MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Prosecutors Recommend Prison for Cohen, Say He Paid off Women on Trump's Behalf

Manafort, meanwhile, tried to conceal that he was still talking to Trump administration officials after he was indicted.

Federal prosecutors are recommending that former Donald Trump lawyer Michael Cohen serve a "substantial" prison sentence (around four years) for his eight tax fraud and campaign violation crimes, according to a memo released today.

But also, significantly, the memo documents Cohen's claims that he was operating at the behest of Trump when he paid off two women Trump allegedly had affairs with to keep them from going to the press during the 2016 presidential campaign.

Cohen pleaded guilty to those crimes back in August and said back then that he arranged payments on then-candidate Trump's behalf and at his request. Cohen was paid for this work through some money laundering methods to conceal the political purposes behind the payments.

So Cohen actually saying he was doing it at Trump's request isn't new. But one of the sentencing memos released today (by federal prosecutors with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York) makes it clear they believe Cohen:

Cohen memoJustice Department

"Individual-1" in these memos is Trump, just in case it's not clear. And no, these aren't charges coming from Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigations. These are all from New York's federal courts and are unrelated to the investigation of whether anybody in Trump's circle coordinated with Russian officials in their attempts to manipulate the outcome of the 2016 election.

That's the other sentencing memo. Mueller's office also submitted a sentencing memo today for Cohen's other guilty plea from the end of November, where he acknowledged lying to Congress when he said negotiations with Russia to build a hotel in Moscow had ended before the primary season kicked off in the spring of 2016 (they had not). Mueller's memo says Cohen has met with the special counsel's office in seven different sessions to provide valuable information. Cohen told them he had been in communication with Russian nationals as far back as November 2015, a few months after Trump formally declared he was running for president, to try to arrange possible meetings between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Mueller's memo is not giving a specific sentencing recommendation, but because Cohen is being cooperative and has accepted responsibility for his lies, his office is requesting that any prison time for which he might be sentenced for misleading Congress be run concurrently with the sentences he gets for his fraud and campaign violation plea bargain with the New York office.

Both the New York sentencing memo and Mueller's memo can be read here.

Trump tweets a response!

Well … okay, then.

Meanwhile, some more details are coming out from the Department of Justice explaining why they say former campaign head Paul Manafort breached his plea agreement conditions with them:

It is a mystery how Manafort could have thought he could have contacts with Trump administration officials after he was indicted and not be found out. But there you have it.

Photo Credit: ANDREW KELLY/REUTERS/Newscom

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Eddy||

    Cohen didn't implicate Trump, he implicated some guy named Individual-1.

    Track down that guy and you have your culprit.

  • Don't look at me!||

    Nobody knows who it is.

  • Eddy||

    His parents must have been real weirdos, giving their offspring such an impersonal name.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    I am sure there is a libertarian couple out there somewhere that named their kid Individual.

  • Nardz||

    Well, you do often confuse 'libertarian' and 'progressive'

  • RoyMo||

    Well those progressives go it completely wrong thinking they should name a child individual, they must not have gotten the memo wbout how dangerous individualism is. In their defense they didn't have Jacobin back then, they probably didn't even have Democracy Now... too bad it's the camps for them. Must have been Liberaltarians...

  • Wise Old Fool||

    Heh I never thought italics could be funny. Nobody knows who Individual-1 is...

  • John Galt Jr||

    If all of Santa's elves were indicted. and all his reindeer jailed, would Santa say, "I was totally cleared?"

  • ThomasD||

    Of what?

    Details matter when proof is required for conviction.

    Guilt by association, no matter how strong the association, is not very libertarian.

    But it is collectivist, so not surprising from you.

  • John Galt Jr||

    Fox's Judge Nap says you're full of crap, that Trump committed three crimes on Stormy Daniels alone. Says Trump can be indicted now, but not prosecuted until he leaves office -- (which would obviously be immediately, no more than a week; he'd resign for the same reason Trump did, but be imprisoned.)

    Fox's Andrew McCarthy says Trump will be indicted.

    Even Tucker Carlson has thrown Trump under a bus, saying Trump is not "capable" of being President, and has failed to keep his key promises. (Tucker did NOT list Trump's promise to completely pay off the federal debt in 8 years -- but instead has ADDED more 8-year debt than Obama added AFTER 8 years!)

    Details matter when proof is required for conviction.

    (snort) Judge Nap explains how you've made an ass of yourself.

    Guilt by association, no matter how strong the association, is not very libertarian.

    (sneer) Your thuggishness is not libertarian,

    But it is collectivist, so not surprising from you.

    Infantile name-calling. (lol)
    Trump's bullying has failed. Yours is just pathetic.

    HE said we should not trust you. You'd lie to defend him of even murder.

    Anything else?

  • a ab abc abcd abcde abcdef ahf||

    Two years of investigating Trump for this?!?

    Methinks someone is misleading us about what this investigation is.

  • Don't look at me!||

    Government efficiency.

  • Fancylad||

    The investigation has always been about hunting for something to accuse Trump of. Russia and campaign finance were always red herring.

    I'd laugh so hard if they found out Trump was sticking cigars in intern's asses in the Oval Office, and blowing his load on blue dresses. The contortions that MoveOn.org and the editorial boards of WaPo and the NYT would have to go through to condemn Trump would be Circus Freak tier.

  • John Galt Jr||

    Try again. Here's Mueller's appointment. Trump is not mentioned. Collusion is not mentioned, is not a crime and not even a legal term. Trump denying collusion is like denying that he shot Lincoln. (LOL)

    Mueller appointment

    Robert S. Mueller III is appointed to serve as Special Counsel for the United States
    Department of Justice.

    (b) The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confined by then-FBI
    Director James 8. Comey in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on
    Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including:

    (i) any links and/or coordination bet ween the Russian government and individuals
    associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and

    (ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and

    (iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).

    (c) If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is
    authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.


    1) It's dated 5/17/17, SIX MONTHS BEFORE the bullshit that a FISA warrant launched the investigation

    2) It's based on the EXISTING investigation that TRUMP says caused him to fire Comey.

    It's now certain Trump will be locked up.

    Any questions?

  • Jessi||

    Yes here's a question: why do you think Trump will be locked up when this investigation has cleared him. They were trying to meet with Russian government to build a building but were unable to do so.

    Where's the crime? Buildings aren't crimes. Meeting government officials isn't a crime and the meetings never happened. They were reduced to contacting public info email addresses.

  • John Galt Jr||

    (sneer)

    Fox's Judge Nap says you're full of crap, that Trump committed three crimes on Stormy Daniels alone. Says Trump can be indicted now, but not prosecuted until he leaves office -- (which would obviously be immediately, no more than a week; he'd resign for the same reason Trump did, but be imprisoned.)

    Fox's Andrew McCarthy says Trump will be indicted.

    Even Tucker Carlson has thrown Trump under a bus, saying Trump is not "capable" of being President, and has failed to keep his key promises. (Tucker did NOT list Trump's promise to completely pay off the federal debt in 8 years -- but instead has ADDED more 8-year debt than Obama added AFTER 8 years!)

    Anything else to humiliate yourself?

    Sing along:
    "another one bites ... another one bites ... another one bites the dust."

  • John Galt Jr||

    P.S. I missed THIS one!

    Yes here's a question: why do you think Trump will be locked up when this investigation has cleared him.

    Obama was born in Hawaii.
    How many forests have you raked?
    The earth is round.
    There are no space aliens in Roswell, NM

  • loveconstitution1789||

    An investigation to find out what country YOU as a troll work for.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    I dearly hope that a new AG will lead to dozens of special prosecutors investigating hundreds of prominent democrats. Time to put them in prison.

  • John Galt Jr||

    (lol)

  • Wise Old Fool||

    lol attempted fraud in an Elections isn't a big deal to you? haha there is more to come with the Russian deals that he's been denying. It is definitely popcorn time

  • DesigNate||

    Where's that attempted fraud and what where they supposedly defrauding?

  • John Galt Jr||

    Read a newspaper or anything other than Fox Pravda
    It's judges and juries who must be satisfied, not you. Do you know what an indictment is? A convictrion? A guilty pleas?

    Trump did fraudulent reporting of his reimbursement to Cohen, to make it look like legal fees,
    *lied about no Russian business efforts during his campaign
    *lied about his knowledge of the Stormy Daniels payoff
    *lied about the Trump Tower meeting where his son knowingly conspired with the Russian government, knowing they wanted to interfere with the election to help his father
    *lied that none of his staff had any contacts with Russian, over 100 such contacts now proven
    *fired Flynn for lying about ... Russian contacts

    Over a dozen more. But laundering money for Russia may put him in prison the longest.

  • DenverJ||

    There is no crime in paying bimbos to be discreet. None. Name the statute.

  • Eddy||

    I think the theory is that it's a campaign finance violation - something about failing to inform the authorities about spending intended to influence the election.

    If the public had only known that Trump banged hookers, they'd have turned away from him in revulsion and given the Presidency to that paragon of virtue, Hillary Clinton. Thus hush-money for the hooker is a campaign expense.

  • KevinP||

    Be careful about calling Stormy Daniels a hooker. You may be liable for defamation.

    Note that this did not happen: Trump banged Daniels and she went home with the cash.

    What did happen: Trump banged Daniels. At some much later point, she was given hush money. While this seems sleazy, it is usually perfectly legal.

  • Tony||

    You in the 90s: Inpeach! Sleazebag!

  • JesseAz||

    Did trump lie on the stand? Or are you still fucking ignorant?

  • Tony||

    Wow, what an in-the-bubble brain-pickled narrow-minded comment that makes you look stupid.

    Today's filings alone make Trump out to be a felon twice over. And this is the amuse bouche to the full meal.

  • Fancylad||

    Today's filings alone make Trump out to be a felon twice over
    How?

  • JesseAz||

    No they don't. So I guess you are choosing fucking ignorant.

  • TwelveInchPianist||

    He can't be ignorant. He says things like "amuse bouche".

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Tony, the only reason you would defend Clinton is the D after his name. The only reason you condemn Trump is the R after his name. Just admit it.

    And just because YOU are this way doesn't mean the rest of us are, and no matter how much you want to get Trump because he has that R, doesn't make him guilty of something that has been established not to apply to spending personal funds on non disclosure agreements (see John Edwards on that one).

    None of this is surprising as you don't believe in the rule of law. Which is irrational for you, as that is the one thing that keep the rest of us from saying "enough is enough" and rapidly wiping out the progressive population.

    So maybe you should show some respect for the law.

  • Tony||

    Just to confirm, you are really the last, correct?

  • bevis the lumberjack||

    And you in the 90s: It's bullshit to impeach a guy for a blowjob in the White House.

    Hypocrisy among the politically zealous is the one bi-partisan thing we have left.

  • Tony||

    I was a kid in the 90s. And a Republican. Let's not beclown ourselves with desperate attempts to falsely equate the vast stupid crimes of Trump with the minor diddling the Starr witch hunt uncovered.

  • bevis the lumberjack||

    For a Democrat to screech that payoffs to hoes is an impeachable offense is a mind-boggling act of hypocrisy, regardless of their age. And there were substantial crimes exposed among people around the Clintons, just like Trump. People went to prison - remember the McDougals and Jim Guy Tucker. Trump and his enablers are corrupt, Bill and Hillary and their enablers were/are corrupt.

    I don't give a shit about Trump. In a way I'd enjoy watching that arrogant piece of shit get taken down and watching his cult of personality self-combust. But then the hysterical left gets a win, and I don't want that either. Personally, I'm on Team Extinction Event. But that doesn't make you any less a hypocrite.

  • organ meat pie||

    "Tony|12.7.18 @ 7:28PM|#

    I was a kid in the 90s. And a Republican."

    I don't believe you.

  • a ab abc abcd abcde abcdef ahf||

    Mueller is pretty damned incompetent if he has been looking for vast stupid crimes and hasn't uncovered any in two fucking years.

  • Sevo||

    Hey! He's got a couple of money-laundering pleas from people who knew Trump at one time of another. Several '40-in-a-35 zone' convictions. At least two for jay-walking and a bunch of un-paid parking tickets. Just ask Tony or Hihn: They're keeping count, or checking Vox regularly.
    As it happens, it leaves them looking like the fucking ignoramuses they are when they have to go back and see what the charges were...
    And then it turns out several people who worked for Trump, or are related to him, of might have known him at one time or another were proven to speak with Russian officials! Do I have to connect the dots for you?!

  • Wise Old Fool||

    It's funny how running deals with Russian oligarchs and government officials in exchange for government influence (allegedly!) on the side isn't a big deal with Trumpists.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Oh, come on, they'd likely have gone to prison over Whitewater, if they hadn't sat on the billing records until after the statute of limitations expired. They were as guilty in that criminal conspiracy as any of the people who did go to jail.

    I thought it was a bit gratuitous to "find" those records a couple days after, just lying on a table. But they were always happy to have their foes know they were guilty, just so long as it didn't mean anything in terms of legal liability.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    "And you in the 90s: It's bullshit to impeach a guy for a blowjob in the White House."

    Good thing we tried and convicted him for perjury, and not a blowjob. But then, why feel the need to tell the truth about things, right?

  • Rational Exuberance||

    I didn't care in the 90's that Clinton was a misogynistic serial harasser of women, married to a bisexual harpy of a woman.

    And I don't care in the 21st century that Trump is a somewhat less misogynistic lout who at least pays off the women he bangs.

  • mpercy||

    And so far at least, Trump has not been accused of raping any of the women he's been scandalized by. Can't say the same for certain paragons of Democratic virtue who once held the same office.

  • James Pollock||

    "And so far at least, Trump has not been accused of raping any of the women he's been scandalized by."

    That you know of. Hush money sometimes works.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    What about all those children you may have molested James? They could be out there.

  • Peter Duncan||

    Along with yours, I'm assuming?

  • John Galt Jr||

    So, you're what we used to call a commie symp

  • DesigNate||

    Me and Tony in the 90's: Who cares what Clinton did with some cute intern? Every president has probably tried the same.

    Me now: Who cares who Trump fucked and paid to keep their mouths shut?

    Tony now: he's a sick degenerate misogynist who should be impeached immediately.

    Never change, champ.

  • John Galt Jr||

    Consensual sex vs conspiracy to win the Presidency (lol)

  • itsjustbob||

    Inpeach?

  • John Galt Jr||

    outapple.

  • Eddy||

    I sincerely apologize to Stormy Daniels, I misunderstood the nature of her work.

  • Eddy||

    However, I think it's perfectly plausible that Trump banged hookers, even if Daniels wasn't among them. His banging her could have been in a strictly non-professional capacity.

    There, I hope I covered my bases.

    Trump, at least, would hesitate to sue someone who says he banged hookers - the discovery process would be simply too interesting.

  • James Pollock||

    "Trump, at least, would hesitate to sue someone who says he banged hookers - the discovery process would be simply too interesting."

    You're assuming rational thinking. I don't think you should assume rational thinking.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    How long between sex and hush money before you can say you are not a hooker? Asking for a friend.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    You don't pay women for sex; you pay them to leave after.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    That's certainly the way it works if you're a billionaire, or so I understand.

  • MSimon||

    I misunderstood the nature of her work.

    Film at 11.

  • JesseAz||

    Yet apparently you can funnel campaign funds illegally through a law firm to hire foreign investigators to bribe Russians for Intel while funneling the data secretly to friendly DOJ members and not even get looked at.

  • DenverJ||

    It's simple: Democrats (Hillary) blatantly break the law, no reasonable prosecutor would prosecute. Republican does something perfectly legal, time to force a plea or impeach.
    Why are you confused?

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Quit whining, clinger

  • I Callahan||

    Grow up, Commie.

  • James Pollock||

    Get some fresh insults, both of you.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    You're right Arty. Instead we should be taking a look at showing you progtards the door. America will be better off without your kind.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    The tide of the improving American electorate will be kind to my preferences and dismissive of right-wing aspirations. Tough luck, loser.

  • James Pollock||

    "Yet apparently you can funnel campaign funds illegally through a law firm to hire foreign investigators to bribe Russians for Intel while funneling the data secretly to friendly DOJ members and not even get looked at."

    If that's true, then whoever's running the Department of Justice is incompetent and should be replaced ASAP.

  • ThomasD||

    It's true, and we know it because the Clinton campaign admitted running payments to FusionGPS through their law firm, and improperly representing the expenditures as legal fees on their FEC filings.

    The whole point of the Comey/Rosenstein/DOJ 'obstruction' approach to Trump was to prevent exactly what you suggest - him clearing out the DOJ.

    It has all been a backfire to protect Clinton and Clinton cronies.

  • John Galt Jr||

    Puppets dancing on a string.

    Fox's Judge Nap says you're full of crap, that Trump committed three crimes on Stormy Daniels alone. Says Trump can be indicted now, but not prosecuted until he leaves office -- (which would obviously be immediately, no more than a week; he'd resign for the same reason Trump did, but be imprisoned.)

    Fox's Andrew McCarthy says Trump will be indicted.

    Even Tucker Carlson has thrown Trump under a bus, saying Trump is not "capable" of being President, and has failed to keep his key promises. (Tucker did NOT list Trump's promise to completely pay off the federal debt in 8 years -- but instead has ADDED more 8-year debt than Obama added AFTER 8 years!)

    HE said we should not trust you. You'd lie to defend him of even murder. That was the first time he humiliated you.

    Anything else?

  • TwelveInchPianist||

    If the theory is that using personal funds rather than campaign funds to pay off your mistress is a campaign violation, that strikes me as a stretch.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    More of a catch 22 than a stretch, as they'd simply allege a different crime if he used campaign funds.

  • James Pollock||

    The problem is deciding which of the stories Trump told about the sequence of events is closest to the the truth. Recall that the original story was that Cohen paid the money, and Trump never even knew about it. They seemed like they were going to stick to that story, until Rudy realized that, under that story, there were campaign finance violations, so right after he joined the team the story changed, literally overnight, to OF COURSE Trump knew about it, and HE paid to shut her up.

  • MSimon||

    Evidence is the key.

  • John Galt Jr||

    And it's overwhelming

  • Sevo||

    Eddy|12.7.18 @ 7:02PM|#
    "I think the theory is that it's a campaign finance violation - something about failing to inform the authorities about spending intended to influence the election."

    I'll go for that.
    As soon as Pelosi's plastic-surgery payments are counted as the same.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    Nobody wants to see the discovery in that case.

  • BigT||

    Exactly. Why is it a crime to not tell Mother Govt about campaign expenses?

  • John Galt Jr||

    (laughing) Because the law says so.

  • ThomasD||

    Not a very libertarian argument.

  • John Galt Jr||

    LOSER,
    Only losers and Trumpsters (same thing) say libertarians oppose the rule of law.

    Judge Nap explains the law in a way that even you MAY comprehend.

    Fox's Judge Nap says you're full of crap, that Trump committed three crimes on Stormy Daniels alone. Says Trump can be indicted now, but not prosecuted until he leaves office -- (which would obviously be immediately, no more than a week; he'd resign for the same reason Trump did, but be imprisoned.)

    Any questions?

  • Kazinski||

    I think they were spending money so it wouldn't influence the election, I mean that was the whole point right?

    Not that it was money well spent, if the access Hollywood tape didn't sink him then Stormy would be just a tempest in a teapot, as subsequent events have proved.

  • John Galt Jr||

    Trump won the Electoral College by 39,000 voters.
    You need to stop following just Fox Pravda

    Nearly 10 million voted against him.
    And he got a record number of anti votes (against Hillary, NOT for him).

  • James Pollock||

    "Trump won the Electoral College by 39,000 voters."

    Impressive, considering there are only 535 Electoral College voters.

  • John Galt Jr||

    Impressive, such a monumental blunder.
    Believes "voters" = "Electoral College voters"
    As a way to refuse reality and inconveeen-yent facts.

    Trumpster.

  • John Galt Jr||

    It's not a theory. Chen pleaded guilty to it, but you and Trump believe a grand jury indicted, and a judge heard the trial ..... for a crime you say does not exist .... all without your permission! How are you qualified to say that?

    Trump won the election by .... 39,000 voters ... . in three states combined. He called it a landslide! Do you?
    Anything else?

  • John Galt Jr||

    "Chen" = Cohen

  • Wise Old Fool||

    Colluding with Russians is a crime. Spending large sums of money to influence the election without noting that money to election officials is also a crime.

  • DesigNate||

    You think they paid those women to shut up because of the election?

    Hahahahahahahahahahaha

  • John Galt Jr||

    You don't? (sneer)

  • BigT||

    O'Bama is on video colluding with Russky 2. Lock him up.

    When convincing evidence is found for Trump, same deal. Now, find such evidence.

  • John Galt Jr||

    Tell us how you know what Mueller has and does not have.
    Tel us what was in all the blacked-out redactions filed on Friday.
    Tell us why you're so totally ignorant of the proven facts.

  • John Galt Jr||

    O'Bama is on video colluding with Russky 2. Lock him up.

    If you had said that under oath, YOU would be locked up.

  • Tony||

    So we're heading toward an impeachment that Democrats don't want to do but will have no choice but to do.

    Of course the real issue is that some kid at Yale had an overreaction to a Halloween costume.

  • JesseAz||

    Impeachment for a crime that has never been a crime?

  • Tony||

    Treason has always been a crime.

  • bevis the lumberjack||

    You know who else screams "treason!!!" all the time for stuff that falls short of treason? Hint: he's fat and orange and stupid and he doesn't do capitalization or punctuation worth a shit.

  • Tony||

    Sometimes there really is treason though.

  • Fancylad||

    What exactly was treasonous?

  • DenverJ||

    He beat Herself.

  • John Galt Jr||

    POSSIBLY the conspiracy with a foreign adversary, knowingly, to help elect Trump.
    Definitely a proven conspiracy, possible treason since Russia is an adversary.
    And Trump Sr. lied about the purpose of the conspiracy,

  • TuIpa||

    Fuck off Hihn.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano thinks Yeltsin's election was treason.

  • Sevo||

    John Galt Jr|12.7.18 @ 8:28PM|#
    "POSSIBLY the conspiracy with a foreign adversary, knowingly, to help elect Trump.
    Definitely a proven conspiracy, possible treason since Russia is an adversary.
    And Trump Sr. lied about the purpose of the conspiracy,"

    You're full of shit Hihn. Fuck off.

  • John Galt Jr||

    You're full of shit Hihn. Fuck off.

    Proof. AGAIN (lol)

    Russian invitation to Donald Jr.
    "The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father.

    "This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump – helped along by Aras and Emin.
    Source: Donald Trump Jr's own Twitter feed!!!"

    LOCK THEM UP!

    OR ... Junior is undeniably guilty. Will his father allow his son to spend the rest of his life in prison. Is Trump THAT evil?

    Anything else?

  • Sevo||

    John Galt Jr|12.8.18 @ 12:09AM|#
    You're full of shit Hihn. Fuck off.

  • mpercy||

    Another sock puppet?

  • John Galt Jr||

    His psychopathic delusion
    Trumpsters are proven conspiracy nuts, suffering delusions.
    And infantiism

  • JesseAz||

    Treason requires it to be an enemy shit head. Contrary to you ignorance, we are not at war with Russia.

  • John Galt Jr||

    (boldface in response to aggression)

    JesseAZ
    Treason requires it to be an enemy shit head. Contrary to you ignorance, we are not at war with Russia.

    I've already corrected the identcal fuckup by DenverJ -- even phrased the same. Hmmm

    The word Treason never appears in what you responded to.
    Further upthread, I said "possible treason".
    The Constitution is at the link here.

    Anything else?

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    So we're at war with Russia? News to me.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Tomy, that's correct. For example, all progressives are guilty of treason and sedition.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    You know who else screams "treason!!!" all the time for stuff that falls short of treason?

    Every Republican here at Reason from 2009-2016?

  • damikesc||

    Did Trump promise Putin more flexibility after his election and then pull missiles out of Eastern Europe after he won?

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    You're arguing with Little Jeffy, an eight year old in a twelve year old's body. And he's really stupid.

    Nothing to gain there, believe me I know.

  • JesseAz||

    Do you know the primary requirement for treason? Hint... it's not dumbass Tony thinks something is treason.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Is it when you coordinate with Putin to defeat ISIS?

  • John Galt Jr||

    It's likely when Trump Jr knowingly conspired with a foreign adversary, Russia, who SAID they wanted to help Trump. And Trump Sr. lied about the purpose of the Trump Tower meeting.

    Definitely a felony, with treason as a real possibility. (A foreign adversary)

  • TuIpa||

    Fuck off Hihn.

  • Sevo||

    John Galt Jr|12.7.18 @ 8:32PM|#
    "It's likely when Trump Jr knowingly conspired with a foreign adversary, Russia, who SAID they wanted to help Trump. And Trump Sr. lied about the purpose of the Trump Tower meeting.
    Definitely a felony, with treason as a real possibility. (A foreign adversary)"

    Definitely a pile of shit, Hihn. Fuck off.

  • John Galt Jr||

    REPEATS his proven lie.

    Definitely a pile of shit, Hihn. Fuck off.

    PROOF repeated

    Russian invitation to Donald Jr.
    The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father.

    This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump – helped along by Aras and Emin.
    Source: Donald Trump Jr's own Twitter feed!!!

    LOCK THEM UP!

    OR ... Junior is undeniably guilty. Will his father allow his son to spend the rest of his life in prison. Is Trump THAT evil?

    Anything else?

  • damikesc||

    Didn't Kerry comment on how many other countries wanted him to defeat Bush?

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Kerry....... another subversive piece of trash.

  • Ben of Houston||

    John, at best you can say that this was a conspiracy to commit treason. As no actual secrets were discussed, there's no crime. On the other hand, if you take Trump Jr. at his word that they were trying to figure out what this was, and if it was illegal, they would have reported it, then it's just rich people playing spy thriller.

    To prove collusion, you need evidence of an actual agreement, which as far as we can tell, didn't happen. What we do know were that there were several people in Trump's inner circle were corrupt for personal gain, but none of them seem to have done so. All evidence that I have seen points to the fact that Russia was an independent actor in this, with the apparent goal of causing as much chaos as possible.

  • John Galt Jr||

    Conspiracy is a crime. (lol)

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Hihn, Hihn, off with you now. Adults are talking here. No time for your raving and shitposting today.

  • Mcgoo95||

    "All evidence that I have seen points to the fact that Russia was an independent actor in this, with the apparent goal of causing as much chaos as possible."

    Mission complete

  • Ken Shultz||

    Somebody in another thread earlier today was questioning the independence of the Justice Department because Trump may have weighed in one way or the other on whether to arrest a Chinese CFO amid a trade war.

    Somehow, in some people's minds, a Justice Department that isn't under the influence of an elected president (or an elected Congress?) has become the libertarian ideal! Isn't it the president's responsibility to make judgment calls like that?

    How do we feel about the independence of the Treasury Department if the president takes political considerations into account when he's proposing new taxes? Should the president take political considerations into account when he decides to invade another country? Should the EPA be oblivious to political considerations when Trump is the president?

    TDS is about people losing their minds once Trump is in the picture.

  • John Galt Jr||

    TDS is about people losing their minds once Trump is in the picture.

    Does your health insurance cover treatment?

  • TuIpa||

    Fuck off Hihn.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    It certainly doesn't cover Dumbfuck Hihnsano's. That cancer finished off the last of his brain cells ages ago.

  • James Pollock||

    " Isn't it the president's responsibility to make judgment calls like that?"

    The President's responsibility is to make calls like that in the best interests of the people of the United States. When the President is making calls like that in the best interests of himself, that's abuse of power. Ideally, the President AVOIDS situations that look like abuse of power, by "deferring judgment" to someone who'll decide the way he wants.

    "TDS is about people losing their minds once Trump is in the picture."

    TDS has both pro- and anti- strains.

  • John Galt Jr||

    Donald Jr has himself proven that he knowingly conspired with the Russian government, who SAID they wanted to help elect Donald. It's on his own Twitter feed (NOT the brightest bulb on the string!) The emails planning the Trump Tower meeting are conspiring, by definition.

  • TuIpa||

    Fuck off Hihn.

  • DenverJ||

    Conspiring is only illegal if you are going to break a law, otherwise, we call it "planning".

  • John Galt Jr||

    ANOTHER ONE???

    Conspiring IS planning. Even of nothing actually happens.

  • Fk_Censorship||

    Conspiring is planning a crime. What crime was being planned?

  • John Galt Jr||

    Conspiracy IS a crime. (lol)

  • WoodChipperBob||

    So you're saying they were conspiring to commit conspiracy?

    Conspiracy is planning to commit a crime. Without a specific underlying crime that is being planned, planning is not conspiracy.

    derp Unless Trump does it. Then it's always conspiracy, even if he's just planning to send a tweet about baseball. /derp

  • John Galt Jr||

    So you're saying they were conspiring to commit conspiracy?

    Pees pants laughing.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Look how upset Tony is.

    The Lefties have to admit that Trump did nothing illegal or that their key "investigator" is a hack.

  • John Galt Jr||

    loveconstitution1789 claims to know what evidence Mueller has, what is in all of today's blacked-out redactions, and more.

    Does ANYONE believe him? (anyone above the age of 12)

  • Tony||

    Reporting on the first-degree murder charge for the Nazi who killed that woman? John? Still defending his action? Ohhh Johnnnn!!

  • loveconstitution1789||

    A national socialist Lefty killed a woman?

    Color me surprised.

    Socialists have killed tens of millions of women.

  • James Pollock||

    Nobody tell him that national socialists aren't socialists. It might upset him.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Um, yeah.....they are. In fact, the major difference between the Nazis and the communists in Germany wasn't so much how to run things, but more about who would be in charge.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Federal prosecutors are recommending that former Donald Trump lawyer Michael Cohen serve a "substantial" prison sentence (around four years) for his eight tax fraud and campaign violation crimes, according to a memo released today."

    He also pleaded guilty to lying to the Senate, which brings his credibility into question should he be put on the stand to testify against someone else--including in the court of public opinion.

    I mean, after he's pleaded guilty to being a bald-faced liar, what, are we supposed to take everything else he says at face value so long as it reinforces our preexisting biases?

    Funny how that works. Has his defense released a memo? We've heard the prosecution. What do his defense lawyers have to say?

  • JesseAz||

    Reduced sentence from what John Edwards got, who actually used campaign funds. So this makes sense.

  • John Galt Jr||

    Trump says it matters that it was not campaign funds, which is typically bullshit.
    Why do you say it's legal to pay a bribe to influence an election, as long as it's not from a campaign fund?

    Trump's crimes are a lot more numerous, plus obstruction of justice.

    Oh, and Edwards was not guilty.

    Anything else?

  • Rational Exuberance||

    Why do you say it's legal to pay a bribe to influence an election, as long as it's not from a campaign fund?

    Paying for your own campaign out of your own pocket is not a "campaign contribution".

    Paying off a mistress to shut up is not a "bribe"; at best, it's payment for blackmail.

    Paying people to influence elections is perfectly legitimate: that's the whole purpose of campaign spending!

    I hope that answers your questions. Anything else?

  • John Galt Jr||

    Why do you say it's legal to pay a bribe to influence an election, as long as it's not from a campaign fund?

    Paying for your own campaign out of your own pocket is not a "campaign contribution".

    NON-RESPONSIVE
    Cohen has already pleaded guilty to campaign finance violations.

    Do ANY of you people have a clue what's going on here?

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Of course we understand what's going on here: The nice thing about coercing somebody into pleading guilty is that you don't have to prove the charge in court. The charge they plead guilty to doesn't have to even be a real crime.

    You just have to be able to convince them that you can ruin their life if they don't read the script that you've handed them.

  • John Galt Jr||

    You have to prove it to the accused. Who is a lawyer. (smirk)

  • damikesc||

    Albeit an incredibly bad lawyer.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Yes, you have to prove to the accused that you can ruin their life if they don't read the script. That's all.

  • Cyto||

    You have to demonstrate (not prove) to the accused (who is a lawyer) that you have both the capability and the intention to destroy their life. Then you can get them to plead to whatever you'd like in exchange for less than total destruction.

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    That's the problem here. I'm not a lawyer but I've yet to see anyone quote a statute or precedent that makes this a crime. It seems that the prosecutors succeeded in creating a crime by coercing a guy to plead guilty to it. I don't see how a libertarian can see this as anything except the state using it's monopoly on violence to reach a political end. Maybe I can be persuaded otherwise.

  • DesigNate||

    Don't bother, Hihn is all in on Orange Man Bad*.

    *to be fair, he's a shitty human being and not who I would like to see in the Oval Office.

  • John Galt Jr||

    NON-RESPONSIVE
    Cohen has already pleaded guilty to campaign finance violations.

    Do ANY of you people have a clue what's going on here?

  • Rational Exuberance||

    Cohen has already pleaded guilty to campaign finance violations.

    People plead guilty to all sorts of non-crimes when threatened by special prosecutors with nearly unlimited powers.

    Do ANY of you people have a clue what's going on here?

    Do you?

  • John Galt Jr||

    Cohen has already pleaded guilty to campaign finance violations.

    People plead guilty to all sorts of non-crimes when threatened by special prosecutors with nearly unlimited powers.

    Rational (sic) Experience sneers that people can be indicted by a grand jury for a crime that does not exist ... found guilty for a crime that does not exist, based on no evidence ... and judges conduct trials for non-crimes, on zero evidence, and issue an actual prison sentences for non-crimes .....

    .... because Trumpsters would lie to defend Trump of even murder, in broad daylight with witnesses, per Trump himself ... even after Trump publicly ridicules them for a total lack of conscience and morals

    But it's not a cult.

    Do ANY of you people have a clue what's going on here?

    Do you?

    You humiliated yourself in public, along with over 50 others here who are also so totally ignorant of what I just described about your own blunder

    Anything else?

  • James Pollock||

    "Paying for your own campaign out of your own pocket is not a "campaign contribution"."

    Not putting it on your campaign expenditure disclosure is a separate offense. Trump has tried a couple of explanations of what happened and who paid for what, and both of them involve illegalities. Oops.

    "Paying people to influence elections is perfectly legitimate: "

    That explains why Mr. Trump and his legal team were so forthright about the whole matter.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    It's possible that a small fine might be in order.

  • James Pollock||

    It's also possible that multiple years in prison might be in order. Let's see what the Judge thinks.

  • TuIpa||

    Fuck off Hihn.

  • DenverJ||

    You do understand that, legally speaking, it is literally impossible for the chief executive to obstruct an investigation by the executive branch?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Why are you trying to discuss things with Hihn the troll?

  • DenverJ||

    I'm bored?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Im never bored enough to smash my head against a wall.

    To each their own though.

    Carry on!

  • DenverJ||

    How about because, even though I know I won't change idiot's mind, somebody else might read this thread, and his bullshit needs to be exposed.

  • John Galt Jr||

    But I jam it up your ass -- every time -- with a source.
    Versus your profound ignorance and hissy fits. NEVER a source,

  • Sevo||

    John Galt Jr|12.8.18 @ 12:47AM|#
    "But I jam it up your ass -- "

    No, you suck everyone else's ass, you pathetic piece of shit
    Fuck off, Hihn.

  • John Galt Jr||

    (adoring eyes) SO manly!

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    You're almost always wrong. And you rant and rave about tunings incoherently where you might have a point. You're also ducking off you your meds right now, clearly.

    I should track down people you know in, Meridian is it? Maybe have them take you for 72 hours observation at a mental health facility.

    You are likely a danger to yourself, and others.

  • John Galt Jr||

    Last of the Shitlords|12.8.18 @ 3:29PM|#
    You're almost always wrong.

    Snowflake has been triggered.
    He has no example, because he'd be totally humiliate again.

    Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain. and most fools do.
    -Benjamin Franklin

    IRONY: They go bat-shit crazier, when their hate-spewing speech suppression is equated to left-wing snowflakes. Then there assault is even more viciously. A verbal punch-in-the-face by thugs and bullies. The only way they can feel manly, poor things.

    Left - Right = Zero
    Only libertarians commit to Non-Aggression. (And actual Christians/Jews/Muslims/Buddhists, etc.) It's about values.
    How can anyone be free, if not safe from aggressors, bullies and jack-booted thugs?

    These are RESULTS of a Google search. Over two million entries for "verbal aggression"

  • John Galt Jr||

    You do understand that, legally speaking, it is literally impossible for the chief executive to obstruct an investigation by the executive branch?

    So ... Trump is not the only one who thinks he was elected Emperor ,... and above the rule of law.

    Clinton was impeached for obstruction.
    Nixon's would have included obstruction.
    George HW Bush was charged with obstruction

    I have Eugene Volokh, a TOP expert on Constitutional law.
    You have NOTHING, but do suffer severe denial. Your falsehoods now stand at five. You are WAY above your class

    Why am I the ONLY one who provides sources and proof?

  • Michael Ejercito||

    You confuse the executive branch with the rule of law.

  • John Galt Jr||

    GREAT satire of the Trumpsters

  • damikesc||

    You have Volokh posting an article written by two other people, yes.

    And the paper indicates impeachment and removal are the appropriate punishments. Not criminal punishment.

  • James Pollock||

    "And the paper indicates impeachment and removal are the appropriate punishments. Not criminal punishment."

    Because (duh) the sitting President is immune to criminal prosecution.

  • John Galt Jr||

    But NOT immune from a civil action.

    Trump DID pay a $25 million settlement, for fraud, while in office.

  • John Galt Jr||

    You have Volokh posting an article written by two other people, yes.

    Is he a top expert on the Constitution?

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Not quite; He could obstruct an investigation by the executive branch, legally speaking, if he did it by violating the law. Let's say he has his chief of staff go around collecting evidence under subpoena, and destroying it. Or encouraging people to file perjurous affidavits in legal proceedings.

    THAT would qualify as obstruction of justice. Might even get the President disbarred, if he happened to be lawyer.

    What he can't legally speaking do, is obstruct an investigation by his own subordinates by simply issuing legal orders, or making legal personnel changes.

  • John Galt Jr||

    Prove a Trumpster wrong. They continue babbling. Just like Trump. (smirk)

  • damikesc||

    Not quite; He could obstruct an investigation by the executive branch, legally speaking, if he did it by violating the law. Let's say he has his chief of staff go around collecting evidence under subpoena, and destroying it. Or encouraging people to file perjurous affidavits in legal proceedings.

    Should we note that Obama's IRS did exactly that?

  • John Galt Jr||

    Should I note that you made a fool of yourself AGAIN?
    Tell us how Obama would be legally liable.

    Any other "questions," damikesc?

  • Conchfritters||

    Muller should at least come out and say the main reason for the investigation is over - there was no collusion - Trump isn't so dumb that he would pay Russian agents to steal the election, and BTW the Russians didn't steal the election. Peter Strzok tweeted as much to his girlfriend almost 2 years ago! But since Muller can look wherever he wants, and they have hundreds of hours of testimony to look for "gotcha lying to a federal prosecutor for paying off a woman, which isn't a crime!", now they're passing the time looking for lies, on any matter from anyone, and taking their sweet ass time. This has gone on long enough. Tell them to bring charges or can the clown show by tomorrow at 8am.

  • John Galt Jr||

    Muller should at least come out and say the main reason for the investigation is over - there was no collusion

    So you know what Mueller has, including all the blacked out redactions today?

    Trump isn't so dumb that he would pay Russian agents to steal the election

    Which has absolutely nothing to do with collusion, which is not a crime and not even a legal term

    nd BTW the Russians didn't steal the election.

    That's a known fact. And you have no idea what Muller has.

    Peter Strzok tweeted as much to his girlfriend almost 2 years ago!

    That one is a blatant falsehood. Was i by your same source who claims to know what Mueller has?

    a federal prosecutor for paying off a woman, which isn't a crime!

    They're illegal campaign contributions, to influence an election, which Trump tried to cover up by stretching it out over several months to look like a retainer -- and also reimbursing Cohen's income taxes on the payments.

    Tell them to bring charges or can the clown show by tomorrow at 8am.

    Five guilty verdicts and/or pleas, over 30 indictments and over 100 contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian.
    Again, how did you learn what evidence Mueller has, including today's blacked-out filings?

  • Rational Exuberance||

    They're illegal campaign contributions, to influence an election, which Trump tried to cover up by stretching it out over several months to look like a retainer -- and also reimbursing Cohen's income taxes on the payments.

    How are they "illegal campaign contributions" if Trump actually reimbursed the money? Any candidate can spend as much of his own money on his own campaign as he likes.

    Again, how did you learn what evidence Mueller has, including today's blacked-out filings?

    We don't. But you seem to believe that you do.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Trump kicked on $66 million of his own money. See opensecrets.org

    He also had zero debts unlike the Hillary campaign.

  • John Galt Jr||

    Diversion. Irrelevant.

    He also shifted over a million of donor dollars into his business, which is why his business and tax records are being subpoenaed. Per those crazy lefties at ... Forbes

    And, of course, he originally said he's self-fund his entire campaign. Yet another lie.

    Now, even Tucker Carlson has thrown him under the bus. Says he's not capable of being President, and has failed to deliver on any of his major promises (and MANY others) MORE proof

  • Sevo||

    Fuck off, Hihn.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    "He also shifted over a million of donor dollars into his business,"

    If you own a hotel, which he did, it is perfectly legal to put your campaign headquarters in the hotel, and pay for the room out of campaign funds. So long as you don't charge them above the going rate, of course.

  • John Galt Jr||

    " Again, how did you learn what evidence Mueller has, including today's blacked-out filings?"

    We don't. But you seem to believe that you do.

    (sneer)

  • TuIpa||

    Fuck off Hihn.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Does it or should it bother the libertarian in anyone the vast machinations of federal law enforcement with regard to campaign finance law (and all the First Amendment implications with it)? This isn't exactly horse race reporting but a larger discussion away from the general distastefulness of the Trump administration is hopefully coming.

    I suppose the best a libertarian can take from all this is the idea that you live by the giant federal government legal bureaucracy, you die under the weight of the giant federal government legal bureaucracy. In a just world this would probably happen to every one of the hubristic narcissists who takes residence at 1600 PA Avenue.

  • Tony||

    Can't hear you through all the Republican cock slurping.

  • Fancylad||

    If anyone knows what cock slurping sounds like, it's Tony.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Or what a crying barely pubescent boy sounds like after being sodomized by him.

  • JesseAz||

    You're mistaking the sound of an education for cock slurping.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Republicans are sucking Hillary's cock?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Now, is Republican a modifier for cock or slurping?

  • James Pollock||

    Both the slurper and the slurpee can be Republicans, if you prefer to imagine it that way.

  • DesigNate||

    Only a complete fucking moral degenerate like you could see someone say that and think it was somehow a defense of Republicans.

  • John Galt Jr||

    WHOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOSH

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    In a just world this would probably happen to every one of the hubristic narcissists who takes residence at 1600 PA Avenue.

    It will hopefully make my dream system come true: Hold an election and arrest everyone that shows up to run.

  • Marty Feldman's Eyes||

    In a just world this would probably happen to every one of the hubristic narcissists who takes residence at 1600 PA Avenue.

    This is what drives me nuts about the "it's an open ended witch hunt to catch people lying, not what the original investigation was supposed to be" angle. How is that a bad thing in any way. Every fucking elected official should be investigated 24/7 while in office. Maybe we'd have actually transparent gov't instead of lying shitbags.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    It's a bad thing, because it's selective.

    It's like, it would be a good thing if everybody were required to observe the speed limits, but a bad thing if only people the local police chief disliked were required to do so.

    IOW, the bad thing isn't the people who get nailed for real crimes, it's all the equally guilty who walked, because the deep state didn't have any motive to destroy them.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    "deep state"

    Drink!

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    Campaign finance law seems to be yet another avenue for government to go after basically anyone. See RICO, tax laws, etc.

    As sleazy as Trump is, I don't see how it's illegal to pay someone as terms of a contract to basically shut up. To claim that someone is using money to influence an election is.... claiming that they are campaigning?

  • Overt||

    I disagree. If this is campaigning then, by law, it would have to be disclosed- and this was not disclosed as obviously any payment to Stormy disclosed in campaign records would have defeated its purpose.

    But there is plenty of good reason this is not campaigning. The argument could be easily made that Dainiels' stories would have damaged Trump's personal life, not just his campaign. A public official who is under extra scrutiny not only has an electorate to please, but a life to live even if they are unable to prevail at the polls. And it is going far beyond campaign finance laws to insist that payments that predominantly safeguard their livelihood should also be in scope just because they may also help their campaign.

  • Ben of Houston||

    Also don't forget the arbitrary and capricious clauses. Hush money for mistresses and the mothers of illegitimate children has been a staple of Congressional playboys for centuries now. You cannot simply declare that it is illegal based on reinterpreting a law passes decades ago and start prosecuting only one person for it. That's the very definition of capriciousness.

  • James Pollock||

    "The argument could be easily made that Dainiels' stories would have damaged Trump's personal life, not just his campaign."
    Does Melania have a no-sleeping-with-porn-stars-while-we-re-married clause in her pre-nup?

    I'll be amused if disclosures related to running for and/or holding the Presidency cost Mr. Trump half his stuff. Hope the divorce-court judge doesn't turn out to be one of them Mexican judges that are out to get him!

  • Rockabilly||

    Oh I'm marching on to Washington with my pint of Ben & Jerry's #Resist !

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    The walls are closing in on the Drumpf regime. This is the beginning of the end. 2019 will be the year Putin's Puppet is removed from office. Then, if there's any justice in the world, we'll have President Hillary Clinton.

    MAGA = Mueller Ain't Going Away

  • Mcgoo95||

    Solid. Back on your game.

  • Eddy||

    You know who else engaged in a Russia Probe?

  • Conchfritters||

    Yuri Gagarin?

  • Rich||

    Catherine the Great?

  • bevis the lumberjack||

    Both Napoleon and Hitler did, but in the end they both regretted it.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    Ivan Drago's girlfriend?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Anna Karinnina?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Breznev?

  • Rat on a train||

    Laika?

  • John Galt Jr||

    Nobody can save Trump, now Including the Manafort revelations.

    And Don Jr has confessed to knowingly conspiring with the Russian government -- his emails setting up the Trump Tower meeting. We know Trump lied about the purpose of that meeting, before reversing himself yet again. If he knew the meeting's purpose in advance, and it can be proven, then he's a conspirator to thee conspiracy, and perhaps treason.

    Russian invitation to Donald Jr. Source: Donald Trump Jr's own Twitter feed!!!
    "The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father.

    "This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump
    – helped along by Aras and Emin."

    LOCK THEM UP!

    OR ... Junior is undeniably guilty. Will his father allow his son to spend the rest of his life in prison. Is Trump THAT evil?

  • DenverJ||

    Yawn. None of that shit is illegal. None of it. And treason is explicitly spelled out in the constitution, and since Congress has not declared war on Russia, I repeat: yawn.

  • John Galt Jr||

    (yawn) (laughing) He KNOWINGLY conspired with a foreign adversary, KNOWING they wanted to help his father. I even put it in bold.

    Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

    Or if a journalist pisses off the President, thus becoming an enemy of the people.

    READ the Constitution.
    Congress may also do it on their own, for any reason. https://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A3Sec3.html (yawn) (laughing.

    The conspiracy is a felony!

    You forgot to remind us that Trump is a Muslim from Kenya.
    How many forests have you raked this year?

  • TuIpa||

    Fuck off Hihn.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano and his conspiracy theories. Next he'll be selling water filters.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    You mean Hillary knowingly conspired with a British Spy to influence the 2016 elction.

  • John Galt Jr||

    More crazy bullshit. The knowingly part.

  • Sevo||

    Fuck off, Hihn.

  • Ben of Houston||

    John, please explain how one is legal but the other is not.

    I will tell you the difference I see. Clinton actually paid the Brit to perform a service. Russia does not seem to have reached any agreement with Trump.

  • John Galt Jr||

    If I pay you for something, and you pay "Phil" to do it, that I don't know about, then YOU say I paid Phil!
    As we all laugh at you.

  • Mcgoo95||

    Who the fuck is Phil?

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Is Trump THAT evil?

    The man plays eleventy dimensional chess and has never lost a game. Of course he's that evil.

  • John Galt Jr||

    That's a diversion, supported by a dishonest quote, not remotely related o what actually said
    He's lost over half his games. China the most recent. North Korea Etc etc etc

  • TuIpa||

    Fuck off Hihn.

  • DenverJ||

    Also, you fucking idiot, Russia doesn't even have a "Crown prosecutor".
    Fucking moron.

  • John Galt Jr||

    I agree that Donald Jr is a fuckig moron .

    And this proves YOU even more moronic.

    The term "Crown Prosecutor of Russia" is synonymous with "Attorney General of the United States". This is the most important information in the email because it indicates that the source providing the information to Donald Trump Jr. is at the highest level of the Russian Government.

    Anything else?

  • DenverJ||

    Yeah. I'll bet you a 20 donation to reason that even the rabid morons recently elected to the house won't vote to impeach Trump.
    You have nothing. Not one single law that you can point to and say Trump broke it. Not one. Seriously, please cite the specific law that you would prosecute him under.
    You're so high on your self righteous crusade that you can't even see that there are no giants, only windmills.

  • Nardz||

    There aren't even windmills.
    It's pure idiocy

  • John Galt Jr||

    PROVEN A FOOL -- AGAIN --- CHANGES SUBJECT!!! Cowardly diversions. Many.

  • Sevo||

    Fuck off, Hihn.

  • Rational Exuberance||

    And Don Jr has confessed to knowingly conspiring with the Russian government -- his emails setting up the Trump Tower meeting. We know Trump lied about the purpose of that meeting, before reversing himself yet again. If he knew the meeting's purpose in advance, and it can be proven, then he's a conspirator to thee conspiracy, and perhaps treason.

    Yes, Trump is party a conspiracy... an entirely legal and non-treasonous conspiracy to get dirt on Hillary Clinton (and an ineffective one at that).

  • John Galt Jr||

    One more time: "knowingly conspiring with the Russian government"
    Does the boldface help?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano and his wishful thinking.

  • John Galt Jr||

    PROVEN

  • DenverJ||

    Bold face doesn't turn legal acts into illegal ones. Not even if you hold your breath until you turn blue.
    Incidentally, if trump's actions were illegal, then wouldn't Hillary's be also? She knowingly gave money to Russian spies for dirt on Trump. What's the difference? The "D" after Clinton?

  • John Galt Jr||

    Bold face doesn't turn legal acts into illegal ones

    It allows me tio RIDICULE you for missing it.

    Hillary's be also? She knowingly gave money to Russian spies for dirt on Trump.

    Now EIGHT psycho lies!

    What's the difference? The "D" after Clinton?

    Pathetic loser
    Is Tucker Carlson a Democrat? (smirk) Are you so TOTALLY clueless that you don't know why I asked?
    GEORGE WILL?

  • Sevo||

    John Galt Jr|12.8.18 @ 1:13AM|#
    Yes you are a pathetic loser.
    Fuck off, Hihn.

  • DenverJ||

    Bold face doesn't turn legal acts into illegal ones. Not even if you hold your breath until you turn blue.
    Incidentally, if trump's actions were illegal, then wouldn't Hillary's be also? She knowingly gave money to Russian spies for dirt on Trump. What's the difference? The "D" after Clinton?

  • DenverJ||

    Bold face doesn't turn legal acts into illegal ones. Not even if you hold your breath until you turn blue.
    Incidentally, if trump's actions were illegal, then wouldn't Hillary's be also? She knowingly gave money to Russian spies for dirt on Trump. What's the difference? The "D" after Clinton?

  • DenverJ||

    Bold face doesn't turn legal acts into illegal ones. Not even if you hold your breath until you turn blue.
    Incidentally, if trump's actions were illegal, then wouldn't Hillary's be also? She knowingly gave money to Russian spies for dirt on Trump. What's the difference? The "D" after Clinton?

  • DenverJ||

    Repeating it four times, however, does make it true.

  • JesseAz||

    Hihn needs way more hits to the head for even basic comprehension.

  • John Galt Jr||

    Thug

  • Sevo||

    Fuck off, Hihn.

  • Rational Exuberance||

    One more time: "knowingly conspiring with the Russian government"

    It is perfectly legal for American citizens to "conspire" with foreign governments on many issues. Hillary "conspired" with the German government to obtain $5M for the Clinton Foundation, for example.

    Conspiracies are only illegal if the subject of the conspiracy is illegal. Getting dirt on Hillary Clinton is not illegal.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    This is a joke. Everyone knows it, including the media. They cannot even make an accusation for fear of being sued for defamation because Trump is 100% clean.

    Obama met with russians after winning the 2008 election and promised to have more latitude to work with Putin after the 2012 election.

    Not a single statute violation will be cited because no law was broken.

  • John Galt Jr||

    (snort) Five convictions and/or guilty pleas ... over 30 indictments by an independent Grand Jury.
    But Obama is a Kenyan, and I spent an hour raking a forest today.

  • Sevo||

    Fuck off, Hihn.

  • John Galt Jr||

    (snort) Five convictions and/or guilty pleas ... over 30 indictments by an independent Grand Jury.
    But Obama is a Kenyan, and I spent an hour raking a forest today.

  • Rational Exuberance||

    (snort) Five convictions and/or guilty pleas ... over 30 indictments by an independent Grand Jury.

    None of them for Russian collusion.

    and I spent an hour raking a forest today.

    Part of your work release program?

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Trump's going down on this one for sure.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Well, he better come up with a pretty good story. Otherwise, the news media will turn against him.

  • PoorSocialistLosertarian||

    Paying hookers hush money is clearly a violation of McCajn Feingold, and that makes it TREEEEEEEEAAAAAAASSSSOOOOOOOOOOOON!

  • John Galt Jr||

    (laughing)

  • TuIpa||

    Fuck off Hihn.

  • John Galt Jr||

    (adoring eyes) HOW MANLY!

  • Sevo||

    Fuck off, Hihn.

  • Rich||

    It is a mystery how Manafort could have thought he could have contacts with Trump administration officials after he was indicted and not be found out.

    "Hey, it's a free country!"

  • John Galt Jr||

    He had an agreement.
    Are your agreements also not to be trusted?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    No one should ever trust Dumbfuck Hihnsano.

  • John Galt Jr||

    I don't know who Hihnsano is, but you two are the ones defending the intentional breaking of agreements. and lying ... while whining about trust!

    Plus, you're stalking me down three separate pages today. A page search of your name shows you log on for the sole purpose of infantile aggression against a single person, well over a dozen. So how much trust should anyone have in a proven liar and bully?

  • Sevo||

    Fuck off, Hihn.

  • John Galt Jr||

    (sneer)

  • damikesc||

    He had an agreement.
    Are your agreements also not to be trusted?

    Wasn't the agreement that he admits to lying about his taxes?

    Why would I expect an agreement to admit you lie to mean you wouldn't lie about anything else.

    Mueller has never attempted to make a criminal case at any point.

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    What was the subject matter of these contacts? The guy obviously knew people in the administration. Was it a bar-b-q invite? A wedding or funeral? Doesn't matter. Still perjury by statute.

  • Trigger Warning||

    Gee. Such high drama. So exciting.

  • Rational Exuberance||

    But also, significantly, the memo documents Cohen's claims that he was operating at the behest of Trump when he paid off two women Trump allegedly had affairs with to keep them from going to the press during the 2016 presidential campaign.

    It's absurd to consider private payoffs to keep former mistresses quiet to be campaign finance violations. They might be campaign finance violations if Trump had actually campaign funds to do it, but he (apparently) paid for them out of his own pocket.

  • John Galt Jr||

    Learn the law. Tell us why it's okay to bribe people to influence an election, if it's private money,.

    Why else would Trump lie about it?
    Why else would Trump try to cover up his payment to Cohen by spreading it over many months to look like a retainer?
    Why else would Trump also reimburse Cohen for Cohen's income taxes?

    Why did Trump say you would lie to defend him of even murder, in broad daylight, with witnesses?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    For the same reason Dumbfuck Hihnsano shrieks like a bitch.

  • John Galt Jr||

    The adult in the room asked:

    Tell us why it's okay to bribe people to influence an election, if it's private money,.

    Why else would Trump lie about it?
    Why else would Trump try to cover up his payment to Cohen by spreading it over many months to look like a retainer?
    Why else would Trump also reimburse Cohen for Cohen's income taxes?

    Why did Trump say you would lie to defend him of even murder, in broad daylight, with witnesses?

    So who is shrieking like a bitch? (snort)

  • DenverJ||

    Because you're really, really, really stupid.

  • John Galt Jr||

    The adult in the room asked

    Tell us why it's okay to bribe people to influence an election, if it's private money,.

    Why else would Trump lie about it?
    Why else would Trump try to cover up his payment to Cohen by spreading it over many months to look like a retainer?
    Why else would Trump also reimburse Cohen for Cohen's income taxes?

    Why did Trump say you would lie to defend him of even murder, in broad daylight, with witness

    From the child's table

    Because you're really, really, really stupid.

    Cowardly evasion

  • Sevo||

    Fuck off, Hihn.

  • Rational Exuberance||

    The adult senile schizophrenic in the room asked

    FTFY

  • Sevo||

    John Galt Jr|12.7.18 @ 9:16PM|#
    "Learn the law...."

    You should take your own advice, you imbecile.
    Fuck off, Hihn.

  • John Galt Jr||

    The adult in the room asked

    Tell us why it's okay to bribe people to influence an election, if it's private money,.

    Why else would Trump lie about it?
    Why else would Trump try to cover up his payment to Cohen by spreading it over many months to look like a retainer?
    Why else would Trump also reimburse Cohen for Cohen's income taxes?

    Why did Trump say you would lie to defend him of even murder, in broad daylight, with witness

    When a right-wing snowflake is triggered:

    Fuck off, Hihn.
  • Sevo||

    Fuck off, Hihn.

  • ||

    We had this kid at our high school named Johnny who had downs syndrome. He was a nice guy and the kids in school treated him likewise. At one point my senior year someone pushed his button the wrong way and he jumped to the ground and did about 20 really fast push-ups while breathing hard. After that he stood up and did a few flexes and sneered at the guy.

    When Hihn goes off like this I am instantly reminded of Johnny.

  • John Galt Jr||

    The adult in the room asked

    Tell us why it's okay to bribe people to influence an election, if it's private money,.

    Why else would Trump lie about it?
    Why else would Trump try to cover up his payment to Cohen by spreading it over many months to look like a retainer?
    Why else would Trump also reimburse Cohen for Cohen's income taxes?

    Why did Trump say you would lie to defend him of even murder, in broad daylight, with witness


    When a right-wing snowflake is triggered:

    We had this kid at our high school named Johnny

    Cowardly diversion

    and sneered at the guy.

    SNEER

  • Sevo||

    Fuck off, Hihn.

  • Rational Exuberance||

    Learn the law. Tell us why it's okay to bribe people to influence an election, if it's private money.

    Tell us why it's not OK to bribe Stormy Daniels to influence an election. What statute does that violate according to you?

    Why else would Trump try to cover up his payment to Cohen by spreading it over many months to look like a retainer?

    Well, gosh, why in the world would someone paying to keep embarrassing information private also keep the payment itself private?

    Someone of ordinary intelligence can figure that out in 5s or less. Of course, it may take you longer.

  • John Galt Jr||

    From the adult table

    Why else would Trump lie about it?
    Why else would Trump try to cover up his payment to Cohen by spreading it over many months to look like a retainer?
    Why else would Trump also reimburse Cohen for Cohen's income taxes?

    Why did Trump say you would lie to defend him of even murder, in broad daylight, with witnesses

    From the child's table

    Tell us why it's not OK to bribe Stormy Daniels to influence an election. What statute does that violate according to you?

    Cowardly evasion.
    It violates campaign finance law, per Fox's Judge Nap (among others)

  • Sevo||

    Fuck off, Hihn.

  • James Pollock||

    " What statute does that violate according to you?"

    Depends on which state it happens in.

    http://www.ncsl.org/Portals/1/documents/ legismgt/2014_Independent_Expenditures_Chart.pdf (space inserted)

  • Sevo||

    Fuck off, Hihn.

  • James Pollock||

    Fuck off, lady

  • JesseAz||

    Every ad a 3rd party buys about a candidate or policy is an attempt to influence an election dumbfuck.

  • Sevo||

    "Every ad a 3rd party buys about a candidate or policy is an attempt to influence an election dumbfuck."
    Pelosi's payments to her plastic-surgeon should be handled the same way.

  • John Galt Jr||

    Every ad a 3rd party buys about a candidate or policy is an attempt to influence an election dumbfuck.

    This was not an ad. (snort)

  • Sevo||

    Fuck off, Hihn.

  • John Galt Jr||

    This was not an ad. (snort)

  • Sevo||

    Fuck off, Hihn.

  • John Galt Jr||

    STILL not an ad (sneer)

  • James Pollock||

    "Every ad a 3rd party buys about a candidate or policy is an attempt to influence an election dumbfuck."

    Which is why they have to file disclosure paperwork about them.

  • Sevo||

    Fuck off, Hihn.

  • James Pollock||

    Buy a fucking clue

  • jdgalt1||

    I don't know if any of the Volokh folks read this section of the site, but:

    Why would payments of "hush money" from Trump or Cohen to two women who may have had affairs with Trump constitute a violation of law by Cohen, rather than criminal blackmail by the women?

  • DenverJ||

    For the same reason that bribing Putin with a $50 million penthouse makes Trump owe Putin a favor: the narrative is being put forth by morons.

  • John Galt Jr||

    1) The moron fails to see that the penthouse offer was in return for a favor by Putin.

    2) If I give YOU $50 million, how does that cause ME to owe YOU a favor?

  • Sevo||

    Fuck off, Hihn.

  • John Galt Jr||

    1) The moron fails to see that the penthouse offer was in return for a favor by Putin.

    2) If I give YOU $50 million, how does that cause ME to owe YOU a favor?

  • Sevo||

    Fuck off, Hihn.

  • John Galt Jr||

    Campaign finance violation.
    The offer initiated with Cohen -- under Trump's direction.
    Trump originally denied any prior knowledge -- then retracted the lie. So he's already snared by the perjury trap, all by himself, and at least a dozen other lies.

    .

  • Sevo||

    Fuck off, Hihn.

  • John Galt Jr||

    Snowflake trigger easily. (snort)
    Especially the 12-year-old thugs.

  • Sevo||

    Fuck off, Hihn.

  • John Galt Jr||

    9-year-old

    BOOGA-BOOGA

    Bullying for OVER a year ... FAILS to shut me down,

    Sing along: "another one bites ... another one bites ... another one bites the dust."

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Is nobody gonna comment how pissed Hillary was at GWHB funeral in DC?

    Left to right was Melina trump, Donald, W Bush, Barack, michelle obama, bill clinton, and then finally Hillary.

  • Sevo||

    The Chron ran a photo and captioned that Trump was 'marginalized' by the seating...

  • John Galt Jr||

    The Chron ran a photo and captioned that Trump was 'marginalized' by the seating...

    How many are stupid enough to believe that? (guffaw)

    There were exactly 8 chairs -- for 4 ex-Presidents and their wives. (All but Dubya and Laura)
    Donald and Melania arrived last.
    Donald allowed "ladies first" to his wife.
    That left Donald on the aisle -- another bullshit conspiracy!
    The last one in would .... sit on the aisle!

    lc1789 screwed up on Dubya (not there) -- and the Carters (there)

  • Sevo||

    John Galt Jr|12.8.18 @ 12:06AM|#
    "How many are stupid enough to believe that? (guffaw)"

    You are stupid enough to dispute it with no evidence, you fucking ignoramus.
    Fuck off, Hihn

  • John Galt Jr||

    You are stupid enough to dispute it with no evidence, you fucking ignoramus.

    CLICK THE LINK.
    SEE THE PHOTO
    (SNORT)

  • James Pollock||

    spam, spam, spam, spam, spamitty spam...

  • Ben of Houston||

    Also, it's convenient. If there is an emergency, Trump might have to leave early. Being on the aisle would make it less disruptive.

  • James Pollock||

    Well, we've seen Donnie physically shove other nations' leaders out of the way when they came between him and a TV camera. I'm sure that, with the help of the Secret Service, they could get past the batch of ex-Presidents if there were an emergency that required him to leave.

  • Sevo||

    Fuck off, Hihn.

  • James Pollock||

    Is that supposed to be a place-filler for something useful? Or just the last few brain cells you had, firing off random synapses causing your finger to twitch on the "send again" button?

  • John Galt Jr||

    James,
    Only one person in the entire universe, fails to appreciate his verbal genius.
    And that one person posts facts and common sense, as 294 sock puppets.

    Because Trump

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    Bill Clinton between Michelle and Hillary... Not even he could be aroused by that.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Different people are aroused by different things. Some relatively young, uneducated, unaccomplished women sleep with or even marry obese, lying, old silver-spooners for financial and immigration purposes, for example.

  • Sevo||

    And not a one of them will bother to dirty a sheet next to an asshole like you.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Melania must be desperate by now. I almost feel sorry for her.

  • Sevo||

    Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland|12.8.18 @ 7:59PM|#
    "Melania must be desperate by now. I almost feel sorry for her."

    Hardly anyone feels sorry for a fucking asshole like you.
    Please commit suicide; the world's intelligence could use a boost.

  • John Galt Jr||

    Is nobody gonna comment how pissed Hillary was at GWHB funeral in DC?

    Is anybody gonna ridicule your latest fuckup?

    Left to right was Melina trump, Donald, W Bush, Barack, michelle obama, bill clinton, and then finally Hillary.

    You forgot TRUMP. He was the last one in, and on the aisle -- as proven when he handed off his coat.

    When (and if) you learn to understand aisles, that means
    1) Bill and Hillary arrived first.
    2) Bill allowed "ladies first" to Hillary

    Anything else?

  • Sevo||

    Fuck off, Hihn.

  • John Galt Jr||

    Too much fun ridiculing goobers.

  • Ben of Houston||

    Then there is the final item. Put as many warm bodies between two people who want to kill each other as possible.

  • John Galt Jr||

    One?

  • Sevo||

    John Galt Jr|12.7.18 @ 11:44PM|#
    "Anything else?"

    Yeah, you're an ignoramus who has no idea what you're posting about.
    Fuck off, Hihn.

  • Sevo||

    And, before I knock off for this evening, might I suggest to all of those visiting here that you add a hearty FUCK OFF HIHN whenever that pathetic piece of shit posts here.
    You could also ask what happened when he took *SCREEN SHOTS* of me pointing out that he was a pathetic piece of shit and promised to show them to a major supporter of Reason, hoping that that supporter would do something or other in support of that pathetic piece of shit Hihn.
    Hey, shitbag, what ever happened to that? Did David tell you to grow up? Was he kind enough to ignore you?
    Fuck off, Hihn.

  • John Galt Jr||

    Behold the psycho.
    I'm not even Hihn.

  • Sevo||

    Fuck off, Hihn.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    I can't wait to read Pres. Trump's twitterings on the day of his son's indictment.

  • Sevo||

    "I can't wait to read Pres. Trump's twitterings on the day of his son's indictment."
    Besides being an all-around asshole, you have an active fantasy life.

  • Ecoli||

    "you are pardoned. that is all."

    Won't even take 240 characters.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    You expect an entirely federal indictment?

    Half-educated bigots are fun to watch as they struggle to understand the modern world.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    You expect an entirely federal indictment?

    Half-educated bigots are fun to watch as they struggle to understand the modern world.

  • Sevo||

    Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland|12.8.18 @ 8:00PM|#
    "You expect an entirely federal indictment?"

    I expect un-educated assholes like you to continue to post your fantasies.
    Fuck off.

  • James Pollock||

    " continue to post your fantasies."

    Says the guy who keeps repeating his fantasy to fuck Hihn.

  • John Galt Jr||

    Bye-bye Sevo .....

    Don Jr. KNOWINGLY conspired with an agent of the Russian government, to help his father's campaign (Trump Tower)... because Retard Jr. ADMITTED iit!!!

    Trump totally misled the American people on the purpose of the meeting and, when he got caught, claimed he had no advance knowledge of it.

    If he did, that makes him a co-conspirator in treasonous activity.

    "Conspiring" means PLANNING together. Junior released the emails PLANNING the meeting, KNOWING it was on behalf of the Russian government, to help elect his father,

    Wait for it ....

    Russian invitation to Donald Jr.
    The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father.

    This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump – helped along by Aras and Emin.
    Source: Donald Trump Jr's own Twitter feed!!!

    LOCK THEM UP!

    OR ... Junior is undeniably guilty. Will his father allow his son to spend the rest of his life in prison. Is Trump THAT evil?

    Anything else?

  • John Rohan||

    You constantly pasting this same thing doesn't make it more true. Don Jr met with who he thought was an agent of the Russian government (there is no such thing as a "crown prosecutor" in Russia).

    And there is no indication there was an agreement to do anything, much less a conspiracy on anything illegal, as a result of the meeting ("conspiracy" is not a crime by itself, it has to be tied to some actual crime).

  • John Galt Jr||

    ANOTHER puppet!

    You constantly pasting this same thing doesn't make it more true.

    THE LINK PROVES IT TRUE. CLICK IT AND LEARN FOR ONCE

    (there is no such thing as a "crown prosecutor" in Russia).

    THE LINK PROVES YOU WRONG.

    CONSPIRACY MEANS PLANNING.
    WORKING WITH A FOREIGN ADVERSARY TO INFLUENCE AN ELECTION IS A CRIME

    Check your ventriloquist for today's sound bites and slogans.

    Sing along:
    "another one bites ... another one bites ... another one bites the dust."

  • John Rohan||

    1. No, just clearing up your misinformation doesn't make me a "puppet". That's an ad hominem attack, and doesn't support your argument.

    2. There is objectively as a point of fact, no such job as "crown prosecutor" in Russia. For one thing, Russia isn't a monarchy. They had no confirmed ties to the government.

    3. Working with a foreigner to influence an election is not necessarily a crime. For just a couple examples, campaigns have routinely hired foreign consultants. Mexico assists with "get out the vote" campaigns, and everyone knows which party that's supposed to help. In this case, if these Russians did give the campaign "dirt" on Hillary it's not a crime unless there was an illegal quid pro quo discussed. From all indications, however, the Russians had no "dirt", they made a pitch to loosen up the laws on Russian adoptions, and the meeting ended without agreements made.

    4. Using all caps, bolded text, exclamation points, italics, and sarcasms don't advance your case and are all irrelevant to the issue at hand.

  • John Galt Jr||

    Does ANYBODY see a SOURCE in John Rohan's PROVEN falsehoods?

    No, just clearing up your misinformation doesn't make me a "puppet".

    You FAILED .... TOTALLY .. and are PROVEN wrong

    That's an ad hominem attack,

    IN DEFENSE OF AGGRESSION AND LYING (OR IGNORANCE)

    and doesn't support your argument.

    CLICK THE LINK ..Stop yer darn BELLOWING and show YOUR proof. (sneer)

    all caps, bolded text, exclamation points, italics, and sarcasms don't advance your case and are all irrelevant to the issue at hand.

    THAT WAS RIDICULE.
    SO IS THIS.

    Sing along: "another one bites ... another one bites ... another one bites the dust."

  • Tony||

    I'm curious how much he actually cares about the offspring he doesn't want to have sex with.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    An obvious point is that, by coercing Cohen into pleading guilty, Mueller evaded the adversarial process where it could have been challenged that these acts were even crimes to begin with.

  • Ben of Houston||

    That's the problem with this whole issue. It seems that Mueller is catching cronies in outright corruption and then getting them to plead guilty to his strange interpretation of campaign finance law in an attempt to build precedent.

    The goal appears to convict Trump of a campaign finance violation for paying off Daniels. Nothing else seems to be sticking or going all the way to Trump. However, this has been a common practice for centuries, and it has been done by a substantial fraction of Congress as well since the law was passed. The idea of paying off mistresses wasn't even discussed when the campaign finance law was passed.

    No one in Congress will vote for conviction on that, as it is blatantly capricious, reinterpreting a law to declare someone guilty.

  • Tony||

    So many people who can read through redactions here. They should employ you at CIA.

  • Ben of Houston||

    There's no other interpretation I can see in which these pleas make sense. They have legitimate crimes to their names, but they are pleading on thing related to the Daniels payoff. There's no reason to do that.

    You get no points for connecting the dots on a paint-by-numbers puzzle.

  • John Galt Jr||

    There's no other interpretation I can see in which these pleas make sense.

    Umm,. the Grand Jury and Presiding Judges saw enough. They matter. You do not.

    P.S. Why do you know the law better than over a dozen of the best defense attorneys in America?

  • John Galt Jr||

    An obvious point

    (pees pants laughing)

    is that, by coercing Cohen into pleading guilty, Mueller evaded the adversarial process where it could have been challenged that these acts were even crimes to begin with.

    THE GRAND JURY AND THE PRESIDING JUDGE ..... NOT a brilliant as Brett!

    COHEN IS AN ATTORNEY, Brett!

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Yes, and what does that have to do with anything?

    Mueller says to Cohen, "Look, I can prove you're guilty of X, [Where X is a real crime.] and I'll gladly put you away for the rest of your life for it. Or you can plead guilty to conspiring with Trump to engage in aggravated mopery, [Yeah, not a real crime.] and you're home free. Which is it?"

    You think Cohen is going to say, "My honor as a lawyer demands that I not plead guilty to nonsensical offenses, so I guess I'm just going to have to spend the rest of my life in prison!"

  • John Galt Jr||

    THE GRAND JURY AND THE PRESIDING JUDGE ..... NOT a brilliant as Brett Bellmore.
    Cohen is an attorney!

    Yes, and what does that have to do with anything?

    WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH

    Fox's Judge Nap says you're full of crap, that Trump committed three crimes on Stormy Daniels alone. Says Trump can be indicted now, but not prosecuted until he leaves office -- (which would obviously be immediately, no more than a week; he'd resign for the same reason Trump did, but be imprisoned.)

    Sing along ... "another one bites ... another one bites ... another one bites the dust."

  • Cloudbuster||

    "Prosecutors recommend prison"

    In other news, water is wet.

  • Tony||

    There are like three people here who don't have their lips wrapped around Donald Trump's cock. What has libertarianism become? A cult of the most powerful, and least competent, politician in the country? What a joke you people are.

  • Brian||

    I'm just as shocked as you are.

    Trump collided with the Russians to steal Hillary's election by paying off Stormy Daniels so he could appear pristine for Campaign 2016.

    And it's like some people just can't take that seriously.

  • Tony||

    More shocking would be Trump having the competence and ethical maturity to run a campaign without committing any crimes.

    Some point soon it's going to come down to deciding whether truth resides in Mueller's reports or Trump's twitter feed. No doubt 90% of the people here will assume the fat orange blowhard with a lifetime history of shady enterprises is the one being honest between the two.

  • Brian||

    Undoubtedly paying off hookers works, or else people wouldn't pay off hookers.

    And that's how we know the federal government is illegitimate.

  • Tony||

    Didn't work this time, as our mental images of presidential genitals can attest to.

  • Brian||

    Why are you trying to picture Trump's cock in your mind? There's better things to do.

    Wait: how would you know?

  • Tony||

    Because the porn actress he extramaritally fucked during Shark Week told me what it looks like.

    How nice that we've become so much more liberal since the Clinton era that such things don't matter and it's definitely not a matter of you being a pathetic hypocritical toady for anyone with an (R) after his name.

  • Sevo||

    Tony|12.8.18 @ 3:31PM|#
    "Because the porn actress he extramaritally fucked during Shark Week told me what it looks like."

    You could also check with nearly all of the Kennedy scumbags and Bubba; I'm sure they could direct you to the hags they screwed.

  • Brian||

    The real hypocrites are the whores that look down on it all.

    I mean, sure, your style of getting fucked by pols is a little different, and your prices are much lower, but who are you to judge?

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    Who Clinton fucked consensually didn't matter then and doesn't now. The blue dress and the perjury did.

  • James Pollock||

    "Undoubtedly paying off hookers works, or else people wouldn't pay off hookers."

    I'm given to understand that if you don't pay the hookers, the pimp comes looking for his money.

  • wreckinball||

    Tony always a dumb fuck
    I guess you didn't want Hihn being the sole village idiot today?

    Where's Pollack the fence sitter?

  • Tony||

    I'm a dumb fuck because I don't think Donald Fucking Trump is the best president since sliced Lincoln, correct? Do you even know what you believe? Does your brain even have functioning neurons, or does Sean Hannity simply jizz into your ear and you then make whatever face sounds result from such a biological situation?

  • Sevo||

    Tony|12.8.18 @ 3:29PM|#
    "I'm a dumb fuck because I don't think Donald Fucking Trump is the best president since sliced Lincoln, correct?"

    Nope. Pretty sure it's congenital.

  • wreckinball||

    Cohen seems like a dumb fuck.

    He has plead guilty to paying a stripper to be quiet.

    !?!!?

    Who gives a fuck? Oh wait deputy dog Mueller has twisted paying someone into some sort of campaign contribution. No way this stands st a trial and certainly will be absolutely a nothing to the R senate

    And most laughably he plead guilty to lying to congress

    Seriously who doesn't these days

  • John Galt Jr||

    Cohen seems likea dumb fuck.

    Whereas you just PROVEN yourself one!

    Are the Presiding Judge and Grand Jury also "dumbfucks" .... to you?
    If so, who cares what you "think?"

    Apparently, not everyione is so eager to be brainwashed by Trump, Breitbart. Stormfront and Fox Pravda

  • Presskh||

    Meanwhile, Mueller continues to ignore the only proven Russian collusion - the purchasing of the fabricated Steele dossier by the Clinton campaign.

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    On that subject, Comey's confession.
    https://tinyurl.com/y7jkdodr

  • John Galt Jr||

    On that subject, Comey's confession.

    Has zero relevance.

    The Trump Campaign hired Cambridge Analytica. Can you PROVE they knew Steele had been hired by Cambridge?

    Do you know ... the investigation began FIVE MOTHS BEFORE the Steele Dossier was known of. I didn't think so.

    What percentage of the evidence was the Steele dossier of (a) the FICA. and (b) the Cambridge report. I didn't think so.

    The Cambridge Dossier was originally commissioned and paid by a wealthy REPUBLICAN. to block Trump's nomination. When he won the nominatiion, Cambridge THEN approached the Clinton Campaign, to sell what it already had. Didn't think so.

    How does ANY of this equate to Doanld Jr KNOWINGLY conspiring with the Russian government, who TOLD Junior, "This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump."

    Do you know Junior was STUPID enough to post that on his Twitter page???!!!

    Anything else?

  • James Pollock||

    You don't need a special counsel to prosecute that... if there's anything to it. Any USA could prosecute that. Unless it came back stamped "no bill".

  • Jerry B.||

    So could the fellow who scrubbed Ms. Clinton's email server be charged under the same campaign violation rules? He took actions that affected the 2016 election, and didn't properly report them.

  • Wise Old Fool||

    LOL you actually think your red herring comment will work?

  • James Pollock||

    "So could the fellow who scrubbed Ms. Clinton's email server be charged under the same campaign violation rules? "

    How would you assign a value to this action? The porn-star payment is easy to value. Did the person who ran the email server do so at market rates? If so, there's nothing to report. Did he do it at below-market rates? Then the difference between market rates and the price actually charged is a campaign donation, except (whoops) the Clinton email scandal happened when she was Secretary of State, and not when she was a candidate for federal office (yes, she had a federal office, but it's an appointed one, not an elected one)

    So, the short answer, is no.

  • Sevo||

    James Pollock|12.8.18 @ 7:01PM|#

    "So could the fellow who scrubbed Ms. Clinton's email server be charged under the same campaign violation rules? "

    "How would you assign a value to this action? The porn-star payment is easy to value. Did the person who ran the email server do so at market rates? If so, there's nothing to report."
    Bullshit; you as a lefty ignoramus attempt to define 'market value' to suit your idiocy.

    "Did he do it at below-market rates? Then the difference between market rates and the price actually charged is a campaign donation, except (whoops) the Clinton email scandal happened when she was Secretary of State, and not when she was a candidate for federal office (yes, she had a federal office, but it's an appointed one, not an elected one)"
    Pile of cow shit.
    Oh, and tell us how this differs from the moeny Pelosi paid her plastic surgeon, oh lefty asshole.

    "So, the short answer, is no."
    So the short answer is you are willing to get dizzy spinning for lefty twits.

  • James Pollock||

    "Oh, and tell us how this differs from the moeny Pelosi paid her plastic surgeon, oh lefty asshole."

    It doesn't, o unwiped diarrhea.

    "So the short answer is you are willing to get dizzy spinning for lefty twits."

    Seek professional help.

  • James Pollock||

    "Bullshit; you as a lefty ignoramus attempt to define 'market value' to suit your idiocy."

    And I did this by never even using the words, much less defining them.

    Whatever you're taking... dial down the dose a bit.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    He could be charged under "destroying evidence that was under a preservation order" rules. They already decided to immunize him for that... A clear sign that the 'investigation' was a white wash.

  • John Galt Jr||

    If it ever happened!

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Justice Dept. Granted Immunity to Specialist Who Deleted Hillary Clinton's Emails

    "WASHINGTON — A computer specialist who deleted Hillary Clinton's emails despite orders from Congress to preserve them was given immunity by the Justice Department during its investigation into her personal email account, according to a law enforcement official and others briefed on the investigation.

    Republicans have called for the department to investigate the deletions, but the immunity deal with the specialist, Paul Combetta, makes it unlikely that the request will go far. Representative Jason Chaffetz of Utah, the top Republican on the House oversight committee, asked the Justice Department on Tuesday to investigate whether Mrs. Clinton, her lawyers or the specialist obstructed justice when the emails were deleted in March 2015."

  • John Galt Jr||

    READ THE LINK!!!

  • John Galt Jr||

    "The F.B.I. described the deletions by Mr. Combetta in a summary of its investigation into Mrs. Clinton's account that was released last Friday. The documents blacked out the specialist's name, but the law enforcement official and others familiar with the case identified the employee as Mr. Combetta. They spoke on the condition of anonymity because they did not want to be identified discussing matters that were supposed to remain confidential."

    SOURCES .... THE NEW YORK TIMES! (LOL)

  • Wise Old Fool||

    LOL and Trump wants us to think that he didn't pay the hush money. And some Republicans are that fucking stupid to think that Cohen did this on his own.

  • Sevo||

    LOL? 5th grade?
    BTW, please tell us what law you think was broken.

  • James Pollock||

    It's hard to say, because Mr. Trump's story changes.
    Originally, the story was that Cohen paid the porn star, and Trump never knew anything about it. Then someone realized that if that were the true nature of events, it would be a campaign finance violation. So overnight, Rudy shows up and says that OF COURSE Trump knew all about it the whole time, and it was HIS money that paid off the porn-star. Is either of these stories true? Rudy maybe knows, but he's got duty of confidentiality. Trump may or may not know, but whatever he says is... generously... not likely to be accepted by Trump critics at face value. If Trump could figure out a lie that got everybody off the hook, that would the song that everyone would be singing

  • Sevo||

    James Pollock|12.8.18 @ 6:57PM|#
    "It's hard to say, because Mr. Trump's story changes."

    I'm sure that story was interesting to all those who still whine about the hag losing.
    Did you have a point other than you think Trump is a poopyhead?

  • James Pollock||

    "Did you have a point other than you think Trump is a poopyhead?"

    Sorry, I only made a rational point, and that's why you weren't able to follow.
    Mr. Trump is a liar. A bullshitter. It might be possible to believe the things he says, if he'd pick a story, get everybody on the same page, and they'd all stick with it. But that's not what happens.

  • Sevo||

    Oh, oh!
    One more Hihn sock!
    Fuck off, Hihn.

  • James Pollock||

    Someone's gotten into YOUR head.

  • John Galt Jr||

    There was plenty of open space.

  • John Galt Jr||

    Hey, Sevo ...... (sneer)

    Fox's Judge Nap says you're full of crap, that Trump committed three crimes on Stormy Daniels alone. Says Trump can be indicted now, but not prosecuted until he leaves office -- (which would obviously be immediately, no more than a week; he'd resign for the same reason Trump did, but be imprisoned.)

    Fox's Andrew McCarthy says Trump will be indicted.

    Even Tucker Carlson has thrown Trump under a bus, saying Trump is not "capable" of being President, and has failed to keep his key promises. (Tucker did NOT list Trump's promise to completely pay off the federal debt in 8 years -- but instead has ADDED more 8-year debt than Obama added AFTER 8 years!)

    (Posted in defense of multiple aggressions, by a serial stalking cyber-thug)

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    "Then someone realized that if that were the true nature of events, it would be a campaign finance violation." Cite a statute or precedent.

  • James Pollock||

    I did. The national council of state legislatures put together a state-by-state listing. All you have to do is figure out which state's law applies.

    http://www.ncsl.org/Portals/1/documents/legismgt/ 2014_Independent_Expenditures_Chart.pdf (space inserted)

  • wreckinball||

    It is not related to the campaign but I guess we're in the make believe land of TDS afflicted prosecutors .

    So only in that make believe land it's a crime

  • James Pollock||

    You may be right that wishful thinking is involved. You may not be right about who's doing it.

  • John Galt Jr||

    So only in that make believe land it's a crime

    So ... the Grand Jury was duped into an indictment for a non-crime ... the Presiding Judges are stupider thanj you ... and over a dozen of the best defense attorneys in America.

    Where did you get your own law degree. graduating at the top of your class?
    Will you be considered for the next SCOTUS opening by your Orange God?

  • CharlotteHaze||

    Paying off someone for keeping their trap shut about consensual sex doesn't seem immoral or illegal.

  • Sevo||

    I'd tend to agree.
    The folks in MA didn't seem to think drowning a mistress was reason to toss that drunkard Ted out of office, so we know the bar is set pretty low among Ds.

  • John Galt Jr||

    Evidence none. (smirk)

  • John Galt Jr||

    Paying off someone for keeping their trap shut about consensual sex doesn't seem immoral or illegal.

    It's not. Do you have anything that is relevant to this?

    rel·e·vant
    /ˈreləvənt/
    adjective

    closely connected or appropriate to what is being done or considered.

    Anything else?

  • Sevo||

    Various takes on "J Galt"
    "David Nolan" (whose jock strap Hihn isn't justified to lick)
    Add "James Pollock" to the list of Hihn socks. I'm sure, in his dementia, that fucking ignoramus thinks he's being very clever.
    Fuck off, Hihn.

  • Sevo||

    And, before I knock off for this evening, might I suggest to all of those visiting here that you add a hearty FUCK OFF HIHN whenever that pathetic piece of shit posts here.
    See above for his known socks; he's a scumbag liar and pathetic lefty.
    You could also ask what happened when he took *SCREEN SHOTS* of me pointing out that he was a pathetic piece of shit and promised to show them to a major supporter of Reason, hoping that that supporter would do something or other in support of that pathetic piece of shit Hihn.
    Hey, shitbag, what ever happened to that? Did David tell you to grow up? Was he kind enough to ignore you?
    Fuck off, Hihn.

  • James Pollock||

    "See above for his known socks;"

    If you're as sknowledgeable about other things as you are about that, I can see why nobody takes you very seriously.

  • wreckinball||

    Don't think Pollock is Hihn/Galt

    He is a dumb shit so he has that in common with Hihn

  • James Pollock||

    Still smarter than either of you diarrhea stains.

  • Rational Exuberance||

    He also shifted over a million of donor dollars into his business, which is why his business and tax records are being subpoenaed

    Gosh, that's about as much as Maxine Waters shifted from her campaigns to her daughter.

  • John Galt Jr||

    Cowardly diversion, (lol)

  • Brett Bellmore||

    By "shifted over to his businesses", you mean, when he needed rental space for his campaign, he used his own hotels. Perfectly legal, as long as the campaign paid no more than the going rate.

  • John Galt Jr||

    By "shifted over to his businesses", you mean, when he needed rental space for his campaign, he used his own hotels.

    umm, no.
    That makes TWO cowardly diversions.
    And I've humiliated you enough on this page.

  • wreckinball||

    So the SDNY is going to indict Trump ? Let's twist the campaign law around and get a rube like Cohen to plead guilty. Then use that as a pretense to indict the president which the DOJ has already established can't happen

    LOL like that will work

    Is NY a dumping ground for mental patients?

    Oh wait impeach Trump ? And then convince 67 senators to vote for removal?

    WTF

  • James Pollock||

    "Then use that as a pretense to indict the president which the DOJ has already established can't happen"

    In a little over 2 years, he'll be subject to indictment again.

    Are they patient enough for that? Who knows.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    No, of course they're not patient enough, since the only point of indicting him is to make sure he loses the 2020 election. Indicting him after it would be pointless.

  • James Pollock||

    " Indicting him after it would be pointless."

    Totally, unless the point of indicting someone is to charge them with a crime, and punish the criminal(s) who did the crime(s).

  • John Galt Jr||

    For Sevo, lc1789, Brett Bellmore, Last of the Shitheads and all other willing victims of Donald Trumps

    Fox's Judge Nap says you're full of crap, that Trump committed three crimes on Stormy Daniels alone. Says Trump can be indicted now, but not prosecuted until he leaves office -- (which would obviously be immediately, no more than a week; he'd resign for the same reason Trump did, but be imprisoned.)

    Fox's Andrew McCarthy says Trump will be indicted.

    Even Tucker Carlson has thrown Trump under a bus, saying Trump is not "capable" of being President, and has failed to keep his key promises. (Tucker did NOT list Trump's promise to completely pay off the federal debt in 8 years -- but instead has ADDED more 8-year debt than Obama added AFTER 8 years!)

  • Rational Exuberance||

    Fox's Judge Nap says you're full of crap, that Trump committed three crimes on Stormy Daniels alone.

    Actual quote: "Trump committed three crimes if all this is correct and if they have the evidence for it"

    Even Tucker Carlson has thrown Trump under a bus, saying Trump is not "capable" of being President, and has failed to keep his key promises.

    Actual statement: "I don't think he's capable of achieving his legislative objectives. I don't think he's capable of sustained focus. I don't think he understands the system."

    Are you a pathological liar, or merely illiterate, Hihn?

  • John Galt Jr||

    How did you miss THIS, Sluggo? (smirk)

    "This is the Southern District of New York. This is the oldest and most prestigious federal prosecutor's office in the country," Napolitano said. "They would not make an allegation like that if they did not have corroborating evidence to support it. And they cannot make an allegation like that unless they're going to do something with it."
    Napolitano said it's strange to see Giuliani criticizing the prosecutor's office that he ran from 1983 to 1989.

    He said the fact is that prosecutors convinced a federal judge that payments to adult film star Stormy Daniels and Playboy model Karen McDougal were campaign contributions or expenditures, both of which are crimes.

    "I think Rudy should understand that. I believe Rudy and the president mock the government at their peril. That's how serious these allegations are," Napolitano said.

    As for questions about whether a sitting president can be indicted, Napolitano said his view is that Trump can be indicted but not prosecuted until he's out of office.

    Hemmer noted that former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy wrote an op-ed on FoxNews.com arguing that Trump is very likely to be indicted.

    Puppets dancing on a string

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online