Fox’s Napolitano: We learned today that prosecutors have evidence Trump committed a felony

[Go Braves]

Having him pay for keep quiet that woman accusing him of seeing her is NOT financial felon, and whatever it is, even if going to trial, no president can face trial while seated in Office!

Paying off the inappropriate content stars he committed adultery with isn't a crime in & of itself. That's true. Sleazy as heck but not automatically illegal. Did you bother to read the OP, though? You missed the whole point. The reason it's a felony is on account of it being in violation of campaign finance law. It's cowardly & totally lacking in a lick of integrity for Trump to put all the blame on Cohen for doing his dirty work for him. That's Trump right there for you. This is what

“The felony is paying Michael Cohen to commit a felony. It’s pretty basic," Napolitano said. "You pay someone to commit a crime, they commit the crime. You are liable, criminally liable for the commission of that crime. That’s what the prosecutors told the federal judge.”

Now sure, Trump may not be held legally accountable for his criminal actions while in office. Doesn't mean he can't be held responsible for them. He belongs in handcuffs the second he's out of the White House. That would help to make America great again. He is not above the laws of this country. Or the laws of God.

 

[LoAmmi]

I don't think there's a single thread about Trump on this site that hasn't been infiltrated with some kind of "But Obama!" whataboutism deflection tactic. It's been like that since he was elected.

It's what one has to do when they can't admit that, yeah, their guy did a bad thing.

 

[Shiloh Raven]

Someone could remind Congress that Donald was a Democrat for like 50 years or so.

I think we can expect him to go back to being a Democrat, with his liberal views, once he's out of the White House and no longer pretending to be a Republican conservative Christian. He will quickly ditch his charade once he's no longer pandering to evangelical Christians. He'll go back to being pro-choice, pro-gay rights and he'll keep hiring more undocumented workers to work in his businesses.

 

[Go Braves]

Please, let’s not fall into the trap. Committing a felony does not make one a felon, you have to be convicted of that felony to be a felon.

Well, you've got a point. Only fools would go around leading crowds into chanting to lock somebody up when he / she hasn't been convicted of a felony or anything.

 

[wing2000]

Every hour on the hour... straight to my Obamaphone.

...I'm still waiting for the text to overthrow the Trump regime.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

Well, you've got a point. Only fools would go around leading crowds into chanting to lock somebody up when he / she hasn't been convicted of a felony or anything.

And this shows that Trump doesn’t care about law and order. If Hillary is such a criminal, why haven’t charges been brought against her in the last two years? It is all just a big sick game to him.

 

[Go Braves]

I wonder if that's why they're rated number one?

And have been for many years.


M-Bob

Probably on account of how it draws in a lot of older retired folks who have the time to sit around on their butts watching it. Older folks are also more susceptible to gaslighting.

 

[Hank77]

The prosecutors have the evidence Donald is a felon. I wonder how he'll respond to this revelation, especially since it was reported by Fox News.

Fox’s Napolitano: We learned today that prosecutors have evidence Trump committed a felony

In addition, Napolitano asserted that the agreement prosecutors reached with American Media Inc. (AMI), the parent company of the National Enquirer, "ties a bow on all of this."

AMI on Wednesday admitted to paying $150,000 to a woman "in concert with" Trump's presidential campaign "in order to ensure that the woman did not publicize damaging allegations about the candidate before the 2016 presidential election."


A ‘loud gong’: National Enquirer’s surprise deal could imperil Trump
The immunity deal, said Gene Rossi, a former federal prosecutor from Northern Virginia, “is a huge red flag and loud gong against the president.”

Under the agreement dated from late September and released Wednesday, AMI accepted immunity from federal prosecutors in exchange for documents and “numerous interviews” with the company’s executives and staff about the Trump hush-money scheme and other arrangements involving politicians running for office.

 

[TLK Valentine]

...I'm still waiting for the text to overthrow the Trump regime.

Ironically, it'll be a Tweet.

 

[whatbogsends]

I don't think there's a single thread about Trump on this site that hasn't been infiltrated with some kind of "But Obama!" whataboutism deflection tactic. It's been like that since he was elected.

Here's the thing. Claiming "whataboutism" to discredit an argument is too widely used. When there is true hypocrisy in play, pointing out the hypocrisy is legitimate. It is absolutely legitimate for someone to argue, for example: Person X (who I support and you don't) is guilty of campaign finance violations, but Person Y (who you support and I don't) is guilty of the same kinds of campaign finance violations, and you're only complaining about Person X and never criticized Person Y. This shows you're not truly concerned about campaign finance violations, but rather attacking a political adversary.

However, in this case, the person is using "but Obama said something, too" as a defense for Trump claiming "don't believe your own eyes and ears, believe me". The problem with this defense is that Obama never said anything remotely similar to what Trump said, and, as such, trying to deflect to Obama is a baseless deflection.

 

[camille70]

I think we can expect him to go back to being a Democrat, with his liberal views, once he's out of the White House and no longer pretending to be a Republican conservative Christian. He will quickly ditch his charade once he's no longer pandering to evangelical Christians. He'll go back to being pro-choice, pro-gay rights and he'll keep hiring more undocumented workers to work in his businesses.

I don't think so. He may try, but he is toxic as far as dems are concerned so there is no welcome mat out for him and no money in it. Conservatives will prop him up with money if for no other reason than they don't want to admit they voted for a criminal who conspired against America. They will slap lipstick all over that pig before they admit he was a bad choice.

 

[rambot]

I think we can expect him to go back to being a Democrat, with his liberal views, once he's out of the White House and no longer pretending to be a Republican conservative Christian. He will quickly ditch his charade once he's no longer pandering to evangelical Christians. He'll go back to being pro-choice, pro-gay rights and he'll keep hiring more undocumented workers to work in his businesses.

100% and the people that adored him will just call him a Rino instead of calling themselves "bad judges of character"

 

[Go Braves]

I think we can expect him to go back to being a Democrat, with his liberal views, once he's out of the White House and no longer pretending to be a Republican conservative Christian. He will quickly ditch his charade once he's no longer pandering to evangelical Christians. He'll go back to being pro-choice, pro-gay rights and he'll keep hiring more undocumented workers to work in his businesses.

Tbh I don't think it's a matter of going back to anything. I don't think he was ever really pro life to begin with. Didn't Cohen also help with paying off a inappropriate content star a fellow who worked with the RNC had an affair with, got pregnant, for her to keep quiet about the abortion? I wouldn't be at all surprised if it came out that Trump had also bankrolled abortions. I do think once he's out of office he'll keep on pandering on account of how he wants his base to stray true to him.

Did he ever stop hiring undocumented workers? We know he's still hiring folks who aren't American for cheap labor, Mar a Lago hired them this year, mainly from Central America.

 

[camille70]

Tbh I don't think it's a matter of going back to anything. I don't think he was ever really pro life to begin with. Didn't Cohen also help with paying off a inappropriate content star a fellow who worked with the RNC had an affair with, got pregnant, for her to keep quiet about the abortion? I wouldn't be at all surprised if it came out that Trump had also bankrolled abortions. I do think once he's out of office he'll keep on pandering on account of how he wants his base to stray true to him.

Did he ever stop hiring undocumented workers? We know he's still hiring folks who aren't American for cheap labor, Mar a Lago hired them this year, mainly from Central America.

He still hires them. In fact there was a story within the past two weeks that profiled two women. Not only are they being hired, they have been told how to get fake documents so they can work.

Trump doesn't care about illegal immigration, anything to crack down on it is the brain child of Stephen Miller, Steve Bannon and a desire to tell the base what they want to hear. None of his base will ask why he won't hire Americans though. The evidence they are being taken by a fraud is right before them, out in the open, and they still don't have eyes to see it.

 

[Kentonio]

I think we can expect him to go back to being a Democrat, with his liberal views, once he's out of the White House and no longer pretending to be a Republican conservative Christian. He will quickly ditch his charade once he's no longer pandering to evangelical Christians. He'll go back to being pro-choice, pro-gay rights and he'll keep hiring more undocumented workers to work in his businesses.

Nah, this is his brand now. Even out of office he’d continue to play up to it for all its worth to bilk his hardcore supporters for every dollar he can.

 

[Norbert L]

You missed the whole point. The reason it's a felony is on account of it being in violation of campaign finance law... That would help to make America great again. He is not above the laws of this country. Or the laws of God.

What I'm curious about is a related important area of constitutional rights.

When one person pays to legally prevent another person from talking about a personal relationship. Can a person buy another person's right to talk about it? It's not only about taking away their ability to speak about it, but can they sell themselves into silence?

When I try to think about these questions, they seem to have overtones verbal slavery.

 

[Hank77]

What I'm curious about is a related important area of constitutional rights.

When one person pays to legally prevent another person from talking about a personal relationship. Can a person buy another person's right to talk about it? It's not only about taking away their ability to speak about it, but can they sell themselves into silence?

When I try to think about these questions, they seem to have overtones verbal slavery.

NDAs are common practice. I don't see how they take away anyone's constitutional rights seeing that they are entered into voluntarily.

If you get paid to not disclose certain things you have accepted those terms, you weren't forced into anything. If you break that contract you can be sued and you can be made to pay back any monies received. Which seems fair to me.

 

[iluvatar5150]

What I'm curious about is a related important area of constitutional rights.

When one person pays to legally prevent another person from talking about a personal relationship. Can a person buy another person's right to talk about it? It's not only about taking away their ability to speak about it, but can they sell themselves into silence?

When I try to think about these questions, they seem to have overtones verbal slavery.

Two private parties can enter into and enforce NDA's against each other. AFAIK, however, the federal government cannot enforce an NDA against one of its employees outside of the usual restrictions on disseminating classified/confidential information.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Only what Obama tells you is really happening.

This is not even competent whattaboutism. Neither Obama nor his supporters were claiming the Press was the Enemy of the People and should be mistrusted. We didn't have to read Obama's tweets to find out what was really happening.

...

Saw some discussion of Trump's 'advice of counsel' defense. The idea that he's innocent because he relied on Cohen to follow the law. Interesting detail that caught my eye: "For one thing, a person who invokes the advice-of-counsel defense can no longer claim attorney-client privilege, meaning his or her conversations with the attorney are no longer private and can be freely explored by prosecutors."

If he really goes with this, ready your finest popcorn.gif

 

[YeshuaFan]

Campaign laws are at issue. Obstruction for sure. Lying to investigators likely.

Campaign financing laws, that many experts say that trump did nothing wrong, as that a personal issue! ONLY fake news and Dems who still are in a deluded state about Trump winning are pressing this!