Quick Poll: Should Trump be Impeached?

[fskimospy]

i can testify i saw you kill your mom, does it mean you did it? is it proof? no.

So now you are discounting the concept of eyewitness testimony? Did you think this through? You’re making up excuses.

I wonder also which candidate in history has not mis-used funds. really we should crack down on everyone with this.

No, most candidates do not commit multiple campaign finance felonies. Trump appears to have though, which is why this is a problem.

Isnt clinton super guilty of this exact thing? taking so much donations for her charity by selling off nuclear items? Down with them all! put robots in charge that we can fully trust! I dont trust any human

No, Clinton was not guilty of this. It was a conspiracy theory in ultra right wing media that has no basis in fact.

 

[fskimospy]

I DIDNT claim anything. i asked the proof they said its one person's testimony that is the PROOF.. hahahah like no one has lied on the stand? Now if you said there are videos then yea that is proof.

There are audio recordings with Trump that corroborate Cohen’s sworn statement. They explicitly show that Trump’s claim that he didn’t know of the payments are lies.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

I DIDNT claim anything. i asked the proof they said its one person's testimony that is the PROOF.. hahahah like no one has lied on the stand? Now if you said there are videos then yea that is proof.

[Lemme see . . . this is the AnandTech website, so let's explain it in a way that some might understand.]

If you design an AI database to solve and prove a crime, there will be "sworn testimony," there will be "anecdote," there will be "interview," "affidavit," and other forms of witness explanation. You can categorize these or weight them as such. There will be "events," "artifacts" or physical evidence and other information. If you can logically infer that "testimony" is true because a thing or event proves it true, then you've corroborated the testimony.

Generally, I submit that one piece of evidence may by itself mean little or nothing; another piece of evidence may by itself mean little or nothing; but the combination of the two may mean everything.

 

[Moonbeam]

I think the question of whether Trump should be impeached has become moot. It strikes me that his guilt of offenses that demand impeachment have become self evident. I think his impeachment is morally obligatory. That does not mean that politicians have any intention to abide by their oaths.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

His personal lawyer has presented to the court in a sworn statement that Trump ordered him to commit multiple felonies on his behalf. The CFO of his company has been granted immunity in order to provide information on these felonies. You only get immunity if you can incriminate someone bigger than yourself so that’s very likely to be Trump.

It is highly likely that if Trump were not currently the president he would be under indictment. That’s pretty bad, no? Is that the sort of person we should lower our standards to?

It's a crime for Cohen to have done it and even that is arguable, it's not a crime for Trump to pay hush money to an old mistress.

 

[Josephus312]

i can testify i saw you kill your mom, does it mean you did it? is it proof? no. I wonder also which candidate in history has not mis-used funds. really we should crack down on everyone with this. Isnt clinton super guilty of this exact thing? taking so much donations for her charity by selling off nuclear items? Down with them all! put robots in charge that we can fully trust! I dont trust any human

You really don't get this, do you? I didn't say that his testimony alone would be enough evidence but if it corresponds with money transfers it can be verified and that is indeed proof.

I think he probably should go "but Clinton" in court though, I really do hope he does. That would make him as stupid as.... well, you.

 

[Josephus312]

It's a crime for Cohen to have done it and even that is arguable, it's not a crime for Trump to pay hush money to an old mistress.

It's not arguable at all. This is a very clear campaign contribution violation and it doesn't matter where the money came from. What matters is timing.

Cohen and Lanny gets this, the prosecuting parties gets this but you think you magically know better even though you don't know jack shit on the issue?

Good luck with that, you'll be crying into your socks before next week is over.

 

[killster1]

You really don't get this, do you? I didn't say that his testimony alone would be enough evidence but if it corresponds with money transfers it can be verified and that is indeed proof.

I think he probably should go "but Clinton" in court though, I really do hope he does. That would make him as stupid as.... well, you.

hehe i enjoy the name calling really helps you look so smart and win your case. You just sound so silly saying one person testimony is proof, so you went back and changed it to them having trump on tape admitting the money was from campaign funds? or just that he was aware of teh payments to the lady? So if my lawyer does something for me tells me that he did it and i know he did it does that mean im guilty of telling him to do it? just saying ;P thats why lawyers get paid the big bux to do things like this and work as a silent middle man. I just mention im 100% sure clinton is guilty of this same exact thing along with Every single other person campaigning.

 

[Josephus312]

hehe i enjoy the name calling really helps you look so smart and win your case. You just sound so silly saying one person testimony is proof, so you went back and changed it to them having trump on tape admitting the money was from campaign funds? or just that he was aware of teh payments to the lady? So if my lawyer does something for me tells me that he did it and i know he did it does that mean im guilty of telling him to do it? just saying ;P thats why lawyers get paid the big bux to do things like this and work as a silent middle man. I just mention im 100% sure clinton is guilty of this same exact thing along with Every single other person campaigning.

You don't get what the term "name calling" means, do you?

It doesn't matter where the money came from, if it was used to aid the campaign then it's a campaign finance violation because it would need to have been reported. It's a felony not to do so.

What if you fucking what you imbecile? What if you were running for President and did the same thing? Yeah, you'd be just as fucking guilty of the same fucking crime.

The thing is, child, this lawyer is talking and letting everyone know that Trump ordered him to pay it. That makes the payout legally from Trump and no one else.

Again with the Clinton defence... Yeah, kid, she LOST! Get the FUCK OVER IT!

 

[killster1]

It's not arguable at all. This is a very clear campaign contribution violation and it doesn't matter where the money came from. What matters is timing.

Cohen and Lanny gets this, the prosecuting parties gets this but you think you magically know better even though you don't know jack shit on the issue?

Good luck with that, you'll be crying into your socks before next week is over.

sounds like josephus is the only one crying doesnt matter if the money came from something other than campaign? So its a violation to pay someone off that will possibly ruin your chances with false or true statements?

So i just went ahead bit the bullet and did little research. Looks like the lawyer did this for a contribution? why so he can have tax write off? what was the point in doing this as campaign contribution? And the research shows the payoff is indeed legal just how it was done was illegal (if really was that way) seems like really bad lawyer. Even the article says a lawyer doesnt tell you how not to do things they tell you how to do things and get away with it. Double bad lawyer and trump is at fault for choosing him!

 

[killster1]

You don't get what the term "name calling" means, do you?

It doesn't matter where the money came from, if it was used to aid the campaign then it's a campaign finance violation because it would need to have been reported. It's a felony not to do so.

What if you fucking what you imbecile? What if you were running for President and did the same thing? Yeah, you'd be just as fucking guilty of the same fucking crime.

The thing is, child, this lawyer is talking and letting everyone know that Trump ordered him to pay it. That makes the payout legally from Trump and no one else.

Again with the Clinton defence... Yeah, kid, she LOST! Get the FUCK OVER IT!

LULULULZ So passionate.. but why? seems like this issue is causing you great pain. I wonder what your life consists of, you sure feel so good to put others down. You are SUPERIOR TO ALL OF US! WE WISH WE COULD ONE DAY BE AS SMART AS YOU .. AHAHHAHAHAHA you sound like the baby, constantly crying.

lets see the tape of trump telling the lawyer to mortgage his house to pay off stormy.

 

[Josephus312]

sounds like josephus is the only one crying doesnt matter if the money came from something other than campaign? So its a violation to pay someone off that will possibly ruin your chances with false or true statements?

So i just went ahead bit the bullet and did little research. Looks like the lawyer did this for a contribution? why so he can have tax write off? what was the point in doing this as campaign contribution? And the research shows the payoff is indeed legal just how it was done was illegal (if really was that way) seems like really bad lawyer. Even the article says a lawyer doesnt tell you how not to do things they tell you how to do things and get away with it. Double bad lawyer and trump is at fault for choosing him!

It would work that way if the lawyer wasn't reimbursed by Trump which Trump already admitted that he was.

I explained this once, this is the second time I'll do it and if you keep this trolling bullshit up I'll just put you on ignore. It doesn't matter where the money came from as long as it was used to aid the campaign and wasn't reported. That's it.

Either you deal with that or you whine more about how you don't understand the words "campaign" or "aid" or "Trump" in which case you're on ignore from me.

 

[Josephus312]

LULULULZ So passionate.. but why? seems like this issue is causing you great pain. I wonder what your life consists of, you sure feel so good to put others down. You are SUPERIOR TO ALL OF US! WE WISH WE COULD ONE DAY BE AS SMART AS YOU .. AHAHHAHAHAHA you sound like the baby, constantly crying.

lets see the tape of trump telling the lawyer to mortgage his house to pay off stormy.

And now you are on ignore. You should apply for secretary of state, you have the loyalty and that is ALL that matters to the current President.

 

[fskimospy]

It's a crime for Cohen to have done it and even that is arguable, it's not a crime for Trump to pay hush money to an old mistress.

It’s not arguable, he literally pleaded guilty to it. It is absolutely a crime for Trump to do the same.

Why lie about such obvious things? You’re such a dishonest person.

 

[killster1]

And now you are on ignore. You should apply for secretary of state, you have the loyalty and that is ALL that matters to the current President.

oh good ignore better than your name calling your the one crying over and over. ya its not a crime to pay her its how she was paid and how they disclosed it.. so lame of a lawyer if any of it is true

 

[imported_tajmahal]

It's not arguable at all. This is a very clear campaign contribution violation and it doesn't matter where the money came from. What matters is timing.

Cohen and Lanny gets this, the prosecuting parties gets this but you think you magically know better even though you don't know jack shit on the issue?

Good luck with that, you'll be crying into your socks before next week is over.

You do know that the Obama had well over a million dollars in campaign violations in 2008 and it was handled with a tiny slap on the wrist. Do you honestly think that the Democratic politicians will be ready, willing and able to weaponize any and all campaign violations (if indeed they even occurred in regards to Trump) ? I don't.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

It’s not arguable, he literally pleaded guilty to it. It is absolutely a crime for Trump to do the same.

Why lie about such obvious things? You’re such a dishonest person.

Cohen would have pleaded guilty to being the Boston Strangler to lower the amount of time he has to serve as long as it didn't extend his sentence. It means nothing legally in regards to President Trump.

 

[fskimospy]

Cohen would have pleaded guilty to being the Boston Strangler to lower the amount of time he has to serve as long as it didn't extend his sentence. It means nothing legally in regards to President Trump.

If you think sworn testimony means nothing legally you are very stupid.

 

[fskimospy]

Is anyone else enjoying watching taj desperately flail?

 

[BonzaiDuck]

The reason that Righties keep dismissing the felonious use of personal funds to aid a campaign and election is simple. They don't believe in the federal election laws. They've been skirting the intent of the laws and the FEC for decades. For instance, the notion of "political innovation" was applied to excuse what they did with the 501(c) law to avoid reporting to the FEC. Either way, they would've avoided tax reporting with exempt status, but avoiding the FEC requirements meant that people contributing over the limits -- transfers of large sums and so forth -- would not be identified as supporting a candidate.

There is irony in the hush money situation. The money -- personal money of Trump -- was paid to silence people who otherwise wanted to exercise their First Amendment rights and publish their stories. If Trump had followed the FEC requirements, the reporting of the expenditures would have defeated the reason for making them in the first place.

Trump admitted to Cohen and others that the money was spent to avoid losing votes in the election. It was not done to save his wife embarrassment. Here, intent is everything. He intended, by making the payments, to withhold information from the public affecting the election. The expenditure was therefore done specifically to facilitate the campaign. The expenditure should have been reported, and intentionally failing to report it is a felony.

It is very likely that there will be corroborating testimony from others, so dismissing Cohen's statements as "he-said-he-said" won't fly. Otherwise, they wouldn't have picked up Pecker and Weisselberg under immunity.

And as I said before, the amount of money only counts when it falls under the threshold of FEC regs. A $199 payment to Stormy or Karen would be undetectable. It would not have to be reported. Anything bigger would be above the radar, and would essentially be a form of fraud, even if the fraud itself were not illegal. Paying off hookers to protect your reputation isn't illegal, but violating federal election law to affect the election most certainly is.

 

[brycejones]

Is anyone else enjoying watching taj desperately flail?

@imported_tajmahal, @FelixDeCat, @SP33Demon are in for a horrible crash. The amount of emotional investment they have in defending Trump at this point is mind boggling.

 

[fskimospy]

@imported_tajmahal, @FelixDeCat, @SP33Demon are in for a horrible crash. The amount of emotional investment they have in defending Trump at this point is mind boggling.

Speedy and Felix maybe. I doubt taj feels the same way. He is an unrepentant liar but he seems to know it and I doubt he cares.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

If you think sworn testimony means nothing legally you are very stupid.

I can choose to believe what you say about it.............Someone I wouldn't trust in the same room alone with my grandchildren or to believe a number of attorneys and ex-district attorneys i've seen commenting on the subject on television and on the radio. Thanks, but i'll believe the attorneys and District Attorneys i've seen commenting on it.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

I can choose to believe what you say about it.............Someone I wouldn't trust in the same room alone with my grandchildren or to believe a number of attorneys and ex-district attorneys i've seen commenting on the subject on television and on the radio. Thanks, but i'll believe the attorneys and District Attorneys i've seen commenting on it.

Then you should read the FEC handbook and regulations. "Contributions in Kind" are specifically dealt with. If the contributor expressed the intent of the money as affecting his campaign, it should've been reported, and not reporting it is a felony. Period.

 

[fskimospy]

I can choose to believe what you say about it.............Someone I wouldn't trust in the same room alone with my grandchildren or to believe a number of attorneys and ex-district attorneys i've seen commenting on the subject on television and on the radio. Thanks, but i'll believe the attorneys and District Attorneys i've seen commenting on it.

You can believe whatever you want. Sworn testimony has been used to convict many, many people.

If you don’t know this you’re very dumb. I suspect you do know this though and so you’re just a liar.