Hey, they put an 85 year old Whitey Bulger away. Trump's crimes are serious enough that there's no way they can be ignored. While a many decade old interpretation by the justice department says that a sitting president can't be indicted, there's certainly the possibility that that will be revisited. None other than Lawrence Tribe thinks it's a faulty interpretation.
And of course, he certainly can be indicted by the crimes committed that are violations of state law...and there are certainly many of them.
To be fair, Bulger was wanted on multiple violent counts including murder. Also, he had been on the run for 20 years or so before they caught him at 81. I do agree campaign finance violations of a criminal nature are important, but I think it is of a lower priority.
As far as the DOJ policy on not indicting a sitting president, it's a guideline and obviously the more severe the crime, the more pressure there will be to ignore it.
@sambuca - What *isn't* a liberal news outlet to you? (Currently, your only criteria as listed involves CBF, although I am not sure what standard of support for her makes something "liberal".) Or, perhaps more interestingly, do you think there is such a thing as a factual news outlet? (I assume you don't believe in the idea of a neutral one.) Do you believe in actual facts ever being reported or do you simply assume a postmodernist view of the world where there are no facts, only the power to force people to accept your version of events?
" I think it's pretty clear when I say "let's not get lost in the weeds", I am referring to my opinion that the Stormy/McDougal payments are not a crime. I think I have been clear on that. "
You have been clear on that. You said they probably invented something about it being a crime, I said the logic they are using is laid out in their statement, and you said reading the statement would be getting lost in the weeds. I directed you again to the statement. I don't think there has been any distortion of context. If you want to discuss why you think it isn't a crime, you kind of need to actually address what they said justifies treating it as a crime. For some reason you find this unfair.
You keep mentioning FEC charimen and judges who agree with you and not linking to them. It would be nice if you did. Because I can't tell if you think the crime doesn't exist (you keep claiming there is no crime for this, there is no jail time attached, etc.) or if you think the crime does exist, but Cohen did not violate it, despite his claiming that he did. I have agreed with you that Cohen's guilty plea does not make the implication that Trump is also guilty of the violation a slam dunk.
"Yes, I wrote "The Podesta brothers' ties to Russia and influence peddling should be investigated and it still might be without Mueller." Take this as a throw away comment that doesn't need further debate. I believe the FBI might still be investigating the Clinton Foundation's dealings and Mueller might have handed off some information regarding the Podestas to federal prosecutors. If they are not currently investigating either, fine....so be it."
You understand why this is frustrating though? You started with the claim that the Clintons and their associates have never faced this kind of investigation. That claim is plain false, as a few of us pointed out. Now you say the whole thiing was a throw away comment that didn't mean anything. It's like the comment about the Founders making sure the President can't be indicted. When I pointed out it wasn't true, you just vanished it. You mentioned a judge who explained why the Flynn indictment wasn't right, I asked for information, it vanished. There is an FEC chairman who says the Cohen thing isn't a crime (again, I don't know if he is saying no such crime exists or what Cohen did doesn't qualify) but there are no links.
I quote you to keep the conversation on track because you make lots of claims and I prefer claims be backed up with reasoning or evidence.
As far as Cohen's sentencing, it was very clever. The SDNY had a piece of crap (Stormy/McDougal payments) and a crime (tax evasion). They wanted to legalize and validate the criminality of the piece of crap. They then wrapped Cohen's tax evasion crime in the piece of crap (the payments).
Excellent. Something specific. I won't put words in your mouth, but will simply ask for details. Please explain what they did and how they did it. How was the Stormy Daniels/McDougal paymenrts "wrapped" into the piece of crap in order to validate it? Present your logic and your actual full argument, please.
