Noth bodies continue to investigate. That's common. What folks are arguing now has already been charged & adjudicated by SDNY.
What is the continued investigation of the SDNY if they are not going to indict Trump while in office? I thought Cohen already pled guilty or are they investigating him for further crimes? While I am apparently not following this as closely as you, I am certain that nothing has been "adjudicated" with respect to Trump.
So, help me from point A to point B here. What do they have? What is the piece of evidence that doesn't hinge on what Cohen says? I'm not saying your wrong. I just don't see it as of yet. If you're using logic akin to they must have it because they wouldn't be doing this otherwise, then I'll just continue to wait.
It's not logic. It's the law. Federal prosecutors can't prosecute on a whim. They must have proof. That's Federal law governed by DoJ, Trump's DoJ. Wait all you want, but it's already there no matter who denies it.
Prosecutors investigate crimes. To not investigate just because it's the president makes them above the law. They are continuing to investigate Trump/Trump Org. Cohen is done. Going to prison. The hush money deal has been adjudicated. SDNY named Individual 1 (Trump) as a co-conspirator. Following DoJ policy, a President can't be indicted. Also, according to DoJ policy, those who aren't or can't be indicted can't be mentioned by name. That's why Trump is called Individual 1. He IS an unindicted co-conspirator per the US DoJ. Anyone can believe whatever they want, but it won't change that fact.
I believe the term you are looking for here is "alleges." I get it, you believe he is guilty. That is fine. Just don't expect others to take the allegations of the SDNY, Cohen's testimony, or your word for it as gospel without the evidence. Even if the campaign finance fraud can be established, is hush money for an affair without proper reporting of it in campaign finance disclosures materially different than a sitting president committing perjury over an affair?
No. I nor the SDNY are alleging anything. SDNY actually said the illegal payments were made at the direction of & for the benefit of Individual 1. (Remember, DoJ guidelines demand proof, not allegations, for any final plea agreements.) Their words, not mine. It doesn't matter what I, you, or the president "believe". It's stated in plain words in the plea documents which, again, are governed by federal DoJ rules about who can & can't be mentioned in these documents. If it were merely "allegations" those rules do NOT allow that person to even be mentioned. Again, I nor SDNY are alleging, hoping, wanting, etc to believe anything. It's. In. The. Federal. Documents. As. Actual. Facts. Waiting or wishing otherwise can't & won't change anything. As to the second part, tradition is that Congress has final say on the answer to your question.
Your first paragraph is just wrong. No matter how many times you say it, Cohen plea agreement does not establish anything with respect to Trump. Assuming everything you say is true, all we have now are allegations against Trump that are based primarily on statements by Cohen and checks Trump wrote to his attorney at the time. Your second part is a question I am asking you. If you believe Clinton should not have been impeached, what makes this situation materially different? Both involve lying about an affair to protect political aspirations. Both actions apparently felonies. If impeachment is based on some type of "totality of circumstances" analysis instead of specific actions worthy of impeachment, should that not be better handled through an election?
Isn't Trump allowed to pay him back? The problem is more if it came from campaign funds directed by him, correct?
No, that would be an illegal campaign donation even if it doesn't go directly to the campaign funds, but ONLY if he did it knowing that what he was doing was going to affect the campaign (which is, according to testimony, why it was done).
I think you would be surprised how many people shift money around and over value assets to get something they want.
there is a difference between stretching the law and risking an audit and doing things that will get you in jail though
To knowingly break the law, yes. If one of their people are bending it to make them happy, they don't know and the lawbreaker doesn't care.
I don't know and give up trying to explain it as I know it. There is some disconnect in how I think I am writing it and how others are reading it, I guess.
Not trying speak for Jay. This my read only. Paragraph 1. Trump's CFO was granted limited immunity related to his role in the payments and was a Grand Jury witness. In other words, the CFO Grand Jury testimony, along with the tapes and paper trail (checks), were the corroboration that Trump is Individual 1 and the unindited co-conspirator. NYSD did not rely on Cohen's testimony alone. They have corroborating evidence Paragraph 2. The material difference is Clinton lied under oath. Trump has not been diposed under oath on the topic of the payments. He has presented varying "alternative" facts on the subject in public that conflict.
Okay. I get what you're saying jay, but I'd rather wait and see what this is. I have less faith than that in the system dating back to before Trump announced.
No. I'm not wrong. I'm not asking anyone to take my word. Read. The. Document. Yourself. It's not my problem if folks can't or just won't understand how the adjudication of the criminal process works and/or the rules that dictate them. If the document didn't name Trump as an indicted co-conspirator, I'd say so. My personal views be damned, I'll speak the truth. My track record for that has been well establish both here and in life. If you don't want to see what's written & are too obstinate to even attempt to understand the fact that prosecutors can't make claims they can't prove in official documents with proof which are presided over by a federal judge, that's on you. I'm begging you not to just take my word for it. Look everything I have posted up for yourself. You'll see I've only stated facts. Clinton was impeached. He wasn't convicted. Perhaps he should have been. I had no say in the matter.
