The Trump Crime Family

[Valcazar]

minutemanX - Mueller was charged with finding out what Russia did to mess with the election. It was explicitly stated that this included anything Trump's campaign has done, but that was in the secondary list.

Also, any crimes that come up from looking for that. (which he has handed off to other offices, as you note). The only office to specifically finger Trump as breaking the law is the SDNY and not Mueller.

Collision isn't in the law, he seems to be persuing "Conspiracy to defraud the United States". He does not seem to be lacking in evidence for that.

@jailmon - I don't know about impeachment in 2019. Impeachment is political, not judicial. (Always has been.) There is nothing that requires or prevents impeachment except the political will to do so. I suspect it will depend on where his popularity numbers are and whether the rest of the GOP will go to the mat for him. If the Dems think they will get more support by doing it, even without removal in the Senate, they will. If they think it just mobilizes resistance, they won't. As it is now, I say no. The MSM will absolutely cast it as partisan overreach no matter what, so there needs to be massive public support. I'm still leaning to no, they just cut into him with house committees.

 

[sambuca]

"Tell that to all these countries"

What do barriers in other countries have to do with jailmon's statement? He said Trump's wall is a political stunt. That other people have built barriers (not always walls) doesn't really have anything to do with that.

This retort to Jalimon's comment that "The Wall" is a political stunt is one of those points to say hey if walls are stunts there are quite a few walls around the world. Don't over-analyze words because you're disapproval of the wall is all that is warranted.

I actually don't know how effective "The Wall" would be in preventing illegal immigration. I do know that the border patrol agents support the wall. And I have been extremely cynical when the NY Times has tried to portray the border agent's support to be ambiguous. I don't believe a partial wall (or fence, whatever) can be very effective because what I understand the illegal aliens, the coyotes, the drug smugglers cross at the weakest points on the border.

Based on today's Trump, Schumer and Pelosi meeting at the White House, I do buy into the commentary that "The Wall" has become the intractable division between the parties that "Obamacare" had become. Facebook is full of videos of Obama, the Clintons and Schumer all supporting the increasing border security and building a fence. The word "Wall" now symbolizes something for Trump supporters and for the Resistance.

So back to Jalimon's comment, I personally don't think the wall is just a political stunt. The wall is now political, but it's not a stunt.

 

[Valcazar]

The wall was *always* political. It was a key plank of his campaign.

Since he was never going to build it, yeah, it was always a stunt. (Do you remember his ludicrous descriptions of what it would be like? He was never going to build that.)

But, I could be wrong.

Trump promised today that he gets his wall or he shuts down the government. So we will see if he follows through on any part of that. (Will he shut down the government? If he does, will he hold to his promise that he won't blame it on the Democrats but take the mantle for himself?)

 

[sambuca]

You have to cut some slack to politicians and their rhetoric. President Obama said some crazy things about the Affordable Care Act. You know the usual complaint. "You can keep your doctor." From experience, I knew the practical reality was that was hyperbole, but I thought the country needed to take steps towards universal healthcare.

I live in an area that has been contending with the expansion of illegal immigration for the last ten years. Everything from schools (teaching in two languages), crime and the social welfare system is being overstretched. Before that illegal immigration was a minor problem. When I hear that we have 11-20 million illegal immigrants in the country, I suspect we are at the higher end of the range. We have states and cities that are far more generous than my state and I suspect they just ignore the idea that illegal immigration are a drain on their finite resources. In fact, they shout racism at anyone who questions what's happening.

So from where I stand, I don't think "the wall" is or was just a stunt.

 

[Carmine Falcone]

Damn you, AMI and David Pecker for explicitly admitting the payment to McDougal was to influence the election. Now which half-ass, inchoate excuse are the Fox News rubes gonna use? David Pecker, to hell with you!

 

[sambuca]

That's the big crime? Campaign finance law in these matters is not at all that black and white. And generally, violations of this size and nature are settled with fines. The dollars here are chump change relative to a Presidential election.

Have you forgotten that Clinton committed perjury to prosecutors to hide an affair? Have you forgotten John Edwards took over a $1 million of campaign donations to pay off his mistress and was acquitted? All of this, Trump, Clinton and Edwards, is salacious, but not criminal in nature.

So I'm not sure what to think of those who's hatred for Trump motivates them to bite on this circus created by the prosecutors and the media. Not to mention look at where you are. Look at the website in your browser. The asshole you despise paid off some hoes to protect his reputation. So who the fuck here is pointing fingers?

 

[minutemenX]

Not to mention look at where you are. Look at the website in your browser. The asshole you despise paid off some hoes to protect his reputation. So who the fuck here is pointing fingers?

+10! And the level of hypocrisy in the media is now on par with the hypocrisy of politicians

 

[Valcazar]

No, that isn' t the big crime. That's the felony he has been accused of. Yes, I know you think it isn't an important crime. (You can read the sentencing filing if you want to see SDNY explain why they think it is important. No, the fact it is a payment to a porn star isn't why.)

You doubted there were felonies. There are. Perjury was also a felony. As you are trying to get at, if the American people decide this isn't actually something worth removing someone from office over, then attempting to remove him from office over this will blow up in people's faces. No one is saying otherwise. (Edwards is an excellent example, btw. The ways in which that crime was similar and different are very telling in the timing and the manner of the payments.

The playbook is as follows:

1. Trump didn't do it.
2. You can't prove he did it.
3. He did that, but it isn't really the thing you said he did.
4. Sure, he did that, but it isn't illegal.
5. Ok, yes it is illegal, but it isn't a big deal.

I fully expect every crime that comes up will follow this pattern of defense.

 

[minutemenX]

I will try to expand the excellent remark made by sambuca that I think is right on the dot.
Can a person who uses SP service be a good person deserving to run for the public office?
I expect most of the people on this board will say “yes” (otherwise what are you doing here?)
But because of the hypocritical media and dishonest practice of some SPs, who want to double cash, the candidate that has the same hobby as people on this board has no choice but to pay hash money to stay in the race. Is this a crime? Maybe on the books, but not in the eyes of people who at least trying not to be hypocritical. He paid with his own money. The charges are 100% political by nature and are based purely on the “literal” interpretation of the law, which indeed had probably good intention in preventing to hide some real criminal or unethical behavior. I believe we all agree that exchange of sexual services between consenting adults is not a crime and is not unethical. So, on what basis some people here support these charges against Trump?

 

[lady_lover]

Can a person who uses SP service be a good person deserving to run for the public office?
Yes. But if same person has to pay money to silence someone, then he is dishonest and has something to hide and doesn't deserve the public's trust. Let alone his wife.
I would prefer that no hush money was payed, that he told everyone he had hookers pissing on him, and that he cheated on his wife often. At least then he is honest.
Trump is a dishonest little rat that will do anything he can to satisfy himself at the expense of anyone in his path. If anyone thinks otherwise their picture should be just along side his on the latest most popular Google search.

 

[Carmine Falcone]

I don't know if you can ascertain one's political views by their willingness to accept reality or concoct their own reality, then try to pass that off as bona fide reality. It's simply gobsmacking that someone can still type that the payment was only personal protection. Never mind that:

- both affairs happened way back in 2006 but both women were paid days before the election. Trump had roughly a decade to settle a personal matter but opted for days before a big election where questions about his behavior towards women were swirling. It smells funny to anyone not in a coma.

- The Statement of Admitted Facts with AMI explicitly stated that the payments were to influence the election and to beat back potentially negative information. Going to extended lengths like dummy corporations and home equity loans is a tipoff that they knew they were doing something wrong and such moves and their timing made it easier to prove something untoward happened. Contrast that with John Edwards where things looked very fishy but hard to prove. Instead, he was rightly ushered into the wilderness.

I don't care about affairs. But contorting oneself to indifference to the charges is pretty much taking Orrin Hatch's position. If it's against the law, then it's against the law. Statutes don't say it's not a big deal if someone you like does it. Pretzel yourself to death about why it wasn't illegal but in same breath mention someone else did something illegal once, even if the comparisons aren't apt. It's funny that Sambuca would bring up Clinton. Yes, he committed perjury and that's why he was rightly impeached in the House. It doesn't matter that the initial inquiry into Clinton was a fishing expedition because Clinton still broke the law.

MinutemenX, knowledge is one's best friend. Only a fool would run for office knowing he has a storied history of patronizing SPs. Incidentally though, this story isn't about seeing SPs; it's about affairs and attempting to make them go away. The affairs were hardly the only thing that should have dissuaded Trump from running but the Republican primary electorate aren't big on quality control. Come to think of it, if Trump somehow knew he'd get a mulligan on everything he does while everyone else is held to a different standard then kudos because he is so right.

 

[lady_lover]

Love it....you are right never thought about that, most Trump fans must be in a coma

 

[sambuca]

@Carmine_Falcone - I was against the Clinton impeachment which was rightly dismissed/ignored by the Senate controlled by 55 Republicans. As far as the timing, we don't know if Trump has paid women to shut up in his past. We don't know if these two women were interested in pay-offs until he ran for office. I would argue sweet ol' Karen McDougall wanted a pay-off of some sort. Stormy couldn't resist opening her mouth (no pun intended) anyway.

As far as trying to hide the payments through other mechanisms, that's just what you do when your trying to keep something quiet for whatever reason one personally deems necessary. That's a clever catch-22 though.

@lady_lover - I've been hearing the bullshit about Trump's dishonesty and infidelity from people who voted for Clinton twice and backed him through the impeachment. Only you know how you voted and how you felt in 1998. Paying women with your own money to shut up is not Watergate revisited.

@Valcazar - Pure and simple, Cohen was busted for tax evasion. His agreeing to torch the President was bonus for the SDNY. The SDNY doesn't want to walk this crap into a courtroom. They, however, were able to land a political blow.

First, Trump won't be impeached for campaign finance violations. Second, I will go further he won't be indicted for campaign finance violations during or even after he leaves office. I think the Founding Founders foresight is often overlooked. They didn't want lower jurisdictions taking aim at the President during his term in office. There's been a proxy charade running for over two years by the New York AG investigating the Trump Foundation. Of course, they could've investigated the foundation anytime before that, but the NY AG became extremely interested when Trump gained momentum in the primaries.

In any event, my personal belief is that no matter how unseemly the pay-offs the SDNY would have to beat a gauntlet of defenses and precedence in making their case. First and foremost, why can't a man do what he wants with his own money? Cohen was richly compensated for his intervention on behalf of Trump.

 

[sambuca]

I can't wait for the Mueller report. I believe it will just be a lot of innuendo and loose ends in which the media hysterics will be magnified x 100.

As a historical example, I see that smug, prick Ken Starr on TV. (Besides his history with the Special Counsel investigating Clinton one should read his history with the Baylor Football Rape scandal.) He still says shit like he has reason to believe there was more there with the Clintons, but couldn't prove it. Isn't that why we have a judicial code?

The Mueller team will get a free shot at Trump because they will never have to walk into a courtroom and prove any of their innuendo and loose ends. Umpteen Clinton supporters on the Special Counsel will list every time someone said Russia or thought about Russia and place it in the report.

 

[minutemenX]

- Only a fool would run for office knowing he has a storied history of patronizing SPs.

Can you expand your arguments on this one, please? In your opinion, patronizing SPs is a crime or/and unethical?

 

[Carmine Falcone]

Can you expand your arguments on this one, please? In your opinion, patronizing SPs is a crime or/and unethical?

If I think seeing SPs is wrong, then I don't wanna be right. I am here, after all.

In my case, I've just accepted that it wouldn't be wise to run for office because I've seen enough SPs. Obviously, one can be a good person with sound ideas on governance and still see SPs. But even in a world where sex work is fighting back stigma, I think it'd be insurmountable because too many people (regardless of political affiliation) still have tight-booty rules on paying for sex or--shock and horror!--sleeping with other people. So it's definitely a skeleton in the closet. It may not come out but should it be divulged, one hopes it's from an SP you fucked like there was no tomorrow instead of her saying, "Yeah Carmine paid me for sex AND that dude can't fuck!"

Maybe one day, it won't matter. Obama one-upped Clinton's admission on using pot and we accepted it. Trump debunked the idea of marital affairs and we've sort of accepted it. On that topic, my main issue has never been that Trump broke marital vows. What I can't accept is the logical inconsistency of religious leaders giving Trump the benefit of the doubt but heaping vituperation on others guilty of the same thing.

 

[sambuca]

Most voters swallow things that they find unsavory. I know several Democrats who don't like the party's recent love for protecting illegal immigration. Some didn't like Bill Clinton's own philandering. Every voter gets something different out of their votes and it's typically not everything.

 

[Valcazar]

sambuca - I know you hate me referencing your direct statements but I'm glad you made this one. You have predicted no indictments for anything for Trump. (I assume you just mean him and not his family or his company? Or are your comments on the Foundation to be taken as proof you don't think they will either?) We will see if you are right.

I don't understand your comment about the Founders. They didn't say anything about the President not being targeted for crime.

 

[jalimon]

Trump never abide by the law. All his life he followed his own law to humiliate and crush others to win his battle. The end justify the means. For him it only matters who wins.

The economy may be good and win at the moment. But for sure something will fuck Trump and he will have to step out.

Cheers,

 

[Valcazar]

@minutemanx/@sambuca - Where do you get the idea that he paid with his own money from? (You may be right, but I am not sure where you are getting that from.)

@sambuca, I know you don't believe that people are allowed to do whatever they want with their money. If you mean "people should be allowed to pay off porn stars", I agree. So does the law. As far as I know there is no law that implies you can't. Of course, that's not what Cohen pled guilty to and what Trump has been implicated in.

Also, I note that I misread your earlier statement. You were specifically only saying Trump will never be indicted for campaign finance violations. My apologies. You were not saying he will never be indicted for any crime. I was in error. I, too, find it unlikely he will be inducted for campaign violations.