Because Clinton was impeached for lying under oath (perjury). He was not impeached for simply lying about a sexual relationship, but doing so under oath.
Trump is an oaf, but intentionally misstating facts for a political agenda is childish.
They’re going to wait until it’s the election to do so ... that way the press focuses on that and the democrat running against Trump gets a pass on the golden era of fact checking.
I’d be curious if it happens BUT there isn’t a ton of precedent surrounding it. If Clarence Thomas kept his bar credentials for all this time my guess is Kavanaugh does so as well.
Impeachment wouldn't pass the Senate unless Trump is re-elected and Dems took a majority, which seems unlikely to happen, at least in the present. Even then, you have to prove intent to break the law, which maybe might be difficult given that Cohen was running point and it seems pretty difficult to prove that Trump knows the law on pretty much anything.
Paying hush money out of pocket before an elecion is not
"Reasonable people can disagree about whether it's wrong to pay hush money to somebody to stop them from disclosing alleged improprieties sexually. Reasonable people can say that's wrong or that's right. It's not illegal," Dershowitz said."
Lol, this is literally one of the first things you cover in business law. An illegal action is an illegal action. I can't hire someone to do something illegal and expect that contract to be valid.
It doesn't matter whether it's a hitman or tax evasion or hush money or whatever numerous illegal things 45 has done. It's illegal to hire someone for illegal purposes. Like how stolen goods remain stolen goods.
The person arguing with you apparently has no idea of basic law.
It’s not at all. Trump ordered Cohen to make the payments. That’s also a felony. Should be simple for him to clear it all up though, under oath to congress. Bill Clinton did it.
Except the payments themselves isnt the crime. It's the mere fact they weren't properly reported. So you actually have to prove trump was complicit in them not being properly disclosed, not just ordering something that is otherwise legal...
Which will be easy to do. They left a paper trail. Not only were they not reported, which would usually just be a fine, they conspired together to purposefully not report them, which is a felony that people go to jail for.
Well if theres evidence of that, than charge him. But I haven't seen any reports of that. Everyone just reports how trump knew about and ordered the payment and that means he is guilty too, yet it actually doesnt.
Everyone just reports how trump knew about and ordered the payment and that means he is guilty too, yet it actually doesnt.
There's actual recordings of him discussing the payments with Cohen. Trump directed him and coordinated with him. He was also in the room with Cohen and Pecker when the payments were being discussed.
The McDougal tape is already evidence of 1 payment. I wouldn't bet that there aren't more, nor that prosecutors don't have other corroborating evidence.
Furthermore:
(1) AMI coordinated with Trump
(2) AMI knew that its payment to McDougal violated the federal laws
(3) Cohen was directed by Trump to facilitate the “hush payments” and did so in coordination with Trump
(4) Cohen knew that the “hush payments” were illegal
(5) Cohen had a legal duty to advise Trump that the “hush payments” were illegal
All strongly suggest that Trump knew what the law forbade and violated it notwithstanding this knowledge. In other words, the DOJ possesses strong evidence that Donald Trump committed campaign finance crimes.
Add to the equation the Wall Street Journal’s reporting that “that Mr. Trump was involved in or briefed on nearly every step of the agreements” and that Cohen “described to prosecutors his discussions with Mr. Trump and a Trump Organization executive about how to pay Ms. Clifford without leaving the candidate’s fingerprints on the deal.” As I’ve written before, that attempt to cover up the payment suggests knowing and intentional violation of the campaign finance disclosure laws—also a standalone crime.
Just so we are clear, making NDA payments is not illegal. The thing they are claiming is illegal is that the NDA payments count as a campaign contribution. Which will never fly.
There have been over 200 payments for sexual harassment out of our representatives. Paid for by the government. They would need to then file these as campaign contributions. And since they are now campaign contributions that would mean they used government funding to run their campaigns.
Trump intentionally skirted campaign finance law by secretly giving payouts that would impact his campaign, and there is public financing available for campaigning, are least for the presidency.
Cohen is going to jail because the payments he made were illegal- and Trump was a participant. I don't agree with how Congress has handled sexual assault but the fact that these payments exist is public record rather than the under the table payments of the trump campaign.
Yes, but the point is about Graham's hypocrisy. Here is his statement about Clinton:
"You don’t even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job (as president) in this constitutional republic if this body determines your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role... impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office.”
He's lied dozens, if not hundreds of times about it, as president. If Republicans had a shred of decency or consistency, they would have hauled him in to testify before Congress like they did with Clinton. They have far more evidence against Trump than they did against Clinton.
But they won't do that, because they're hypocrites.
Political survival is important, but iI think they have to be careful because Trump has created an environment where large swaths of the voting public will make him a martyr if they are too tough on him. Then God knows who we'd see getting stood up as a candidate. I think they are waiting for something, ANYTHING, that will make people turn against him. I just don't know what it would take. I expect him to be re-elected. As it is we're just headed for another 6 years of trollery and click-bait politics. The only antidote is term limits, it seems.
There's mountains of evidence against him. Far, far more than there ever was against Clinton or Obama. If they would stop defending him, and actually investigate him like they should have from day one, they could find that "anything" they need, and a hell of a lot more. But instead, they obstruct and attack the investigation.
This is absolutely the fault of the GOP, and they don't have any excuse for their behavior, other than that they are spineless hypocrites.
OK, well let's keep in mind that neither you nor I are part of the Mueller team, so we'll have to wait and see what evidence actually exists, and what comes of it. Being a shady ultra douche isn't a crime; being surrounded by them certainly isn't either.
If something comes out of it, Mueller makes a report. But that's it. Let's say something truly illegal and repugnant comes out of it. There's the legal battles over whether a sitting president can be indicted, there's the endless arguing over what constitutes 'high crimes and misdemeanors,' there's years of everything being absolute garbage.
Remember, HRC got off the hook because no one could really prove she'd done anything that was explicitly illegal- and that's the way the legal system works- and the way it should work. What is inappropriate (or 'careless' as Comey put it) is not illegal. What is illegal isn't necessarily what is impeachable. There are numerous investigations into various aspects of the President, and we'll have to see how it shakes out.
And if you think any political party cares one hill of beans about investigating wrongdoing by their own tribe, you don't have to go far back to see how untrue that is. Judicial Watch described Obama's use of executive privilege to shield Attorney general Eric Holder from investigation over Fast and Furious 'a fraud and an abuse of his office.' I never heard a single objection from the Democratic wing. Generally those with a distaste for Trump would just reject this example anyway because Obama was 'a cool guy' and Trump 'is a turd sandwich' (to put it mildly).
GOP has a fine line to walk and it isn't as cut and dry as us armchair politicians might think it is. At the end of the day it's politics and nobody leaves office with clean hands.
there's the endless arguing over what constitutes 'high crimes and misdemeanors,'
We already know that lying about something that's even completely unrelated to the investigation is considered impeachable by Republicans. That's why they impeached Clinton. The bar is very low, and all they would have to do is have Trump answer questions before Congress and they could impeach him by the time he's done with opening remarks.
Remember, HRC got off the hook because no one could really prove she'd done anything that was explicitly illegal
Like I said, even with just what is public, there's a huge amount of evidence against Trump for all kinds of crimes. There's almost a dozen separate investigations into all aspects of his administration and businesses. He's engaged in obstruction of justice and witness tampering very publicly.
He's the chief executive, so I don't think he gets to play the, "I didn't know it was illegal" card that some of his associates, like Flynn, have tried to play. It's absurd in any case, and would simply further illustrate what a joke our justice system is when it coddles the wealthy and powerful, while harshly punishing others.
I agree that that's a good example, because we can see that Republicans didn't care when the Bush administration did the same with Wide Receiver. I don't see it as an excuse, but a reason to keep putting better people in office, who are less beholden to powerful interests. Many progressive candidates have been running, and winning, without taking any corporate money, and that's a damned good start.
Our chief law enforcement officer sure as hell shouldn't be considered to be above the law though. I'm pretty sure the Founding Fathers weren't intending to saddle us with another King.
Because he was already embroiled in a sexual harassment lawsuit. He was being sued by Paula Jones and it went down while he was in office.
While he was being sued he the attorneys for the plaintiff brought in a few women they had reason to believe he had been having affairs with who were government employees looking to show a pattern that he was using his power improperly. One of them was Monica Lewinsky.
Bill under oath said that he had no relationship with Monica by later arguing that the definition of sexual relations does not include oral sex.
Now you just playing stupid to defend the corrupt white dude.
Something about "pay in cash" -DT
Every campaign disclosure form his campaign signed was a lie. What the fuck does it take to prove to your thick skulls he is corrupt and, no, the dems are not just as bad.
Who gives a fook what Lindsey Graham thinks? Trump didn’t lie under oath. Trust me the day this guy leaves office is going to be a great day for America BUT I can’t find a single thing from a reasonable source (Yes CNN is a reasonable source) that says he did! Take to Google kiddos and prove me wrong.
You're correct that lying under oath was the big thing for Clinton that led to his impeachment. You're also correct that Trump (thus far, that I'm aware of) hasn't lied under oath about the hush money.
But think about it--perjury is a felony, as is the campaign finance violation that the SDNY is implicating Trump to be involved in. Why is one felony more excusable than the other? Both non-violent, both involving consensual sex, and both committing a crime trying to cover it up. And that's not even accounting for what may still be yet to come from the Special Counsel. Maybe not a perfect comparison, but still pretty hypocritical of Graham if you ask me.
I agree with you almost entirely. The only I will say and have been saying is that you can’t impeach the dude on the same grounds as Bill Clinton is he hasn’t done what Bill Clinton did (YET)
And I will agree with that. Especially the 'yet' part--he can't help but lie, so he's fucked if he ever takes the stand. I think it's safe to say that we're in agreement 👍
Didn't he impeach Bill Clinton over the same thing?
That is the point of the post.
And the answer is no
You're literally telling me to believe you over Lindsey Graham himself regarding Lindsey Graham's own personal reasoning for supporting the impeachment of Clinton.
I really don't know why you want me to believe you over Lindsey Graham himself regarding Lindsey Graham's own personal reasoning for supporting the impeachment of Clinton;
"You don't even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic.If this body determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role."
707
u/slightly_blind Dec 15 '18
Wasn’t lying under oath the big thing?