Time to fire Mueller, Rosenstein, Sessions...

a reply to: Bicent

Dude. YOU may not have evidence, but the fact that this raid occurred means that the Justice Department has strong evidence that Cohen committed a crime. So SOMETHING is up. It remains to be seen what, but pretending like this investigation is going nowhere still is rather dumb and a huge display of cognitive dissonance (well that was already the case since a number of Trump cronies are going to jail already as a result of the investigations into Trump). It's so funny how people such as yourself pretend like the available public evidence is somehow the same as the stuff that hasn't been released.

originally posted by: Stevenjames15
a reply to: JBurns

Wouldn't bother me one bit. I have nothing to hide. Only those that do hide from it.

Oh, wonderful... this pile of horsecrap has resurrected itself from the Bush Era Patriot Act zombies.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: shooterbrody


Thanks for the link, now I'm curious to know who the 'federal judge' happens to be.

I agree.
I wonder why the push for this now when they knew about the payments from the WSJ in January?

a reply to: JBurns

He doesn't need to fire anyone but Sessions, really.

That aside, I'd actually rather see him issue an immediate pardon to Cohen, slapping an "Attourney Client privilege with executive privilege added in for good measure" qualifier on the pardon. Mueller would be hogtied and, legally and logically speaking, there's not a damn thing anyone could do against Trump for the move except sit on it and like it.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
It's so funny how people such as yourself pretend like the available public evidence is somehow the same as the stuff that hasn't been released.

and the wind whispers... Benghazi. Benghaziiiii

a reply to: burdman30ott6

That aside, I'd actually rather see him issue an immediate pardon to Cohen, slapping an "Attourney Client privilege with executive privilege added in for good measure" qualifier on the pardon. Mueller would be hogtied and, legally and logically speaking, there's not a damn thing anyone could do against Trump for the move except sit on it and like it.

That is a much better move than firing anyone.

a reply to: Bicent

ummm.... anyone of us and all it would take probably would be a neighbor telling a story or us looking at a cop the wrong way and they'd be more than happy to bust down our door and play havoc with our lives...
this guy is a lawyer, and as such, they had to have a much more convincing story to tell the judge and their superiors to get that warrant to search.. being the lawyer for the president, I'm pretty sure that it had to be a pretty darn compelling story that was told!!!
mueller just didn't want to mess with the stormy mess, it wasn't part of his investigation.. but he may have ran into enough evidence to show that there might have been wrong doing while he was investigating the other stuff... which, he just referred to the proper AG for the jurisdiction.. it was that AG that decided what to do with the information that was provided, weather to look further into it, weather search warrants were needed...

but, there's a glaring question about the whole stormy mess...
was the lawyer acting on trump's behalf when he made the agreement with stormy or was he misrepresenting himself as working on trump's behalf and trump had no knowledge of what was going on. what is so laughable about this is that more than likely he was working on behalf of trump and lied about it, which set him up for criminal charges... or at least being investigated over it. if he had just said yep, trump wanted me to arrange the payment, well, things would have blown over probably rather quickly. but a lawyer cannot enter into a contract with someone on behalf of a client without their knowledge.. it's unethical and probably illegal!

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Dude. YOU may not have evidence, but the fact that this raid occurred means that the Justice Department has strong evidence that Cohen committed a crime. So SOMETHING is up.

Media is reporting for payments to a playboy playmate and stormy.

Since Mueller himself wouldn't touch it and referred it to NY FBI, maybe a federal judge won't and refer it to judge Judy.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

It wouldn't be that simple.

What the law says about Donald Trump pardoning Michael Cohen

The short answer is that no one knows for sure. No sitting U.S. President has ever tried to pardon his own alleged co-conspirators, so this has never been tested in practice. If Donald Trump were to issue a pardon for Michael Cohen for his actions in the Trump-Russia scandal, the courts would have to rule whether such a pardon is Constitutional, and whether to uphold it or nullify it. From there, Special Counsel Robert Mueller would have to decide whether to charge Trump with obstruction of justice for having tried to use a pardon to prevent an alleged co-conspirator from testifying against him.

So there are three different possible outcomes. Different legal scholars have stated different views on which way they think the court might rule. The key here may be that for a judge to have signed off on a search warrant against him for the seizure of communications between Trump and his attorney, the judge must have believed there was evidence that Trump and Cohen conspired to commit a crime. This would directly paint Trump and Cohen as alleged co-conspirators, perhaps bolstering the legal argument that Trump can’t legally pardon Cohen.

One important note is that although there is no evidence that Michael Cohen has been charged with anything, Donald Trump can still preemptively pardon him. For instance, President Gerald Ford preemptively pardoned Richard Nixon at a time when there were no formal charges against Nixon. So Trump can try to pardon Cohen at any time. The only questions are whether he will try, and how it would play out legally. But the bottom line is this: if New York State brings parallel charges against Cohen, then there will be nothing Trump can do, as the president cannot pardon state level charges.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: shooterbrody


Thanks for the link, now I'm curious to know who the 'federal judge' happens to be.

Can I recommend one?

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: JBurns

He doesn't need to fire anyone but Sessions, really.

That aside, I'd actually rather see him issue an immediate pardon to Cohen, slapping an "Attourney Client privilege with executive privilege added in for good measure" qualifier on the pardon. Mueller would be hogtied and, legally and logically speaking, there's not a damn thing anyone could do against Trump for the move except sit on it and like it.

I think I will sit on it for funnies. I love watching Trump fire people. When he does switching the tube between FOX and CNN is like entering into another dimension each time. The right cheers and the left are like WTH. Then you got people like me that just sit and eat popcorn watching the great divide get wider. This crap show happens with each POTUS. It just gets worse each time.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
Media is reporting for payments to a playboy playmate and stormy.

I don't trust what the media is reporting. They are merely going off of available evidence that is public knowledge, but the investigators probably have more evidence than we do so I'M waiting to hear from the horse's mouth myself when the indictment charges come down.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
It's so funny how people such as yourself pretend like the available public evidence is somehow the same as the stuff that hasn't been released.

and the wind whispers... Benghazi. Benghaziiiii

Really? I'm hearing... Whataboutism. Whataboutismmmmm

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
Media is reporting for payments to a playboy playmate and stormy.

I don't trust what the media is reporting. They are merely going off of available evidence that is public knowledge, but the investigators probably have more evidence than we do so I'M waiting to hear from the horse's mouth myself when the indictment charges come down.

Why wouldn't Mueller keep it then?

a reply to: JBurns

You're mistaking what the President can do with what he should do and what could in fact lead to his impeachment. Yes, he can fire Sessions and keep appointing people until somebody fires everyone that he wants fired.

If he does that, he might as well follow it up with his resignation.

As for some of your assertions:

The latest moves involve prosecutors seeking evidence regarding payments Trump's team allegedly made to silence accusers.

The latest move by whom? When it comes to that search warrant(s) in question, the person ultimately responsible isn't even in the list of people you named. That would be Geoffrey Berman, the US Attorney for the Southern District of New York who isn't only a Trump appointee, Trump actually took the unusual step of personally interviewing him which raised some eyebrows at the time.

Firing Sessions, Rosenstein and Mueller wouldn't make any difference.

First of all, many of these payments occurred LONG BEFORE he even decided to run for POTUS. Second, who cares? Paying accusers to keep quiet isn't a crime: it's common practice. The fact Mueller continually attempts to criminalize NON-CRIMINAL activity (trolling, insulting Killary Clinton, etc).

1. The $130k payment to Stormy Daniels occurred right before the election in October of 2016.

2. It seems that quite a few people care.

3. The crime isn't paying off accusers. In fact, Trump could have simply paid her off out of his own pocket. The potential crimes here appear to be bank fraud (Cohen lying to the bank about the purpose of the loan) and the payoff constituting an illegal campaign contribution on the part of Cohen.

4. Everything that has been charged as a result of the Mueller investigation is in fact a crime.

I don't disagree with you re this not being the same Congress that Nixon was faced with. The fact is, this current crop of GOP congresspeople quite possibly lack the moral fiber that compelled Nixon to resign. Trump isn't Nixon either. For all his faults, Nixon knew the gig was up and did the only honorable thing he could do.

Trump doesn't have the character to resign nor the concern for country.

Time to fire Mueller. As one commentator said, POTUS has tens of millions of Citizens ready to uphold the Constitution, execute laws of the Union and put down insurrection. Period.

What does that even mean?

For one, what's the Constitution got to do with what you're talking about? If Trump fires all these people, it will clearly be to end Mueller's investigation. I don't know what you mean when you say that the investigation would continue. His team is not an agency of the government like the FBI, without a Special Council, there's no investigation.

That move would be taken as malfeasance. Call it obstruction or whatever makes you happy. It really doesn't matter because under the Constitution, Congress determines what "high crimes and misdemeanors" means. It would be perfectly within their Constitutional authority to impeach and remove the President for those actions.

But I have to wonder as you seem to expect that what sounds like a civil war would be the result, why would you support a man who would put his emotions ahead of the country to the point that he'd throw the country into civil war over his angst at something like having a piece of # like Manfort brought to justice?

If Trump is clean, the best way for him to dispel suspicions is to let Mueller conclude his investigation.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Why wouldn't he keep what?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Keep this as part of his investigation.

Did I read wrong that he referred this to the NY FBI branch?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yeah that must be it,

Its not the fact that this entire investigation has led to FBI and DOJ corruption scandals and FISA court violations.....and no collusion.

No.

You are the "good guys".

Me "bad guy".

EDIT:
That was almost a verbatim MSNBC talking point BTW. Bravo.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Keep this as part of his investigation.

Did I read wrong that he referred this to the NY FBI branch?

He did refer to the NY Branch, so it really isn't part of his investigation. He likely did this to circumvent calls of him overstepping his mandate for investigation. The charges against Cohen could conceivable come from the NY State department. This is why I'm waiting for the indictment.

a reply to: Scrubdog

I'm glad that you didn't take that with malice...it was meant light-hearted.

Thanks for the reminders about Rosenstein.