The Mueller probe... What a crock. Mueller has no authority to do anything vs. Trump.

True, Mueller can't ask for a bill for Rump, but if the Grand Jury decides to write a true bill, Mueller can't stop it, nor can Congress. SCOTUS would then have to decide if POTUS is a member of Congress traveling to a session of Congress or not. Lets hope they go strict constructionist and the founders knew what language they intended when they wrote it. After all the founders were seriously worried about despots so they very well may have intended POTUS to be fully subject to the civil and criminal laws while in office.

What US$20 million hush money that Trump paid?

You are quite right that Donald paid $130,000 hush money, but I never said that was illegal, which makes it further curious that he denied it. And you are quite right that he is trying to collect $20 million. He much prefers to make money than spend it. If it amounts to intimidation or extortion, then it certainly could be illegal. Maybe that is the great business acumen that his supporters are so fond of?

Whether this results in impeachment and removal remains to be seen. The people who voted for Donald but don't want Mike Pence should have thought of that before. It was a clear possibility from the beginning. If you didn't vote for Donald I wonder why you are supporting him? I don't see anything he has done in office to warrant it.

---

He is supporting McCabe over the laws of the land.

That is amusing. Which laws are you referring to? Which land?

---

It seems that Trump only paid US$130,000.00 to her to sign an NDA (non-disclosure agreement) on the subject

Trump has paid nothing. Cohen has said he paid the US$130,000.00 personally. And Trump has not disclosed any payment, which he would have had to do.

I'm not sure Cohen can sue Stormy about something Trump did or didn't do.
If Cohen is acting on Trump's behalf, why didn't Trump sign and pay.
If Trump did sign and pay why hasn't he declared the payment?

A confirmation?

At least you don't get into deeper waters in areas you don't understand. You just give up at the outset.

---

It seems that Trump only paid US$130,000.00 to her to sign an NDA (non-disclosure agreement) on the subject

Trump has paid nothing. Cohen has said he paid the US$130,000.00 personally. And Trump has not disclosed any payment, which he would have had to do.

I'm not sure Cohen can sue Stormy about something Trump did or didn't do.
If Cohen is acting on Trump's behalf, why didn't Trump sign and pay.
If Trump did sign and pay why hasn't he declared the payment?

If Cohen disburses money on behalf of a client without autorization, that could be an ethical violation. But that is somewhat beside the point. You seriously believe that Donald did not authorize it?

Or maybe you are presenting the more realistic scenario that he gives his lawyer blanket authority to try to hush up all such embarrassing claims. There may be a lot of them.

Now that we are on the subject, I always thought that one reason Donald did not disclose his tax returns (other than the obvious - he doesn't want certain sources of income from certain countries known), was that he did not want certain deductions revealed. Who knows what payments he has made? We won't get them from you, or your political group, whatever it is.

---

BTW: McCabe, as a Civil Servant, has many resources to fight his termination and loss of pension. But his problem would be that all the evidence will be made public. If McCabe doesn't...

If he wins which I believe he will, that evidence being made public will not hurt him, that would not be a problem but a boon. It will only further expose the corrupt POTUS, who as you repeatedly was lawfully elected. Being lawfully elected does not exempt you from being corrupt.
I also quote someone who is knowledgable of posting.

Ageless
Volunteer moderator
Project administrator
Volunteer tester
Help desk expert
Avatar

Joined: 29 Aug 05
Posts: 12409
Netherlands
Message 63457 - Posted: 10 Aug 2015, 15:51:33 UTC
Let me start off with my pet grumble peeve, people answering to a post in a thread, quoting the whole previous post and adding their single line of nothingness at the bottom. No editing of the quote so it's culled down to what they actually answer to; not being able to just reply; they're usually the first person answering and they need to quote the whole post, doesn't matter how long the thing is.
ID: 63457

---

If they do agree that Cohen is acting on Trump's behalf, then Cohen's US$130,000.00 was an illegal-in-kind donation to the Trump campaign.

The Mueller probe... What a crock. Mueller has no authority to do anything vs. Trump

No one asserted that AFAIK.
A probe is just fact finding. Any lying or other felonies uncovered by the probe should be prosecuted by the justice department and Mueller is not the justice dept. Charges would be filed by various federal and state district attorneys.

Heh....

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/06/08/sitting-presidents-cant-be-prosecuted-probably/?utm_term=.eefe6c5e779f

Sitting presidents can't be prosecuted. Probably.

So what would happen if Robert Mueller finds evidence President Trump broke the law?

by John P. Carlin June 8, 2017

The question on nearly everyone’s mind during James B. Comey’s testimony Thursday seemed quite straightforward: Did it suggest that the president committed a crime? But as it turns out, whether there’s evidence that President Trump committed a federal crime — regardless of whether it’s obstruction of justice or, as he once joked, shooting someone “in the middle of Fifth Avenue” — it may not resolve what happens next.

Because he’s the president of the United States. And it’s not at all clear that you can prosecute the sitting president of the United States.

Sooner rather than later, this conundrum may land on the desk of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, who has been appointed to handle the ongoing investigation into Russian efforts to interfere in the 2016 election. Comey himself said as much Thursday, that it wasn’t up to him to decide obstruction of justice: “That’s Bob Mueller’s job to sort that out.” Mueller’s selection has drawn bipartisan praise — an unusual feat in today’s political climate — and, as his former FBI chief of staff, I know that he is a towering law enforcement figure with impeccable credentials and a well-earned reputation for integrity.

Mueller’s stature is important precisely because he will not enjoy the same degree of legal independence from the Justice Department and the executive branch as did Ken Starr and other independent counsels under the now-expired statute that used to authorize such prosecutors. Nonetheless, if Mueller ultimately seeks to bring criminal charges against anyone other than the president, it would be politically and legally difficult for anyone at the White House or the Justice Department to stand in his way. By the same token, if Mueller decides to close the investigation without charges, both parties would recognize that as a sign the investigation did not support bringing a case.

But there is an important limitation on Mueller’s activities, no matter how well regarded he is: The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), the executive branch’s most authoritative in-house lawyer, has long taken the position that the president cannot be prosecuted or even indicted while still in office.

First in 1973 with President Richard M. Nixon, and then again in 2000 with President Bill Clinton, the OLC determined that the indictment or prosecution of a sitting president “would be unconstitutional because it would impermissibly interfere with the President’s ability to carry out his constitutionally assigned functions.” Despite its Nixon-era origins, the theory is not that the president is above the law, but rather that any criminal case must wait until after he or she leaves office.

The issue is one of separation of powers. Although the Constitution sets out a mechanism by which Congress may remove the president — the impeachment process — any attempt to prosecute the commander in chief before he or she leaves office would, in the OLC’s view, constitute an unworkable intrusion into the president’s core responsibilities. Both in 1973 and 2000, the OLC analysis noted that the presidency is unique because the executive branch is ultimately led by a singular figure on call and on the job 24 hours a day, unlike Congress or the judiciary. If one or more members of the legislative or judicial branches are temporarily distracted, others on the job can step in to keep business going.

Not everyone agrees with the OLC’s view of the law. Hofstra law professor Eric Freedman, for instance, has argued that the office’s interpretation “is inconsistent with the history, structure, and underlying philosophy of our government, at odds with precedent, and unjustified by practical considerations.”

The government’s position has never been tested in court — although it came close during Watergate. Leon Jaworski, the special prosecutor who stood in Mueller’s shoes then, argued before the Supreme Court in 1974 (in contrast with the position of the Justice Department) that “[i]t is an open and substantial question whether an incumbent President is subject to indictment.”

But Mueller, who has spent nearly his entire career working for the Justice Department, seems unlikely to confront the office’s conclusion head-on, given its role as the executive branch’s foremost legal authority.

And that leaves a gray area: If Mueller closes his investigation without bringing charges against Trump, does that mean that evidence might exist of a presidential crime left unprosecuted? And what would happen next? As of now, it is anybody’s guess.

This conundrum — a president who might very well be above the normal legal system while in office — creates a potential set of problems that Congress should anticipate and address on a bipartisan basis before it is known where this investigation (or future investigations of this president or his successors) will lead.

At least where Trump is concerned, if Mueller decides not to bring charges, that might not bring the closure all sides are expecting from his investigation unless it is accompanied by an assurance that any evidence that the president may have broken the law (if such evidence is found) will be turned over to Congress.

At present, we don’t have that assurance. In fact, we don’t even know that Mueller will turn over anything of value to Congress at the end of his investigation. Justice Department regulations require a special counsel at the conclusion of an investigation to provide the attorney general (for Mueller’s purposes, Rod J. Rosenstein, who is acting attorney general for this investigation, given Attorney General Jeff Sessions’s recusal) with a “confidential report” that explains the decision to pursue or decline prosecution. Those regulations also require the attorney general to report to senior members of the House and Senate Judiciary committees when a special counsel concludes an investigation. But although the rules state that these reports should include “an explanation” for the special counsel’s decisions, they do not say that those reasons must be made public — nor that the reports must be detailed enough to allow Congress to take over the investigation. As for the special counsel’s underlying report, the rules suggest it would never see the light of day.

Keeping a special counsel’s report confidential makes sense in many circumstances. When a special counsel pursues criminal charges, then those charges should be proven in front of a jury and not preemptively described in detail to the public. If a special counsel concludes no crime has been committed — or that there is insufficient evidence to prove a crime beyond reasonable doubt — then the Justice Department’s policies generally dictate that prosecutors should say no more. (The breach of that tradition and those policies, of course, was prominently cited by Rosenstein in his memo regarding Comey’s firing as FBI director.)

But what if a special counsel’s report is about the president himself? And what if there is speculation that the investigation found illegal activity but the special counsel didn’t pursue prosecution because of the OLC’s guidance? The natural body to hand off that report to would be Congress, which would have to effectively step into the shoes of a prosecutor — a point the OLC also made clear in its 2000 opinion, when it observed that a president is not rendered “above the law” because “a sitting President who engages in criminal behavior” is “subject to removal from office upon impeachment.”

Congress would do well to let the investigation proceed with minimal interference. But congressional leaders of both parties should also try — in advance — to get the administration to confirm that, in the event Mueller yields potential evidence of criminal conduct by Trump, that evidence will be disclosed in detail to Congress once the investigation is concluded.

Without an agreement now, that decision will presumably be up to Rosenstein, who under the regulations will receive Mueller’s report. If Congress subpoenas the report, Rosenstein could claim that it is privileged — leaving Congress and the executive branch to fight things out in a lengthy court battle. Alternatively, however, Rosenstein could commit to waiving any privileges over the report, at least to the extent that the material concerns potential criminal activity by the president. This way, Congress can be assured that it will be able to take up its own constitutional responsibilities if any evidence of criminal wrongdoing is found. And, conversely, it will know whether the president has broken no law, and members could verify that fact to the broader public.

The special counsel rules are a good, if imperfect, solution to a complicated set of legal, ethical and even constitutional dilemmas — and Mueller is the perfect candidate to fill that role. But it’s a role that is more limited than many understand. Ultimately, only Congress can hold a sitting president accountable and only Congress can fully clear the record if no wrongdoing occurred.

For the one person who cannot be prosecuted in court, we must be sure that there is a clear and agreed-upon way to hand off the investigation, letting Congress follow Mueller’s investigation — wherever it ultimately leads.

Note 1:

LEFT-CENTER BIAS

These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor liberal causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information, but may require further investigation. See all Left-Center sources.

Factual Reporting: HIGH

Notes: The Washington Post is an American daily newspaper. It is the most widely circulated newspaper published in Washington, D.C., and was founded on December 6, 1877. The newspaper has won 47 Pulitzer Prizes. This includes six separate Pulitzers awarded in 2008, the second-highest number ever awarded to a single newspaper in one year. Post journalists have also received 18 Nieman Fellowships and 368 White House News Photographers Association awards. The Washington Post has a liberal bias in reporting choices, however they are typically well sourced to credible information. Sometimes they rush stories to be the first to break them, which leads to poor sourcing. This has occurred on a few occasions in 2016. When an error is made the Washington Post responsibly makes corrections. (5/18/2016) Updated (1/12/2017)

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/washington-post/

Note 2:
The author of the above article from the Washington Post I quoted was Assistant Attorney General for National Security under President Obama from April 2014 to October 2016.
----------------------------
The Washington Post is a left-leaning newspaper and the author knows what he is writing about.
----------------------------

Do you REALLY want to establish the precedent of prosecuting a sitting President???? That would virtually immediately become 'situation normal' in the already bitter... politics... between the two major parties here in the US... The Ds and the Rs... A little jurisdiction shopping around the country to find one that would charge the President with something, and bingo... instant paralysis of much of the Federal Government...

Clyde from time to time mentions giving your friends power... you will have to deal with your enemies having it... In this concern he is 100% right. Don't use a weapon in politics against your enemies unless you are willing to have it used against you... vigorously.

The bitter, rancorous feud between the Ds and the Rs is one giant fuster-cluck already... The two parties don't care about the good of the nation, but only about their own power....
Prosecute a sitting President, and it will become one giant fuster-cluck squared....

Best just to stick to the Constutition's remedy in this case... Impeachment by the US House, trial in the US Senate... We have done impeachment of the President 2 times (Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton), but we have YET to have a conviction and removal from office by the Senate... We almost had a 3rd case of it, but Nixon had the good sense to resign beforehand.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

Have patience.

Good enough. It is strange to fire him just before he retires however. That does not sound like much of an administrative proceeding, but rather an attempt to intimidate any public servant who does not agree with Donald.
Is such a thing possible?

---

"IF" the biggest little word. har...

---

...

Yawn.

Of course impeachment is the appropriate remedy for a sitting president, according to the usual Constitutional interpretation. But when I heard of Donald's $20 M lawsuit, I assumed that he was trying to accelerate the process in order to avoid dealing with North Korea. We may find out how Mike Pence handles it, whether we want to or not.

---

Of course impeachment is the appropriate remedy for a sitting president, according to the usual Constitutional interpretation. But when I heard of Donald's $20 M lawsuit, I assumed that he was trying to accelerate the process in order to avoid dealing with North Korea. We may find out how Mike Pence handles it, whether we want to or not.

If POTUS was indicted, VPOTUS would essentially forced into using 25th and becoming APOTUS. Gives congress a window of time to impeach and hold a trial if the idiot can't see the writing on the wall and resign.

Yep, then we get Pence, worse in many ways.

---

Statement by Andrew McCabe:

edit] Andrew McCabe was just offered a job by a congressman so he can get his full retirement. And it just might work.

edi2] Just came to me, how would 45 react if Comey and McCabe were to be elected in the mid terms and become members of one of the inquires.

The only mistake Cohen made was not noting in the check memo "For Services Rendered"................

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>

The only mistake Cohen made was not noting in the check memo "For Services Rendered"................

Eye your moral compass is not in question, you have stated you don't have one.

---

MEMOs MEMOs MEMOs OH OH OH dA MEMOs MEMOs MEMOs

45ers DON"T Give a SHAT 'bout MEMOs

DIMMs DESTRUCTION On Course fO TOTAL COLLAPSE

Buried Unda dA RUBBLE of Their Own DEVIOUS Designs

SWEETNESS of YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE Dawg EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeVille

GOoD to be a DEPLORABLE; LOW IQ; Under-Educated; LOVER of dA GREATEST BEST MOST WINNING LEADER of ALL Time.

DEEP DEEP DEEP STATE of Yap

---

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!

Yawn.