Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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?
Trump is carrying out what comes down to being America's agenda. The GOP be damned if they stand in the way.
If, as you say, it’s “America’s agenda”, why did Americans so thoroughly reject it in the midterms.
Trump said to act like he was on the ballot an 8 million more people voted against the Trump agenda than for it.
All the Russian investigations lack is a crime.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?
I think it will all come down to the seriousness of the charges against Trump
I don’t think paying off Stormy Daniels merits impeachment. If they are a series of campaign finance and ethical violations, Republicans can ignore them
But if coordinating with the Russians, offering political payback or severe transgressions are found.......Republicans will have no choice or they will face the wrath of the voters for a coverup
I don't know. Why should you care that a member of the GOP led senate judiciary committee cares about his parties agenda more then the law ? Why care that you don't show so much as a grain of intellectual honesty? I can't answer those questions for you. That's the premise of the OP.Why should I listen to Hatch?And I'm accused in this post for living in an information bubble. The link provided took you to the ACTUAL interview. Meaning you simply had to listen to HATCH not the media. But hey anything that doesn't fit your worldview can be dismissed right? What does it matter you have to close your eyes and ears to accomplish it.Sez the pos who calls links to media stories facts. lol“So my question is, when does loyalty to party end?”
For the vast majority of Republicans, never.
“And why is something like this NOT universally met with disapproval?”
It is – outside of the blind partisan right.
The problem is that the people have become so ignorance, so apathetic, so politically lazy and inept that they’re incapable or unwilling to do anything about the corruption and incompetence that is the Trump ‘administration’ and that has infested most of the GOP.
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.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.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.
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
Yes I have. Investigated multiple times by the house, congress and the FBI.
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?
-Well paying of Stormy and the timing he did it, very likely is what won him the elections, since the margins were so tight. Doesn't that mean he committed crimes in order to get elected?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?
I think it will all come down to the seriousness of the charges against Trump
I don’t think paying off Stormy Daniels merits impeachment. If they are a series of campaign finance and ethical violations, Republicans can ignore them
But if coordinating with the Russians, offering political payback or severe transgressions are found.......Republicans will have no choice or they will face the wrath of the voters for a coverup
He considered it and didn't. The whole mantra when it came to Kavanaugh, Roy Moore and Trump is constantly innocent until proven guilty. When it comes to Hillary though even a completed several year long investigation doesn't solicit the same response. Why is that?Yes I have. Investigated multiple times by the house, congress and the FBI.
The special counsel said he knew Hillary was lying and considered charging her. When Hillary was 'interviewed' over her mishandling of classified information she brought 8 lawyers with her to the interview. There now you know some facts about Hillary.
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?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....
Probably is the biggest political scandal in history. All signs point to a crisis bigger than WatergateFor Liberals / snowflakes, it never ends.So my question is, when does loyalty to party end? And why is something like this NOT universally met with disapproval?
Their strategy of ' The Politics Of Personal Destruction' has escalated over the years from slander, false accusations, and law suits - like with Herman Cain - to Sedition, Illegal collusion with foreign spies and Russians, perjury, Obstruction, illegal spying, hiding / manufacturing evidence, perjury traps, setting up an American hero - a General, running a counter-intelligence operation, undermining the federal government, and attempting to affect a coup
Of a sitting president...OPENLY.
What is going on now is the biggest political scandal in US history, the 1st / biggest open attempt to criminally overthrow our government and oust a sitting President.
From simply eliminating an opponent from a race, Democrats / liberals have escalated their violent intolerance and hatred to the point where they attempted an assassination of GOP politicians in public, rigging elections and cheating in debates, publicly calling for MORE violent intolerance and an end to civility, and, again, the final on-going coup.
I am afraid of how much further they will escalate their self/party-serving, nation-destroying division and violent intolerance.
For nowNot to mention, the goodies we're in store for the next 6 years.
You mean Trump in the next 6 years, is going to fulfill YOUR promises from some dacha in Siberia????...............LMAO
Is that the "to believe what isn't true" part of your sig line? You're not really stupid enough to believe that, are you?
How about the second part: "to refuse to believe what is true." Believe it, Donald J. Trump is President. Accept that fact.
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?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....
Probably is the biggest political scandal in history. All signs point to a crisis bigger than WatergateFor Liberals / snowflakes, it never ends.So my question is, when does loyalty to party end? And why is something like this NOT universally met with disapproval?
Their strategy of ' The Politics Of Personal Destruction' has escalated over the years from slander, false accusations, and law suits - like with Herman Cain - to Sedition, Illegal collusion with foreign spies and Russians, perjury, Obstruction, illegal spying, hiding / manufacturing evidence, perjury traps, setting up an American hero - a General, running a counter-intelligence operation, undermining the federal government, and attempting to affect a coup
Of a sitting president...OPENLY.
What is going on now is the biggest political scandal in US history, the 1st / biggest open attempt to criminally overthrow our government and oust a sitting President.
From simply eliminating an opponent from a race, Democrats / liberals have escalated their violent intolerance and hatred to the point where they attempted an assassination of GOP politicians in public, rigging elections and cheating in debates, publicly calling for MORE violent intolerance and an end to civility, and, again, the final on-going coup.
I am afraid of how much further they will escalate their self/party-serving, nation-destroying division and violent intolerance.
We know Trump will be brought down
Will he bring the Republican Party down with him?
<sob>. But....but......What about OweBama?Probably is the biggest political scandal in history. All signs point to a crisis bigger than WatergateFor Liberals / snowflakes, it never ends.So my question is, when does loyalty to party end? And why is something like this NOT universally met with disapproval?
Their strategy of ' The Politics Of Personal Destruction' has escalated over the years from slander, false accusations, and law suits - like with Herman Cain - to Sedition, Illegal collusion with foreign spies and Russians, perjury, Obstruction, illegal spying, hiding / manufacturing evidence, perjury traps, setting up an American hero - a General, running a counter-intelligence operation, undermining the federal government, and attempting to affect a coup
Of a sitting president...OPENLY.
What is going on now is the biggest political scandal in US history, the 1st / biggest open attempt to criminally overthrow our government and oust a sitting President.
From simply eliminating an opponent from a race, Democrats / liberals have escalated their violent intolerance and hatred to the point where they attempted an assassination of GOP politicians in public, rigging elections and cheating in debates, publicly calling for MORE violent intolerance and an end to civility, and, again, the final on-going coup.
I am afraid of how much further they will escalate their self/party-serving, nation-destroying division and violent intolerance.
We know Trump will be brought down
Will he bring the Republican Party down with him?
Yes...it is the biggest political scandal in our history, obama used the Department of Justice, the FBI and the STate department to spy on the opposition political party during an election and is using the powers of the Federal Government to attack the sitting President with false crimes against the people who have worked for him.......with no Constitutional basis for the investigation...
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?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?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....
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.
<sob>. But....but......What about OweBama?Probably is the biggest political scandal in history. All signs point to a crisis bigger than WatergateFor Liberals / snowflakes, it never ends.So my question is, when does loyalty to party end? And why is something like this NOT universally met with disapproval?
Their strategy of ' The Politics Of Personal Destruction' has escalated over the years from slander, false accusations, and law suits - like with Herman Cain - to Sedition, Illegal collusion with foreign spies and Russians, perjury, Obstruction, illegal spying, hiding / manufacturing evidence, perjury traps, setting up an American hero - a General, running a counter-intelligence operation, undermining the federal government, and attempting to affect a coup
Of a sitting president...OPENLY.
What is going on now is the biggest political scandal in US history, the 1st / biggest open attempt to criminally overthrow our government and oust a sitting President.
From simply eliminating an opponent from a race, Democrats / liberals have escalated their violent intolerance and hatred to the point where they attempted an assassination of GOP politicians in public, rigging elections and cheating in debates, publicly calling for MORE violent intolerance and an end to civility, and, again, the final on-going coup.
I am afraid of how much further they will escalate their self/party-serving, nation-destroying division and violent intolerance.
We know Trump will be brought down
Will he bring the Republican Party down with him?
Yes...it is the biggest political scandal in our history, obama used the Department of Justice, the FBI and the STate department to spy on the opposition political party during an election and is using the powers of the Federal Government to attack the sitting President with false crimes against the people who have worked for him.......with no Constitutional basis for the investigation...
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?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?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....
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.
There won't be any charges against Trump, moron.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?
I think it will all come down to the seriousness of the charges against Trump
I don’t think paying off Stormy Daniels merits impeachment. If they are a series of campaign finance and ethical violations, Republicans can ignore them
But if coordinating with the Russians, offering political payback or severe transgressions are found.......Republicans will have no choice or they will face the wrath of the voters for a coverup
He plead guilty to a non-crime, moron.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?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....
