time the Justice Department has ever tried to make such a claim before – against former Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina – the Justice Department lost.

Furthermore, the Federal Election Commission – an independent federal agency responsible for civil enforcement of campaign finance law – didn’t consider the hush-money donations to the Edwards campaign to be campaign-related expenditures when it audited the Edwards campaign.

The bottom line: Cohen was “persuaded” to plead guilty to an action that was not an actual violation of the law.

Convicting Donald Trump of a criminal campaign finance violation will be extremely difficult, if not impossible. Just as Edwards was found not guilty, the same is likely to happen to President Trump if he is charged while he is president or after he leaves the White House.

As for the claim the hush-money payments would be an impeachable offense, members of Congress would have to explain why prior cases in which campaigns like that of Barack Obama paid civil penalties to the Federal Election Commission for violations of federal campaign finance law were not grounds for impeachment.

It certainly is possible that Cohen and others have provided some kind of evidence to Mueller that will prove that the Trump campaign somehow colluded with Russian officials. But if so, this evidence has not yet been publicly revealed.

In sentencing Cohen, U.S. District Judge William H. Pauley agreed with the prosecution’s claims that Cohen was motivated by “personal greed and ambition.”

But nothing in the charges Cohen pleaded guilty to provides any evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government to affect the outcome of the 2016 election, or that Trump violated campaign finance law. And even Trump’s bitterest opponents don’t claim he had any role in Cohen’s taxi business.

So while the headlines blare and Trump opponents line up on TV to say the Cohen plea could mean future criminal charges against President Trump and serve as grounds for impeachment, don’t be so sure.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/former-election-commissioner-cohen-and-trump-didnt-violate-campaign-finance-law

Fox News.  Says it all. 

[lilhawk1]

This is sound and reasonable.  I just think we've already gone over the cliff in terms of division in the country.  Just look at what we did to Kavanaugh.  We accused a man who led an exemplary life of gang rape for political purposes.  And the attacks on Trump are the worst I have ever seen.  There is violence, intimidation, and vote shaming by people on the left.  The only way it gets worse is if people start getting killed, which is possible. 

And look at the younger people Democrats are uplifting:  Beto, Ocasio-Cortez, Harris, Booker.  They are all socialists who will not appeal to independents. 

Overall, I think we are screwed from a social and togetherness standpoint.  The culture war is on and I don't know how or when it stops.    

This is how you view, and interpret things?  You need help.

[Dos Equis]

Fox News.  Says it all. 

It's not a Fox News article.  lol 

Do you know who the author is?  Google him and find out.   

[Dos Equis]

This is how you view, and interpret things?  You need help.

 

[mazrim]

Fox News.  Says it all. 

^

Complete airhead

[Dos Equis]

These people are crazy.

The Inevitability of Impeachment
ELIZABETH DREW
https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/world/the-inevitability-of-impeachment/ar-BBRwwiF

[Straw Man]

I think Congress should ignore all Trump potential crimes for now and let Mueller finish his investigation (and certainly Congress can continue to document Trumps public crimes like attempting to tamper or  influence the testimony of witnesses, obstruction of justice, etc..)

Instead they should impeach him for dereliction of duty.   A big part of his job it to staff OUR GOVERNMENT.
After almost 2 years in office most of Trumps goverment is still understaffed.  

WTF is the problem here.  Trump claims everyone wants to work with him (another observably false statement) so how about filling these jobs.

And if he wants a wall built all he has to do it get Mexico to pay for it.   Just like he said hundreds of times when running for office.

At the very least Trumptards should be able to understand this simple concept given that many of them were chanting this at his idiotic rallies

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-administration-appointee-tracker/database/?utm_term=.071646a75ab8

Note our "tough of crime" POTUS has staffed less then 50% of the key positions at the Justice Department and the State Department.  I guess it's a good thing we don't have any pressing issues with North Korea, Iran, Russia, Syria, Saudi Arabia etc....that would require a fully staffed State Department.   Given all the times Trumps idiotic Executive Orders are challenged in court you'd think he would at least want to staff up the Department of Justice.

It's almost like he doesn't give a shit about the country and think he's a king who just makes decrees and everyone  should just follow along. 

[Soul Crusher]

I think Congress should ignore all Trump potential crimes for now and let Mueller finish his investigation (and certainly Congress can continue to document Trumps public crimes like attempting to tamper or  influence the testimony of witnesses, obstruction of justice, etc..)

Instead they should impeach him for dereliction of duty.   A big part of his job it to staff OUR GOVERNMENT.
After almost 2 years in office most of Trumps goverment is still understaffed.  

WTF is the problem here.  Trump claims everyone wants to work with him (another observably false statement) so how about filling these jobs.

And if he wants a wall built all he has to do it get Mexico to pay for it.   Just like he said hundreds of times when running for office.

At the very least Trumptards should be able to understand this simple concept given that many of them were chanting this at his idiotic rallies

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-administration-appointee-tracker/database/?utm_term=.071646a75ab8

Note our "tough of crime" POTUS has staffed less then 50% of the key positions at the Justice Department and the State Department.  I guess it's a good thing we don't have any pressing issues with North Korea, Iran, Russia, Syria, Saudi Arabia etc....that would require a fully staffed State Department.   Given all the times Trumps idiotic Executive Orders are challenged in court you'd think he would at least want to staff up the Department of Justice.

It's almost like he doesn't give a shit about the country and think he's a king who just makes decrees and everyone  should just follow along. 

Why don't you apply for a job yourself if you are so concerned with staffing in the Federal Govt?

[chaos]

Why don't you apply for a job yourself if you are so concerned with staffing in the Federal Govt?

He's not, in typical liberal fashion, he just wants to complain about Trump. You didn't see him crying when his hero Obama had metal fences thrown up around federal monuments when he shut down the government did you? It's almost like Obama thought metal fences would keep people out of these federal monuments.