trump catch all & other scary political stuff - part 21

This is starting to get pretty hilarious. I’m pretty sure Mick Mulvaney doesn’t want the job, either. (I have to laugh because otherwise I’d be crying.)

Someone is watching Fox News..

”James Comey’s behind closed doors testimony reveals that “there was not evidence of Campaign Collusion” with Russia when he left the FBI. In other words, the Witch Hunt is illegal and should never have been started!”

”Former FBI Director James Comey under fire for his testimony acknowledging he knew that the Democrats paid for that phony Trump Dossier.” @loudobbs Details on Tuesday night.”

1.  The Steel Dossier has not been disproved.

2.  So what that the Democrats paid for opposition research?  I suspect if the “outside world” got a look at internal emails and memos of the GOP, like they did with the Democrats, you would find pretty much the same thing they are accusing the left of doing.

I apologize if my answer will equate to an essay, but it’s necessary for clarity.

Maybe to your first question, yes to your second, and unlikely to your third. I don’t know if you’ll recall this, but a few months ago he was interviewed by Fox (?) and he said the funds used were his own personal funds. (Actually his personal funds and Trump Org funds.) At that time, I said that he is beginning to set up a defense that since they were his private funds used, the payoffs had nothing to do with the campaign. AND even if it did, a candidate has no dollar limits as to how much he wants to put into his campaign.

Let me first say that there is nothing illegal about payoffs as far as nondisclosure agreements are concerned, and I have said as much many times on this board before. In fact, NDAs are usually created with inducements. The issue in Trump’s case was the intent. Did he do this because he did not want knowledge of the affairs to negatively affect his electability OR did he do this to spare his family, business reputation or the like?

If it’s the former, it is a campaign violation because of three reasons: (1) Cohen fronted the $130,000 to Daniels which exceeded the personal contribution limit by $127,300 EVEN if Trump reimbursed him; (2) the payoff to McDougal was through Trump Org and corporations are barred from making contributions to candidate committees; and (3) neither was reported in FEC filings. And Trump is implicated if it is true that he directed Cohen to do all this.

However, if it’s the latter, none of these matter because they are not campaign-related. I don’t know if Mueller has evidence of intent, but one of the reasons campaign finance violations are difficult to prosecute is because of the high bar of proving intent (that’s exactly what happened in the Edwards case). In criminal prosecution, the standard of ‘knowingly and willfully’ has to be met.

Having said all that, the “roadblock” to an indictment of Trump while in office is not whatever defense he has for this alleged crime; the roadblock is the fact that DOJ has longstanding rules that sitting presidents cannot be indicted. In the Office of Legal Counsel’s memos, the preferred mechanism for remedy is impeachment.

BUT (because there’s always a but)…if Mueller has evidence of a crime by the president, he can ask the AG to excuse him from adherence to the DOJ rule and allow him to indict. The statute that governs the Special Counsel’s conduct and accountability provides that ability: "Should the Special Counsel conclude that the extraordinary circumstances of any particular decision would render compliance with required review and approval procedures by the designated Departmental component inappropriate, he or she may consult directly with the Attorney General."  The “extraordinary circumstances” could include, but not be limited to: (1) current political climate of hyperpartisanship that would preclude the Senate from voting for impeachment; (2) the continuance of criminal acts absent indictment; and (3) the possibility of running out the clock on the statute of limitations. Then it’s up to the AG whether he agrees or not. As to whether Mueller would do this or the AG would agree, no one knows. But it’s a feasible alternative. It’ll be a battle royale between the two sides, of course, but it will finally settle this issue once and for all.

Lawyers’ bills are what’s scaring these people.

Actually all three would apply!