At what price do you win?

[Marion Morrison]

A few days ago I've read a couple of articles that make me pretty sad about how people judge their priorities in politics. The first one was this. Feehery: How Republicans can counter the possible impeachment push
It's written by a GOP strategist and as the title suggests it outlines what he thinks the GOP should do in order to win. What grabbed my attention was this. "In 1974, congressional Republicans let former President Nixon know in no uncertain terms that he was on his own in fighting impeachment during the Watergate investigation. That might have been the right thing morally, but politically it was a complete disaster, and after the November election, the GOP held only 144 seats in the House and 38 seats in the Senate."
The rest of the article painted it as a mistake. And urges the GOP act differently in regards to Trump. So in other words he doesn't think that the GOP should act morally.
Of course this guys job is being a strategist so I guess I see where he's coming from, but the fact that he wasn't ashamed to put it so bluntly is kind of shocking to me.
The next one I read was way worse in my opinion.
Hatch: ‘I don’t care’ if prosecutors are arguing Trump broke the law
Here, Orin Hatch. A member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, charged with overseeing the entire justice apparatus in the US bluntly states that he doesn't care the President of the United States is a criminal. The reason he states is that Trump is executing what comes down to the GOP's political agenda.
What really is troubling to me is not that a politician finds his loyalty to his party overrides his responsibility to the country, although it's pretty onerous considering his position. I'm pretty sure there are those on both sides. But the fact that he is comfortable enough in that partisanship to bluntly state such an opinion.
So my question is, when does loyalty to party end? And why is something like this NOT universally met with disapproval?

The President isn't a criminal..... making up things about him doesn't make him a criminal...still waiting for the Russians to make an appearance in anything mueller does...so far? Nothing..... and the payoffs to the women....not illegal in any way..

So...still waiting....

Making things up? You do realize that it's established fact that Trump's lawyer pleaded GUILTY to campaign finance violations. That that plea was ACCEPTED by the presiding judge. So what exactly is made up?

He plead guilty to a non-crime, moron.

3 years for a non-crime?

 

[JGalt]

GOP shrugs at Trump's involvement in Michael Cohen crimes - CNNPolitics
Here's what he said. Since then he backtracked but that was his statement.

Here's how most conservatives feel about Trump and his associates:

1) If Trump and/or his team broke the law, they should be prosecuted.
2) Hillary was guilty of serious felonies and skated.
3) Liberals criticize conservatives for not being more outspoken about Trump's alleged crimes and corruption while simultaneously claiming that Hillary was as innocent and pure as newly fallen snow.
4) Liberals want any and all Trump appointees to the AG to recuse themselves from doing their jobs but had NO PROBLEM with Loretta Lynch NOT recusing herself from the "investigation" of her potential future boss, Hillary Clinton. Liberals also had NO PROBLEM with Lynch meeting with Bill Clinton on the tarmac in Phoenix a week before Comey recommended no indictment.
5) Liberals don't believe in the "rule of law" nor the equal application of the law. The DOJ and the FBI are chock full of big-government liberals whose loyalty is to their power and their wallets and they have become willing weapons of the DNC.

Oh and if that's how most conservatives feel why aren't you condemning what Hatch said. You just spend all the time defending it by deflecting to Clinton.

Wow. You really don't like hearing about Hillary. Her loss must have really traumatized you Democrats.

Hillary Hillary Hillary Hillary Hillary Hillary Hillary Hillary Hillary Hillary Hillary Hillary Hillary Hillary Hillary Hillary Hillary Hillary Hillary Hillary

Lol Galt and you sure as hell like to talk about Hillary more then you like to talk about the people actually in power. The way I see it, that is a complete concession that you know you guys are simply being wrong.

Of course we like talking about Hillary. All the world loves a sad clown, just as much as we do the happy ones.

 

[forkup]

A few days ago I've read a couple of articles that make me pretty sad about how people judge their priorities in politics. The first one was this. Feehery: How Republicans can counter the possible impeachment push
It's written by a GOP strategist and as the title suggests it outlines what he thinks the GOP should do in order to win. What grabbed my attention was this. "In 1974, congressional Republicans let former President Nixon know in no uncertain terms that he was on his own in fighting impeachment during the Watergate investigation. That might have been the right thing morally, but politically it was a complete disaster, and after the November election, the GOP held only 144 seats in the House and 38 seats in the Senate."
The rest of the article painted it as a mistake. And urges the GOP act differently in regards to Trump. So in other words he doesn't think that the GOP should act morally.
Of course this guys job is being a strategist so I guess I see where he's coming from, but the fact that he wasn't ashamed to put it so bluntly is kind of shocking to me.
The next one I read was way worse in my opinion.
Hatch: ‘I don’t care’ if prosecutors are arguing Trump broke the law
Here, Orin Hatch. A member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, charged with overseeing the entire justice apparatus in the US bluntly states that he doesn't care the President of the United States is a criminal. The reason he states is that Trump is executing what comes down to the GOP's political agenda.
What really is troubling to me is not that a politician finds his loyalty to his party overrides his responsibility to the country, although it's pretty onerous considering his position. I'm pretty sure there are those on both sides. But the fact that he is comfortable enough in that partisanship to bluntly state such an opinion.
So my question is, when does loyalty to party end? And why is something like this NOT universally met with disapproval?

The President isn't a criminal..... making up things about him doesn't make him a criminal...still waiting for the Russians to make an appearance in anything mueller does...so far? Nothing..... and the payoffs to the women....not illegal in any way..

So...still waiting....

Making things up? You do realize that it's established fact that Trump's lawyer pleaded GUILTY to campaign finance violations. That that plea was ACCEPTED by the presiding judge. So what exactly is made up?

He plead guilty to campaign finance violations that were not crimes. His lawyer, lanny davis, is a close personal friend to the clintons..... nothing he did in paying off the women violated campaign finance law, but the 20 years he was facing for his other crimes, crimes that had nothing to do with Trump, was reduced to 3 years by pleading to a crime he didn't commit...Andy McCarthty breaks that down in his column at National Review..... lanny davis got him to plead to campaign finance violations that aren't violations in order to rope Trump in.....nothing else......

Read this so you know what you are talking about...

Payoffs to Mistresses as In-Kind Contributions? | National Review

The Southern District of New York (SDNY) lodged campaign-finance charges against Cohen. He elected to plead guilty without contesting them. This, I believe, was more a strategic calculation than an assessment of the legal adequacy of the charges: The campaign-finance counts had a negligible effect on the sentencing-guidelines calculation (which was driven by the more serious tax- and bank-fraud charges); and Cohen’s defense team perceived that the SDNY is trying to make a case on President Trump, so pleading guilty to two extra felonies paradoxically improved his chances for sentencing leniency.

The strategy worked. Though his sentencing guidelines called for 51 to 61 months’ imprisonment and he was not a full-fledged cooperator, the SDNY nevertheless agreed to a nine-to-19-month shave off his guideline range (i.e., about 42 months). The SDNY said this was because Cohen cooperated with the Mueller probe; I think Cohen’s rolling over on the campaign-finance allegations made the SDNY more amenable to leniency. In agreeing to the reduction, the SDNY was well aware that, with such a signal sent, it would be routine for the court to go below the reduction suggested by prosecutors. Judge William H. Pauley did just that, imposing a sentence of just 36 months. (To repeat my pet peeve on this point, I believe President Trump’s highly inappropriate agitation for Cohen to be given a severe sentence probably influenced the judge to reduce the sentence, in order to show independence.)

Because Cohen never challenged the legal sufficiency of the charge, Judge Pauley never ruled on it. To my mind, it would have been preferable if Pauley had directed the parties to brief the issue. I do not believe a judge should ever take a plea if there is a colorable legal question about whether what is charged is actually a crime. To be fair, though, the question of whether a third-party payment that is not a direct campaign expense constitutes an in-kind contribution is arguably what we call a “mixed question of law and fact” on which even experts have differed. In the John Edwards case, to take the best example, the FEC believed similar transactions were not in-kind contributions; the Justice Department disagreed and indicted Edwards on them; the trial judge allowed the case to go to the jury (implicitly a finding that a rational juror could convict); the jury acquitted on some counts and hung on others; and then the Justice Department decided to drop the case rather than retry it. The question is murky.

In any event, all Judge Pauley did in Cohen’s case was accept guilty plea. Without ruling on the matter, he assumed that the charge was legally adequate. In a guilty plea, the defendant typically waives his right to challenge legal and factual issues on appeal. The most we can say, then, is that the matter is settled as to Cohen, but that’s because of the waiver, not because the judge made a ruling on the pertinent question.


Even if Judge Pauley had made a ruling, that would have been binding only in Cohen’s case. There is a doctrine of law called “collateral estoppel,” which is akin to double-jeopardy, but it applies to issues rather than charges. What it holds is that a defendant may not raise in a subsequent prosecution an issue that has been settled in an earlier one. But it only applies if the defendant was in the earlier prosecution and had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the relevant issue. Trump was not a defendant in Cohen’s case, and he has not had an opportunity to litigate the question whether these transactions are in-kind contributions.

You do realize your article acknowledged that the trail judge in the Edwards case thought a juror would convict. And that in the Edwards case they didn't have the third party acknowledging the payments were campaign related? So the precedent in the article was ambigious, had less material to convict and was deemed sufficient by the judge to convict?

And the former chair of the FEC stated that nothing Trump or cohen did was a violation of the Campaign Finance laaw............

And CURRENT federal prosecutors disagreed with the FORMER chair of the FEC. Your point?

 

[bripat9643]

The President isn't a criminal..... making up things about him doesn't make him a criminal...still waiting for the Russians to make an appearance in anything mueller does...so far? Nothing..... and the payoffs to the women....not illegal in any way..

So...still waiting....

Making things up? You do realize that it's established fact that Trump's lawyer pleaded GUILTY to campaign finance violations. That that plea was ACCEPTED by the presiding judge. So what exactly is made up?

He plead guilty to campaign finance violations that were not crimes. His lawyer, lanny davis, is a close personal friend to the clintons..... nothing he did in paying off the women violated campaign finance law, but the 20 years he was facing for his other crimes, crimes that had nothing to do with Trump, was reduced to 3 years by pleading to a crime he didn't commit...Andy McCarthty breaks that down in his column at National Review..... lanny davis got him to plead to campaign finance violations that aren't violations in order to rope Trump in.....nothing else......

Read this so you know what you are talking about...

Payoffs to Mistresses as In-Kind Contributions? | National Review

The Southern District of New York (SDNY) lodged campaign-finance charges against Cohen. He elected to plead guilty without contesting them. This, I believe, was more a strategic calculation than an assessment of the legal adequacy of the charges: The campaign-finance counts had a negligible effect on the sentencing-guidelines calculation (which was driven by the more serious tax- and bank-fraud charges); and Cohen’s defense team perceived that the SDNY is trying to make a case on President Trump, so pleading guilty to two extra felonies paradoxically improved his chances for sentencing leniency.

The strategy worked. Though his sentencing guidelines called for 51 to 61 months’ imprisonment and he was not a full-fledged cooperator, the SDNY nevertheless agreed to a nine-to-19-month shave off his guideline range (i.e., about 42 months). The SDNY said this was because Cohen cooperated with the Mueller probe; I think Cohen’s rolling over on the campaign-finance allegations made the SDNY more amenable to leniency. In agreeing to the reduction, the SDNY was well aware that, with such a signal sent, it would be routine for the court to go below the reduction suggested by prosecutors. Judge William H. Pauley did just that, imposing a sentence of just 36 months. (To repeat my pet peeve on this point, I believe President Trump’s highly inappropriate agitation for Cohen to be given a severe sentence probably influenced the judge to reduce the sentence, in order to show independence.)

Because Cohen never challenged the legal sufficiency of the charge, Judge Pauley never ruled on it. To my mind, it would have been preferable if Pauley had directed the parties to brief the issue. I do not believe a judge should ever take a plea if there is a colorable legal question about whether what is charged is actually a crime. To be fair, though, the question of whether a third-party payment that is not a direct campaign expense constitutes an in-kind contribution is arguably what we call a “mixed question of law and fact” on which even experts have differed. In the John Edwards case, to take the best example, the FEC believed similar transactions were not in-kind contributions; the Justice Department disagreed and indicted Edwards on them; the trial judge allowed the case to go to the jury (implicitly a finding that a rational juror could convict); the jury acquitted on some counts and hung on others; and then the Justice Department decided to drop the case rather than retry it. The question is murky.

In any event, all Judge Pauley did in Cohen’s case was accept guilty plea. Without ruling on the matter, he assumed that the charge was legally adequate. In a guilty plea, the defendant typically waives his right to challenge legal and factual issues on appeal. The most we can say, then, is that the matter is settled as to Cohen, but that’s because of the waiver, not because the judge made a ruling on the pertinent question.


Even if Judge Pauley had made a ruling, that would have been binding only in Cohen’s case. There is a doctrine of law called “collateral estoppel,” which is akin to double-jeopardy, but it applies to issues rather than charges. What it holds is that a defendant may not raise in a subsequent prosecution an issue that has been settled in an earlier one. But it only applies if the defendant was in the earlier prosecution and had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the relevant issue. Trump was not a defendant in Cohen’s case, and he has not had an opportunity to litigate the question whether these transactions are in-kind contributions.

You do realize your article acknowledged that the trail judge in the Edwards case thought a juror would convict. And that in the Edwards case they didn't have the third party acknowledging the payments were campaign related? So the precedent in the article was ambigious, had less material to convict and was deemed sufficient by the judge to convict?

And the former chair of the FEC stated that nothing Trump or cohen did was a violation of the Campaign Finance laaw............

And CURRENT federal prosecutors disagreed with the FORMER chair of the FEC. Your point?

Meaning Mueller and the Obama appointed hack in NY. Why should anyone believe these deep state douchebags?