Collusion update: "no factual evidence"

[Mountain Man]

Besides, looks more and more like this President is guilty of both treason and bribery as well as other high crimes and misdemeaners.

Only in the mind of delusional liberals like you, Jimmy.

[oxmixmudd]

Grandstanding and unsupported assertions in lieu of evidence duly noted.

I have no need to repeatedly post links to what is common knowledge and to which I've already posted in this very thread or others closely related in time every time I reference an issue.

You are intelligent people with normally operating memories.


Jim

[JimL]

Not what the Constitution says, Jimmy:

"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

In fact, our Founding Fathers explicitly rejected things like "mal-practice and neglect of duty" and "maladministration" as grounds for impeachment, arguing they were too broad and would essentially make the president subservient to Congress and remove his ability to act independently. There is some controversy about what is specifically meant by "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" (it's a term from English law), but what is not in doubt is that our Founding Fathers expected impeachment to be used "in only the most extreme situations" and that they "also mandated a supermajority requirement to militate against impeachments brought by the House for purely political reasons."

https://www.heritage.org/constitutio...or-impeachment

You know what MM, that's all for congress to determine and to decide which means it's purely political. Besides, looks more and more like this President is guilty of both treason and bribery as well as other high crimes and misdemeaners.

[Mountain Man]

Grandstanding and unsupported assertions in lieu of evidence duly noted.

I also wonder if he consistently applies his own standards. Would he concede that Hillary and Obama are probably guilty but that both are "rich enough and powerful enough to make the evidence hard to find"?

[One Bad Pig]

Not my Job. It's Mueller's. But the fact we have him ordering a payment of hush money I would expect is just the tip of the iceberg. Trump has his fingers in so many dirty piles it would be a miracle if he in fact was not guilty of crimes and misdemeanors. He's just also happens to be rich enough and powerful enough to make the evidence hard to find. That and the fact the GOP is dragging its feet about as much as is possible pursuing the issue.

Jim

Grandstanding and unsupported assertions in lieu of evidence duly noted.

[Mountain Man]

There are other possibilities. None of which could be proven at this stage of the game. It is possible somebody got to Cohen and made him realize 'flipping' (as Trump put it) on Trump would not be in his best interests. This is all essentially sleeze on sleeze, corruption on corruption, with all the actors (Putin and the Russian gov't, Trump, Cohen, Manafort, etc etc) having in many cases lots of power and resources with which to make someone 'see the light' and back off. So in my mind anything is possible, from a lying Cohen who mislead his lawyer to Putin acting as Trump's enforcer. When one is dealing with this level of corruption, and players this high on the world stage, literally almost anything is possible. I have been wondering though why Cohen thought he could flip on Trump and not face some sort of consequence. Maybe he's realized he can't

BQePF.jpg

[Mountain Man]

Not true, the Congress merely has to determine that the Presidents actions are detrimental to the Country. It could be a crime, and in Trumps case it will be multiple crimes, but ultimately it's a political decision for Congress to make, and only for Congress to make.

Not what the Constitution says, Jimmy:

"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

In fact, our Founding Fathers explicitly rejected things like "mal-practice and neglect of duty" and "maladministration" as grounds for impeachment, arguing they were too broad and would essentially make the president subservient to Congress and remove his ability to act independently. There is some controversy about what is specifically meant by "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" (it's a term from English law), but what is not in doubt is that our Founding Fathers expected impeachment to be used "in only the most extreme situations" and that they "also mandated a supermajority requirement to militate against impeachments brought by the House for purely political reasons."

https://www.heritage.org/constitutio...or-impeachment

[oxmixmudd]

Source: Michael Cohen's lawyer has done real damage to the case against Trump

One of the most bizarre aspects of the investigations engulfing the Trump administration is the lawyers involved. Here we have a presidency on the line, and this is Trump's team? The top legal spokesmen for each side are . . . Rudy Giuliani and Lanny Davis!?

Up until this point, though, Giuliani was the Great Contradictor and Davis was merely a colorful character. Now that has changed in a big way.

In a new interview with The Washington Post's Tom Hamburger and Rosalind S. Helderman, Davis is backing off two massive claims he made in recent weeks, including that former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen has told people he witnessed President Donald Trump being informed of Donald Trump Jr.'s 2016 Trump Tower meeting with a Russian lawyer before it happened.

"I should have been more clear - including with you - that I could not independently confirm what happened," Davis said, adding: "I regret my error."

Davis also backed off his claim that Cohen has information suggesting that Trump knew in advance about Russian hacking of Democrats' emails in 2016.

"I am not sure," he said. "There's a possibility that is the case. But I am not sure."

The first of these claims was put forward anonymously, initially in a story which CNN is standing by. The Post also reported it - though unlike CNN it didn't report Cohen as saying Trump knew the information was coming from Russians - and cited Davis as an unnamed source. The second claim was made publicly by Davis on TV.

So what on earth is going on here? Davis, for his part, suggests that he was just speculating. Witness this amazing pair of paragraphs at the end of Hamburger's and Helderman's story:

"A strong feeling." That just doesn't make much sense. Davis is a lawyer for his client, not a pundit. He can speak to Cohen about sensitive matters. His job is literally to speak publicly for Cohen, and getting their story straight is Job No. 1. The idea that Davis was simply freelancing with a narrative he hadn't run by his client just doesn't ring true. And if he was, how has Cohen not fired him for so clearly botching his defense?

It's also pretty remarkable that, despite the first of these claims having been in the public domain for several weeks now - CNN's story broke exactly one month ago, on July 27 - Davis only began reining it in last week. Why wait that long if it was erroneous? Did Cohen not notice he was being put forward as the guy who might be able to prove Trump's collusion with Russia - a claim that, if true, could end an American presidency?

The most obvious answer would seem to be that Cohen may be the one contradicting himself. Ever since the CNN story broke, the question has been whether Cohen told congressional investigators the same story when he testified behind closed doors at a time when he was more loyal to Trump. There were indications that this new version of events wasn't exactly compatible with that testimony, which could open Cohen up to more legal problems.

When Cohen reached a plea deal last week, the Senate Intelligence Committee's top Republican and Democrat made a rare joint, public statement saying they wanted Cohen to continue cooperating with their Russia investigation. They also said they had reached out to Cohen's lawyers after the CNN story broke and asked whether he wanted to amend his testimony. Cohen has declined to do so.

But you also have to think that possible contradiction would be something Davis and Cohen (who is also a lawyer by trade) would have sorted out before Davis went public with these claims.

However this came about, though, it's damaging to Cohen's credibility. Davis is his lawyer and spokesman, after all, which means these claims effectively came from Cohen himself. Davis is now trying to take ownership of them and take the blame himself, but the explanations he offers are really difficult to swallow, especially given the gravity of the claims.

And that has bearing on both the Russia investigation and whatever problems Trump may encounter from the Southern District of New York's plea deal with Michael Cohen on a campaign-finance violation (in which Cohen also implicated Trump). Cohen was supposed to be the guy flipping on Trump and telling investigators everything he knows about the skeletons in Trump's closet. This episode has to make everyone involved wonder whether his claims are all they're made out to be. Regardless of how you want all of this to shake out, it's best to base a case around people who won't undermine it. Cohen wasn't a fantastic witness before; he's a worse one now.

It's been true from the start that these investigations attract a certain grade and style of lawyer, and those lawyers often find themselves struggling with their public statements on behalf of an untrustworthy client. Nobody leaves this situation without being at least a little Trump-ified.

And as the latest from Cohen and Davis shows, that's not just the case with Trump and his legal team.



Source

© Copyright Original Source

There are other possibilities. None of which could be proven at this stage of the game. It is possible somebody got to Cohen and made him realize 'flipping' (as Trump put it) on Trump would not be in his best interests. This is all essentially sleeze on sleeze, corruption on corruption, with all the actors (Putin and the Russian gov't, Trump, Cohen, Manafort, etc etc) having in many cases lots of power and resources with which to make someone 'see the light' and back off. So in my mind anything is possible, from a lying Cohen who mislead his lawyer to Putin acting as Trump's enforcer. When one is dealing with this level of corruption, and players this high on the world stage, literally almost anything is possible. I have been wondering though why Cohen thought he could flip on Trump and not face some sort of consequence. Maybe he's realized he can't


Jim

[rogue06]

Source: Michael Cohen's lawyer has done real damage to the case against Trump

One of the most bizarre aspects of the investigations engulfing the Trump administration is the lawyers involved. Here we have a presidency on the line, and this is Trump's team? The top legal spokesmen for each side are . . . Rudy Giuliani and Lanny Davis!?

Up until this point, though, Giuliani was the Great Contradictor and Davis was merely a colorful character. Now that has changed in a big way.

In a new interview with The Washington Post's Tom Hamburger and Rosalind S. Helderman, Davis is backing off two massive claims he made in recent weeks, including that former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen has told people he witnessed President Donald Trump being informed of Donald Trump Jr.'s 2016 Trump Tower meeting with a Russian lawyer before it happened.

"I should have been more clear - including with you - that I could not independently confirm what happened," Davis said, adding: "I regret my error."

Davis also backed off his claim that Cohen has information suggesting that Trump knew in advance about Russian hacking of Democrats' emails in 2016.

"I am not sure," he said. "There's a possibility that is the case. But I am not sure."

The first of these claims was put forward anonymously, initially in a story which CNN is standing by. The Post also reported it - though unlike CNN it didn't report Cohen as saying Trump knew the information was coming from Russians - and cited Davis as an unnamed source. The second claim was made publicly by Davis on TV.

So what on earth is going on here? Davis, for his part, suggests that he was just speculating. Witness this amazing pair of paragraphs at the end of Hamburger's and Helderman's story:

"A strong feeling." That just doesn't make much sense. Davis is a lawyer for his client, not a pundit. He can speak to Cohen about sensitive matters. His job is literally to speak publicly for Cohen, and getting their story straight is Job No. 1. The idea that Davis was simply freelancing with a narrative he hadn't run by his client just doesn't ring true. And if he was, how has Cohen not fired him for so clearly botching his defense?

It's also pretty remarkable that, despite the first of these claims having been in the public domain for several weeks now - CNN's story broke exactly one month ago, on July 27 - Davis only began reining it in last week. Why wait that long if it was erroneous? Did Cohen not notice he was being put forward as the guy who might be able to prove Trump's collusion with Russia - a claim that, if true, could end an American presidency?

The most obvious answer would seem to be that Cohen may be the one contradicting himself. Ever since the CNN story broke, the question has been whether Cohen told congressional investigators the same story when he testified behind closed doors at a time when he was more loyal to Trump. There were indications that this new version of events wasn't exactly compatible with that testimony, which could open Cohen up to more legal problems.

When Cohen reached a plea deal last week, the Senate Intelligence Committee's top Republican and Democrat made a rare joint, public statement saying they wanted Cohen to continue cooperating with their Russia investigation. They also said they had reached out to Cohen's lawyers after the CNN story broke and asked whether he wanted to amend his testimony. Cohen has declined to do so.

But you also have to think that possible contradiction would be something Davis and Cohen (who is also a lawyer by trade) would have sorted out before Davis went public with these claims.

However this came about, though, it's damaging to Cohen's credibility. Davis is his lawyer and spokesman, after all, which means these claims effectively came from Cohen himself. Davis is now trying to take ownership of them and take the blame himself, but the explanations he offers are really difficult to swallow, especially given the gravity of the claims.

And that has bearing on both the Russia investigation and whatever problems Trump may encounter from the Southern District of New York's plea deal with Michael Cohen on a campaign-finance violation (in which Cohen also implicated Trump). Cohen was supposed to be the guy flipping on Trump and telling investigators everything he knows about the skeletons in Trump's closet. This episode has to make everyone involved wonder whether his claims are all they're made out to be. Regardless of how you want all of this to shake out, it's best to base a case around people who won't undermine it. Cohen wasn't a fantastic witness before; he's a worse one now.

It's been true from the start that these investigations attract a certain grade and style of lawyer, and those lawyers often find themselves struggling with their public statements on behalf of an untrustworthy client. Nobody leaves this situation without being at least a little Trump-ified.

And as the latest from Cohen and Davis shows, that's not just the case with Trump and his legal team.



Source

© Copyright Original Source

[oxmixmudd]

I'm sure you'll provide the requisite factual evidence any day now.

Not my Job. It's Mueller's. But the fact we have him ordering a payment of hush money I would expect is just the tip of the iceberg. Trump has his fingers in so many dirty piles it would be a miracle if he in fact was not guilty of crimes and misdemeanors. He's just also happens to be rich enough and powerful enough to make the evidence hard to find. That and the fact the GOP is dragging its feet about as much as is possible pursuing the issue.

Jim

[JimL]

According to the Constitution, the president needs to actually be guilty of a crime to be impeached. I think an arbitrary impeachment with no proof of a crime would be quickly overturned by the Supreme Court.

Not true, the Congress merely has to determine that the Presidents actions are detrimental to the Country. It could be a crime, and in Trumps case it will be multiple crimes, but ultimately it's a political decision for Congress to make, and only for Congress to make.

[JimL]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]30354[/ATTACH]

And a the new democrat majority impeaches them both.

[Littlejoe]

Obvious. IT would never reach the Supreme Court if it was arbitrary and no proof of a crime, but unfortunately tRump is likely guilty of a number of crimes given that almost all of his associates are guilty of crimes, and many connected to tRump.

Good one fRank...

[One Bad Pig]

Should be no problem in the current case


Jim

I'm sure you'll provide the requisite factual evidence any day now.

[Mountain Man]

Should be no problem in the current case

You obviously haven't been paying attention to the thread.