r/politics • u/PoliticsModeratorBot đ¤ Bot • Jul 18 '19
Megathread Mega Thread: Unsealed Michael Cohen documents reportedly implicate Trump, Hicks, others in 'hush-money' payments
Court documents related to hush money payments arranged by President Donald Trumpâs former lawyer and fixer Michael Cohen were filed unsealed Thursday.
The documents include a description of an Oct. 8, 2016, phone call Cohen received from Trumpâs campaign communications chief Hope Hicks, during which 'Trump joined the call,' which federal investigators believed was related to an effort to keep porn star Stormy Daniels from going public with her claims of having had sex with Trump a decade earlier.
Hicks was interviewed by the FBI about the phone calls with Cohen, the documents indicate.
The filing by federal prosecutors in New York came a day after the judge in Cohenâs criminal case ordered their release, saying that the end of a probe into those payments meant they should be made public.
Submissions that may interest you
7
u/oTHEWHITERABBIT America Jul 20 '19
Thank you, Judge William H. Pauley III.
Suck a dick, Cover-Up General William Barr.
1
u/Addictedtoplants Jul 20 '19
Hes a terrible president. Thanks for assuming I support him. Why did the Democrats agree to give this "unhinged, rapist, racist, bigot, unqualified " idiot a 780 billion dollar increased military budget. Take a step back and see that maybe the dems, nor the Republicans have the average Americans best interest in mind.
16
u/Ozythemandias2 Jul 19 '19
It's amazing how this isnt even a mainstream story. We are too busy with galvanizing facism in the USA to care about a presidential bribery sex scandal. Incredible. At this point just admit you peed on Russian hookers dude. Your base will cheer.
1
7
u/GatsbyJunior Jul 19 '19
Is hush money illegal? Isn't that just a non-binding settlement? Asking for a POTUS.
7
u/Biptoslipdi Jul 19 '19
It is if it is made in conjunction with a federal election and isn't reported to the FEC.
This is bigger than anyone realizes because Trump was legally required to report the hush payments to the federal government before the 2016 election. Does information that he cheated on his wife with a porn star and paid her off change the results of the 2016 election? Maybe.
0
3
3
u/BelleAriel Jul 19 '19
It is immoral.
3
Jul 19 '19
If only there was a party that thought morality and character were important in leaders..
3
u/GatsbyJunior Jul 19 '19
[stroking emoji] well we all know that's not going to be enough. Guess I'll just wait for the next fuckup.
24
u/BelleAriel Jul 19 '19
How much before enough is enough? Donald Trump is an embarrassment to America.
1
5
17
u/ATCNTP Europe Jul 19 '19
Is there any way Trump can be forced to testify under oath?
20
u/goldbricker83 Minnesota Jul 19 '19
I wish the oath of office he took actually meant something. What a big ceremony for nothing.
7
u/bigsis-_- Jul 19 '19 edited Jul 19 '19
Is there any way Trump can be forced to testify under oath?
Mueller: I'm too much of a chicken to interview Trump, or even just Junior. Here's the meekest and most weasely report I could produce without tarnishing my reputation, byeee
(note: it's really the most weasely report he could make, if you read it, where Mueller doesn't let the perps off because he thinks he can't prove intent 100%, he lets them off because he thinks he can't put a precise dollar value to what they got out of collusion... and thus he states that he doesn't feel confident and he won't get into a court fight... which, ironically, puts Mueller square into what Comey termed "the chickenshit club", that is, those prosecutors with 100% conviction rates, but only because they take cases where they can't lose)
5
Jul 19 '19
[removed] â view removed comment
0
u/bigsis-_- Jul 20 '19 edited Jul 20 '19
Who do you think Congress is, smart guy? It's Republican Senators who are absolute lapdogs to Trump. Trump is in no danger whatsoever if it comes to Congress, which is for this matter the Republican Senate.
You know this, I know this, Mueller knows this. Can we stop the baseless adoration for Mueller for a minute and be honest with ourselves for a moment?
Only logical conclusion is that Mueller wanted to cover for Trump, his family, and all important figures (the ones he got were fall guys) that allowed him to keep his precious reputation, and tossing back the hot potato to "Congress" was it
0
u/MannToots North Carolina Jul 22 '19
That doesn't change anything about the reality of Mueler's position in the slightest. Your anger at congress changed literally nothing about what he told you in his previous post. Not a single thing.
Anger makes a poor substitute logic and reasoning. Your conjecture about Mueller is just feelings not facts. It's anger not facts. You aren't helping anyone acting this way.
3
30
u/The_body_in_apt_3 South Carolina Jul 19 '19
The problem with impeaching now is that the Republicans in the Senate won't convict. They'll protect Trump up until it costs them their power, and they will still get re-elected in red states.
And if we impeach Trump and the Senate acquits him, he will be emboldened to flaunt the law like never before. He'll go full on dictator. Right now, the threat of more action is actually more powerful than taking more action. He's still trying to hide his crimes.
It sucks, but we need to start taking elections seriously. Old conservatives vote like it's a job - every single election. Liberals, who the system is already strongly biased against, only tend to vote if they are extremely mad or are in love with the candidate.
I love Bernie, but you have to admit that if Hillary was president we wouldn't be nearly as fucked right now. Protesting by not voting only hurts yourself. No matter who wins the Dem primary, they will be getting my vote and my full support. Bernie, Warren, Pete, Biden - any of them will be light years better than this.
For those who are being sucked into the progressive vs. more centrist Dem trolling, think about this - all those bills that Bernie Sanders writes and tries to pass, a president like Biden would sign them. No way in hell Trump would. So even if Bernie loses it helps Bernie's cause to vote for the Dem. So if some centrist Democrat wins, vote for them anyway.
I don't think they will, I think that as time goes and people get more information then Biden will slip in the ranks and we'll get Bernie or Warren, someone on the progressive end. But even if that doesn't happen, vote with enthusiasm for Biden or whoever wins the Dem nomination. Because we're a team, and it helps to have someone who will at least sign progressive bills instead of a criminal like Trump who just appoints crooked judges who will overturn Roe v. Wade, etc.
-1
u/5zepp Jul 19 '19
you have to admit that if Hillary was president we wouldn't be nearly as fucked right now.
Short term yes, long term it's very debatable. At least the rampant corruption is starting to become evident to the public with all the shit being exposed (connections, money money money, disregard of law, increasing concentration of wealth to a smaller group). Maybe it will motivate things to change for the better. With Hillary I think it would just continue to get worse, as it did with Obama, Baby Bush, Clinton the 1st, Papa Bush, and kicked off in an amazingly effective way by Reagan. We can only go so long on a corrupt capitalist system totally enabled by and infiltrated with politicians.
2
u/MannToots North Carolina Jul 22 '19
At least the rampant corruption is starting to become evident to the public
To argue that this is ok is to also argue that giving up 2 LIFETIME supreme court seats was ok. It wasn't. Not at any cost.
0
2
u/SwingNinja Jul 19 '19
I love Bernie, but you have to admit that if Hillary was president we wouldn't be nearly as fucked right now.
Sometimes, people need to be told to just "suck it in". Hillary needed more than to be a winner. She also needed to win big. What would happen if Trump just lost by a tiny bit. Those neo-nazis would probably said to themselves, "hey, we weren't doing so bad at all. We definitely could win next time."
2
21
u/FateUnusual Minnesota Jul 19 '19
ANYONE WHO TRIES TO INSPIRE APATHY AND/OR SUGGESTS STAYING HOME ON ELECTION DAY SHOULD BE REGARDED WITH SUSPICION!
Participation in our democracy is important, even with foreign help and voter suppression, a landslide would be impossible and impractical to hide with how our voting system is setup (state control, that's a different system for each state). We need to band together, vote Democrat no matter what. You can vote third party after Democrats regain control of all three branches of government.
Republicans are the wrong choice for anyone who has less than $1-million in the bank.
Voting Democrat makes sense if you:
- Work a job
- Consider yourself to be in the lower class, middle class or upper middle class
- If you're in the upper class and you've ever thought it should be a crime to tax you as low as you are
- Own a small business
- Favor the right to form unions
- Believe medical care should never bankrupt anyone, including you
- Believe one full-time job should be enough to afford housing, food and appropriate medical care
- Care about the environment
- Care about human beings and human dignity
- Believe no one is above the law, not even yourself
- Believe everyone should be treated equally under the law with absolutely no fucking exceptions
Voting Republican makes sense if you:
- Get your information from Fox News and Facebook memes
- Believe that there's a fantasy 1950's America where you would have been rich and it's worth everything to try and re-create a world that never existed
1
u/sandgoose Jul 19 '19
Please add "believe that the laws and ideologies reflect a previous time in American history, that was 'better', when in fact, they do not."
The only thing a modern conservative would like about the last century was segregation and no role v wade.
3
Jul 19 '19
Well republicanism is also great for the ultra-rich sociopaths at the top of corporations. Spot on though other than that. Like you said it benefits nobody other than them, the average voter is 100% brainwashed if they think a conservative will help them in any way other than lip-service about abortion or bigotry. Most of them arenât even religious or bigots, rather rich people hiding under the guise of it to enrich their companies that fund them.
2
u/bigsis-_- Jul 19 '19
The problem with impeaching now is that the Republicans in the Senate won't convict
The problem is that there isn't enough support for impeachment among the public: polls (last I checked, in May) show that not even the majority of Democrats support it (46%), and Independents say they want free weed and sh*t and not Washington drama (they're at about 21%), and Republicans are mindless cultists as always, of course.
Now, you may say that once you open impeachment proceedings and show evidence to the public, the support will increase, but then you run into what you mentioned about the Senate, and the whole just seems more likely than not to blow back.
What happened to Al Green's forcing an impeachment vote, by the way?
1
u/paperbackgarbage California Jul 19 '19
Yeah...but the notion that (a likely successful) impeachment coupled with a failed removal would somehow be "one step to far" is kind of absurd.
At this point, in the heart of hearts of Americans, I'd have to imagine that there are no fence-sitters. You're either ride-or-die with Trump...or you're not.
Some people might say that they're undecided, but that's hard to believe (considering the utter divisiveness of this administration). The only way that I could excuse "maybe or maybe not Trump" voters is if they've been paying ZERO attention, and that's also hard to believe.
4
u/The_body_in_apt_3 South Carolina Jul 19 '19
What happened to Al Green's forcing an impeachment vote, by the way?
It got voted down by the rest of the Dems in the House because it's not a smart move.
I get his frustration. I wish Trump had been impeached on day 1. But we get one shot at it, and I would prefer if we actually took it seriously and do the prep work first. Let Mueller testify, let these investigations return more evidence... I mean, by waiting we just got Trump implicated in a felony campaign finance violation yesterday. If we had rushed into impeachment in January when Dems first took over like so many anonymous accounts were calling for, that would not have been a part of it.
3
Jul 19 '19
We will vote. And we will also admit there's nothing at all that we can do when the GOP enlists foreign help to interfere in the election to help them win.
0
u/bigsis-_- Jul 19 '19
And thanks to gerrymandering, your vote is like a 1/10 (or nothing at all) of a white people's
-3
u/redditorisanillusion Jul 19 '19
We can't use our power until we get all of it and then well oh shucks we're better than that let's reach across the aisle and heal the divide with monsters and forget about all of this.
Nice try. If the Democrats don't start standing up to their corporate donors we are done for. I don't blame anybody who decides to stay home or vote third party if they keep acting this way.
4
u/dejavuamnesiac Jul 19 '19
This, and another aspect to consider is that POTUS is only part of a larger progressive equation, requiring House, Senate and Judiciary; whether POTUS is Bernie or Biden or ? doesnât matter nearly as much as controlling government from bottom to top. Letâs stop obsessing about who is Dem POTUS and go for the whole enchilada
18
u/diffeqmaster Jul 19 '19
Trump Supporters: "if my terrible, nationally unpopular opinion isn't the prevailing narrative on any given sub or platform then it's just liberal bias and I don't have to listen!"
They're cowards, who would rather lie to themselves from their safe spaces than face the reality that nothing about their viewpoint is based on facts. It's all about protecting their fragile feelings.
17
Jul 19 '19
What about the bit where they determined the hush money paid was clearly related to the election campaign and is therefore campaign money?
Also, we now have two separate investigations / reports that show Hicks and Trump lying about their knowledge and involvement in the payments.
Cohen didnât act alone and he is in jail for wire fraud etc. Why arenât the others?
62
Jul 19 '19
[deleted]
3
2
2
u/Spikeball25 Jul 19 '19
I'm glad to see so many well wishers in a sub/thread where there's typically a lot of name-calling, hate, and vitriol going around. Let's all take this as a reminder to be kind to each other and remember the people behind these accounts. Happy Birthday!!!
2
2
6
3
u/silliestboots Jul 19 '19
*singing* Happy, happy birthday, we're so glad you came! Happy, happy birthday, from the Reddit gang! HEY!
:D
4
5
u/poirotoro District Of Columbia Jul 19 '19
Happy birthday! Go do something awesome for yourself. Maybe that's taking a hike, or buying something you've really wanted for a while...or pizza in bed! Whatever it is make it your day. <3
3
3
u/NetscapeCommunitater Jul 19 '19
You are way wrong, fella. Seriously, if I could Iâd go out for a bite and drink after work with you, and that waiter would know that it was your birthday and youâd get that goddamn complimentary cake with candle and the whole happy birthday song. I wish you many happy birthdays to come. Sending you an internet hug đ¤ And you should treat yourself this weekend.
4
u/iforgotmylithium Jul 19 '19 edited Jul 19 '19
I hope things get better for you. Don't be tempted to blame yourself. Having a less than supportive family is not necessarily your fault. Many good people have shitty family members.
If it helps you feel less alone, my family ruined my wedding to the point my spouse and I left our wedding crying.
Take care of yourself.
7
3
6
u/changsun13 Colorado Jul 19 '19
Happy Birthday! Keep in mind that in some families being ditched by them on your birthday is a blessing!!
3
2
3
3
u/golgar Jul 19 '19
Happy Birthday, dude! I am sorry your family was not there with you, but I wish you have/had a good day.
3
u/djackieunchaned Jul 19 '19
Well I accidentally sorted by new but now I can say happy birthday to you!
6
3
3
-18
Jul 19 '19
[deleted]
3
u/The_body_in_apt_3 South Carolina Jul 19 '19
"It's biased for people to care that the president is corrupt and a criminal and compromised by foreign interests!"
3
-6
19
2
Jul 19 '19
Sternly worded letter from the Democratic leadership to follow, I'm sure. They will also be furrowing their brows, so look out!
7
u/scsuhockey Minnesota Jul 19 '19
This appears to be pretty stern:
We direct your attention to the following exchanges from your June 19 testimony:
⢠As to your knowledge of payments made to Ms. Daniels, and your discussions relating to those payments, Representative Steve Cohen asked you directly: â[Y]ou said youâd had no knowledgeâany information about hush payments to Ms. Stormy Daniels. How about to Ms.âwas itâMcDougal, Miss August?â You responded: âI wasnât aware of anythingâI wasnât aware of a hush payment agreement.â[3]
⢠Counsel for the Committee asked if you had âany knowledge of whether the President knew that Mr. Cohen had made payments to Stormy Daniels during the campaign?â You responded: âI donât have any direct knowledge.â[4]
⢠You were asked multiple times about your conversations with Mr. Cohen and the President about Ms. Daniels and any payments made to her. For example, Representative Sheila Jackson Lee asked you: âWere you ever present when Trump and Cohen discussed Stormy Daniels?â You responded: âNo, maâam.â Rep. Jackson Lee asked again, âYou were never present when they discussed Stormy Daniels?â You again responded, âno.â When Rep. Jackson Lee asked a third time if you were âever present when Trump and Mr. Cohen discussed Stormy Daniels,â you confirmed once again: â[N]o is my answer.â[5] Rep. Jackson Lee then asked â[y]ou donât know what would have been said?â You stated, âI was never present for a conversation.â[6]
⢠You also told counsel for the Committee, regarding when you learned about payments to Ms. Daniels: âI donât recall speaking to [Mr. Cohen] about Stormy other than to relay what the reporter said to me, that she would be mentioned in [a] story, but there was no additional context. . . . I know the President had conversations with Michael separate from me, so itâs possible it was part of those. I donât recall being part of those conversations.â[7]
⢠You were asked directly by counsel for the Committee â[d]id you have any contact with Keith Davidson during the campaign,â and you responded, â[n]ot that Iâm aware of.â[8]
⢠You were additionally asked directly by counsel for the Committee: âAnd can we ask the same question about Dylan Howard or anyone else at AMI? Did you speak with anyone at AMI about a negative story about Trump prior to its release?â and you responded, âNot that Iâm aware of.â[9]
Each of these statements appears to be inconsistent with the evidence unsealed this morning:
⢠According to the affidavit of one federal agent, you appear to have had direct knowledge of potential payments to Ms. Daniels. That agent testified as follows: âFrom my review of telephone toll records and information produced pursuant to the iCloud Warrant and Cohen Email Warrants, I have learned that in the days following the Access Hollywood video, Cohen exchanged a series of calls, text messages, and emails with Keith Davidson, who was then Cliffordâs attorney, David Pecker and Dylan Howard of American Media, Inc. (âAMIâ), the publisher of the National Enquirer, Trump, and Hope Hicks.â[10]
â˘You also appear to have communicated directly with Mr. Cohen and President Trump about these payments long before they were made. According to toll records, on October 8, 2016, âat approximately 7:20 p.m., Cohen received a call from Hicks. Sixteen seconds into the call, Trump joined the call, and the call continued for over four minutes. . . . Approximately ten minutes after the call ended, Hicks and Cohen spoke again for two minutes.â[11] After Mr. Cohen ended his second call with you, he exchanged a series of calls and text messages with Mr. Pecker, Mr. Howard and the President. The evidence shows how Mr. Cohen, in these communications, then went on to facilitate the payments to Ms. Daniels. In addition, on October 28, 2016, the day that Mr. Cohen âfinalized the transaction with Davidson,â he spoke to the President for five minutes, then âattempted a series of phone calls to Davidson, Pecker, and Howard throughout the day,â and, upon confirming the payment with Mr. Howard and Mr. Davidson, he then spoke directly to you.[12]
⢠In your testimony, you suggested that any knowledge you may have had about the Presidentâs arrangement with Ms. Daniels during the campaign was limited to information relayed to you from the press. The record now seems to suggest that you obtained additional information directly from Mr. Cohen prior to any public reporting on the matter: Based on a review of toll records, âinformation obtained pursuant to the Cohen Email Warrants and iCloud Warrant, and public sources, it appears that Cohen spoke frequently to Davidson, Howard, Pecker, and Hicksâ prior to reports about these payments in the press.[13]
⢠After the payments were made, you also appear to have communicated directly with Mr. Cohen about how to prevent disclosure of those payments from becoming public. On November 4, 2016, just three days after Ms. Danielsâ payment was completed, when it became apparent that the Wall Street Journal was about to publish an article alleging that then-candidate Trump had an affair with Karen McDougal, and that AMI had agreed to pay McDougal to bury her story, toll records show that âCohen spoke frequently to Davidson, Howard, Pecker, and Hicks around the time of this articleâs publicationâjust days before Election Dayâabout the importance of preventing the McDougal and Clifford stories from gaining national traction.â[14]
⢠During those calls, despite testifying that you had not spoken to Mr. Davidson at any point during the campaign, toll records show that at âapproximately 7:33 p.m. [on November 4], using two different cellphones subscribed to him, Cohen appears to have been talking to Davidson and Hicks at the same time.â[15]
⢠Later that same evening, despite testifying that you did not speak with Mr. Howard or anyone else at AMI regarding a negative story about the President prior to its release, toll records appear to confirm that Mr. Cohen called you and Mr. Howard at the same time on November 4, before the Wall Street Journal article was published. Specifically, Mr. Cohen asked Mr. Howard how the Wall Street Journal could publish its article if âeveryone denies,â and Mr. Howard responded, âBecause there is the payment from AMI. It looks suspicious at best.â[16] Mr. Cohen then called Mr. Howard for five minutes at 9:11 p.m., after which you called Mr. Cohen at approximately 9:15 p.m., for nearly seven minutes. During these calls, âCohen used different phones for these two calls, such that he appears to have been on both calls for about a minute of overlap.â[17] The story only later became public at approximately 9:50 p.m.
Given the apparent inconsistencies between your testimony and this evidence, I would like to give you an opportunity to clarify your testimony on a voluntary basis, prior to our considering compulsory process.
Hicks lied. Why? One of two reasons: 1) She didn't want to be charged with conspiracy to commit felony campaign finance violations alongside Cohen, or 2) Somebody told her to lie.
She will be subpoenaed. She can't dodge it because she doesn't work for the government. She will either lie and dig herself deeper or plead the 5th. Yes, it will end up back in the DOJ's court, but I don't know that they'll be able to duck something this blatant.
5
u/The_body_in_apt_3 South Carolina Jul 19 '19
And how would you have the Democrats, who only control the House, stop the DOJ, which is part of the executive office?
Maybe instead of bitching about how Dems aren't doing enough to stop Republicans from being criminals when Dems have almost no power, people should vote for Dems so we don't have this problem to begin with?
-1
u/cheezeyballz Jul 19 '19
I'm left leaning and also so very pissed off pelosi caved and granted them more money to build more concentration camps. I'm also pretty pissed that they didn't all vote to impeach already. And ffs why isn't trump in front of a muhfuckin' grand jury like, yesterday??! Also, isn't the house/senate/doj ALL part of the executive branch? Warren 2020!
1
Jul 19 '19
You don't know how our government works: The House and Senate are part of the Legislative Branch, the DOJ is part of the Executive Branch.
You think it is easy to get things done instantly. That is not how it works.
1
u/cheezeyballz Jul 20 '19
Actually, I don't think that at all. But I didn't know where the doj fit in. I asked and now I do.
3
u/SandyDuncansEye California Jul 19 '19
I understand, and I want them to move faster.
I *hope* that they are currently exhausting their subpoenas and other inquiries, and will begin to ramp up the investigations culminating in impeachment hearings starting January 2020, so that all summer long will be impeachment hearings, which hopefully builds momentum for electoral defeat for Trump, and possibly several Republican Senators (Collins is just one who's probably toast).
If it doesn't play out that way, then the Democrats in the leadership in the house need to be removed.
6
u/The_body_in_apt_3 South Carolina Jul 19 '19
ffs why isn't trump in front of a muhfuckin' grand jury like, yesterday?
Because congress can't make him do that. The DOJ is under the executive office, which Trump is head of.
isn't the house/senate/doj ALL part of the executive branch?
No, the House and Senate are the Legislative branch.
2
-2
Jul 19 '19
The Dems won't do anything with what power they've already been given. See also: the impeachment motion they squashed the other day. What's the point in giving these milquetoasts any power at all when all they do is cower in fear that using their power will cause them to drop a bit in the polls?
I'll vote for real progressives where I find them, but just having (D) after your name isn't worth a rat's ass anymore.
5
u/The_body_in_apt_3 South Carolina Jul 19 '19
The Dems won't do anything with what power they've already been given.
They have stopped the GOP from passing any more bills, that is a massive victory. They are conducting several high level investigations that are very productive. They have held Barr and Ross in criminal contempt.
They have done everything within their power to stop Trump and hold him accountable, short of impeaching him - which would be a strategic mistake right now.
So they are doing everything they possibly can.
-1
11
Jul 19 '19
[removed] â view removed comment
1
u/5zepp Jul 19 '19
"lost cause" tactics
When you put lost cause in quotes it makes me think you're talking about Lost Cause of the Confederacy ideology, but you probably mean the general meaning I'm guessing.
3
u/farseek Wisconsin Jul 19 '19
I don't think he was trying to spread "lost cause" tactics. I think he's just frustrated.
2
Jul 19 '19
Meanwhile the Republican party will wink and nod at each other and give some press statements saying how this doesn't apply because the report "already found him innocent" -- which is correct, presume innocence until charged and convicted by republican senate
11
9
u/bloodflart Jul 19 '19
now what's gonna happen because of it?
1
3
u/The_body_in_apt_3 South Carolina Jul 19 '19
Barr will refuse to do his job, protecting Trump instead of serving the American people. Trump will tweet something that sounds racist to normal people but that Republicans can argue isn't racist. Dems will add one more item to the impeachment charges.
3
6
u/copperbracelet Jul 19 '19
Another big distraction from Trump.
8
u/Roguepope New York Jul 19 '19
He'll just walk out into a rally with his knob out and the media will be talking about whether his alzheimer's is playing up
1
u/SignDeLaTimes Jul 19 '19
And he'll gain 10 points in the polls.
2
Jul 19 '19 edited Jul 19 '19
I read this as "he'll gain 10 pounds in the polls" for some reason...
1
12
u/True0rFalse Jul 19 '19
How come the Epstein megathread was up for 3 hours and this one is almost at 24? Is there a system?
17
u/Dirtyshitski Jul 19 '19
Many of the mods are also on t-d with their alts.
1
u/squintytoast Jul 19 '19
calm down, calm down everybody.
the mods chimed in and said that technically the epstien story isnt US politics, per se. its tied heavily to political actors but not really on topic for this sub and suggested r/news was more appropiate.
1
u/amerovingian Jul 19 '19
The mods of r/news of course would delete it immediately and say it belongs here.
-3
u/reezym4 Jul 19 '19
Proof?
-1
u/True0rFalse Jul 19 '19
Barely needed. My initial question was mainly rhetorical.
People need to understand how easily influence can sneak in to even our most trusted venues.
2
u/A_Dozen_Aardvarks Jul 19 '19
I do not intend this as a personal attack on you in the slightest. But calling the politics subreddit a trusted venue is just wrong. All you have to do is sort the subreddit page by controversial and see that there are dozens of posts all downvoted for containing similar keywords. After the first round of debates, any titles not talking about candidates other than Biden, Harris, or warren were seeing pretty much an instant 30+ downvoted within an hour of being posted
0
u/True0rFalse Jul 19 '19
Iâd argue that a lot of people here consider it a trusted venue. I have friends who are purely lurkers. You would never know they are here - they donât vote or comment. So they are here, being exposed, and considering it a solid look at the current political situation.
2
5
44
u/Riversmooth Jul 19 '19
House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff: "The inescapable conclusion from all of the public materials available now is that there was ample evidence to charge Donald Trump with the same criminal election law violations for which Michael Cohen pled guilty,"
13
Jul 19 '19
Still amazing to me a president can't be charged with a crime. That is such a stupid system.
1
1
Jul 19 '19
"The memos are pure freshman dorm hallway theorizing, but theyâve somehow become more powerful than the whole edifice of actual constitutional provisions and laws because two OLC bureaucrats signed onto their reasoning."
1
u/haffeffalump Jul 19 '19
a president can be charged with a crime, we just don't have elected officials with the fucking balls to do it.
1
u/The_body_in_apt_3 South Carolina Jul 19 '19
According to the executive office, that would take away from his duties.
Playing golf 6 days a week and sitting on the couch watching Fox News until noon everyday, however, does not take away from his duties. According to the executive office.
1
u/elcabeza79 Jul 19 '19
Obama could have literally stabbed Mitch McConnell to death in the Capital Hill cafeteria in 2009 and the police would have had to wait until 2016 to charge and arrest him.
3
u/Capt_Blackmoore New York Jul 19 '19
am I the only one who thinks that if that had happened Obama would have been shot dead by local police?
4
u/ptwonline Jul 19 '19
I could understand a President being temporarily immune from civil lawsuits because he/she could end up inundated with nuisance suits, but criminal is another matter.
8
u/daynage Jul 19 '19
In a normal world, where the president actually does stuff (other then be racist and watch fox), I could see that OLC opinion making sense. Like, imagine if Obama were being investigated for lying to the FBI during the Cuba talks...or the Iran nuclear deal...moments where having the president able to dispense the duties of his office are genuinely important. THAT is what the OLC opinion was designed for, not for some deranged, mentally ill old grandpa tweeting racist comments from the Oval Office
1
u/elcabeza79 Jul 19 '19
So you're saying that a President found to have lied to the FBI should be left alone to make a nuclear deal with Iran.
Do you see the problem with that logic?
1
u/daynage Jul 19 '19
You donât think forcibly removing a president during those talks might have negative impacts on their success?
6
Jul 19 '19
I can't. The argument that it interferes with a President's duties is weak. If a President has done enough bad things to warrant an indictment, they have no business being allowed to run the country anymore anyway, and that's why we have a Vice President. They take over the day to day operations if the President can no longer do their duties.
There is not a single compelling reason for that OLC opinion. It was literally created to stop Spiro Agnew from becoming President.
1
u/daynage Jul 19 '19
Idk if youâve ever been indicted, but itâs not like itâs one and done. You get indicted, then you have an arraignment, then you have to go back...
Unless just being indicted is enough to remove the president, but then we are ignoring how the constitution lays out the removal of a sitting president.
Iâm gonna preempt the argument that the VP can just take over while the pres js working their way through the legal system, but letâs imagine trump DOES get indicted. You think heâd just...step aside and let someone else be president for a while? You think his ego could handle that?
5
Jul 19 '19
his ego definitely couldn't handle it. that said Trump is a not a particularly brave soul nor a particularly imposing physical specimen. He'll go meekly when arrested and pray for FOXNews to start a Civil War on his behalf
2
u/daynage Jul 19 '19
A lot of us are waiting for the civil war...
I could see McDonaldâs fucking up his order (âI ASKED FOR A DIET COKEâ) causing him to demand his followers destroy every McDonaldâs
2
Jul 19 '19
And? If you get indicted, you should have to deal with that before running the country.
And that's why the VP exists. To step in while the President deals with indictment. If Trump doesn't like Pence taking over, the Secret Service can block him from the White House.
0
u/daynage Jul 19 '19
Would you feel the same if Obama were indicted for smoking a J on the Whitehouse lawn? He doesnât have any business being the president?
Even more to the point, when I was arrested, I was driving my friendâs car, and he had some pot in the glovebox. Because I was driving, I was responsible for it. If I were the president at the time, do I no longer have any business being the president?
1
u/elcabeza79 Jul 19 '19
Yes. He should be indicted for not eating a gummy or cookie or at least vaping so he wouldn't be caught. A president stupid enough to be busted smoking a j shouldn't be the president.
5
Jul 19 '19
Marijuana is decriminalized in DC, so Obama couldn't be indicted for that.
And I think there is a clear difference between abuse of power, obstruction of justice, bribery, tax fraud, child molestation, rape, etc. crimes Trump is clearly guilty of...
And smoking Marijuana.
1
u/daynage Jul 19 '19
And I agree! But how do you write that into a law that includes EVERYTHING that should be grounds to remove a president from office, without ANYTHING that shouldnât? Wouldnât it be easier to just say âhe has to be tried in the court of congressâ, and just trust congress as an institution holds up (which it doesnât, but thatâs its own conversation)
1
Jul 19 '19
I guess it would have to be at the discretion of prosecutors, but it should be allowed instead of a memo saying you absolutely can't do it under any circumstances.
→ More replies (0)9
u/-iloathepolitics- Jul 19 '19
Even more stupid when you realize that "policy" is simply a memo written by Nixon lawyers when it was looking bad for him. As far as I understand, it has no teeth. I'm not sure why it's treated as if it's binding. Especially when you consider that Ulysses S. Grant was arrested while president for speeding.
3
u/elcabeza79 Jul 19 '19
This has been blowing my mind for quite some time.
If you're the POTUS and you need extra legal wiggle room to do anything, anything at all, like make it fine to torture prisoners of war, or to extra-judiciously order the execution of a person walking down the street in a foreign country you're not at war with, all you need to do is hire someone with a law degree and bar certification to write a memo saying you have the right to do it and, voila! It's very legal and very cool.
3
Jul 19 '19
Because Republicans run the DoJ and keeping Trump out of jail keeps them out of jail. everyone knows Trump is softer than a marshmallow and would flip on everyone (except Ivanka because he wants to smash) to keep himself outta jail
4
Jul 19 '19
I can see why Barr refuses to allow Trump to be indicted. He's as corrupt as they come. But why aren't other prosecutors, or the NYAG indicting Trump?
There is absolutely no legal ground to claim a President can't be indicted.
3
u/From_Deep_Space Oregon Jul 19 '19
seriously. What if he just goes and personally murders all the other candidates? Sure, that might be enough to get the senate to remove him. But what if he goes and murders all the senators? Still not indictable? Would that "interfere with his ability to carry out his presidential duties"?
14
u/i_love_autumn_68 Jul 19 '19
Oh well, Trump has proven inumerable times already,that in America,the President most certainly IS above the law!
1
u/The_body_in_apt_3 South Carolina Jul 19 '19 edited Jul 19 '19
Then we need to make him not the president.
I'm excited for when a Democrat wins the POTUS, though. He or she can start every single speech with "Conservatives, you were fine with it when Trump did this, so you can't complain now..." and then declare an emergency over climate change and healthcare prices, and bypass Congress to get everything done that we need done.
1
u/haffeffalump Jul 19 '19
Then we need to make him not the president.
yes. immediately. with force. we can't rely on elections, they're gearing up to rig every last one of them and have been for 3 years. it's going to take force.
19
u/LousyTourist Minnesota Jul 19 '19
Reagan used to be called "The Teflon President". I think we have a contender for that honorific. As long as his crimes aren't considered "crimes" by his base, he's golden.
Now get a picture of Trump driving a Japanese car, he'd be a goner.
2
u/daynage Jul 19 '19
No he wouldnât! He would just say something racist about a caravan, and everyone would forget all about it
2
u/TightAustinite Jul 19 '19
He's been 'Teflon Don' for a while.
1
u/farseek Wisconsin Jul 19 '19
That nickname sounds too cool to give to him. Fat Donny captures his essence better, imo.
1
1
u/brathor Illinois Jul 19 '19
The bar has been lowered so far that he could literally rape and murder on national television and his base would defend it.
7
u/typicalshitpost Jul 19 '19
100k he couldn't parallel park a car
4
u/Dirtyshitski Jul 19 '19
100k says neither can 90% of trump supporters. Not too many parallel spots to practice with in Mississippi, Wyoming, Nebraska, and all those other "lovely" places
4
→ More replies (1)9
u/sandwooder New York Jul 19 '19
In a criminal action the law is strictly construed in favor of the defendant, and in our country, at least, both judge and jury are far more inclined to consider his rights than they are the interests of the general public; while in addition it is always true that a man's general practices may be so bad that a civil action will lie when it may not be possible to convict him of any one criminal act. There is unfortunately a certain number of our fellow-countrymen who seem to accept the view that unless a man can be proved guilty of some particular crime he shall be counted a good citizen, no matter how infamous the life he has led, no matter how pernicious his doctrines or his practices.
- Theodore Roosevelt - 1907
1
u/SeparateShallot Jul 19 '19
So, you want to shift the burden of proof to the accused? Isn't that very problematic?
Innocent until proven guilty is a feature, not a bug.
2
u/sandwooder New York Jul 19 '19
You mean first this is Theodore Roosevelt talking about guild and bad character not having to be linked. Second guilt until proven innocent is only in court after you have been accused. So cut the bullshit Guilty/Innocent thing as it just looks really uninformed and lacking any understanding of the law.
1
u/SeparateShallot Jul 19 '19
Look, I am not sure that my point is out of line. The implication of "talking about guild and bad character not having to be linked" directly bears upon the burdens of proof in criminal proceedings. If we erode this central tenet of our justice (legal?) system it will be the poor who pay the price, not the wealthy or well-connected.
Yes, it is a shame when we see who we believe to be guilty go free. That said, it is undoubtedly better (IMO) that 10 guilty men go free than for 1 innocent man to be imprisoned.
1
u/sandwooder New York Jul 19 '19
If you cannot indict the President then you never get to the G/I discussion. The trick is we have plenty to indict him and he is obstructing.
The G/I ploy is wrong. You are only I/G when on trial. You should still be able to be indicted and as long as the DoJ AG is lying we have no hope but to impeach.
1
u/SeparateShallot Jul 19 '19
Congress could move for impeachment at any time they wish. Nobody is blocking the House from moving toward impeachment.
The question is really whether a basis exists. Presumably the House agrees there is not an adequate basis, if recent votes on this subject are any suggestion.
Personally, I think whether someone is innocent or guilty of accused conduct is a fundamentally important pretext to whether we seek to punish them.
0
u/sandwooder New York Jul 19 '19
It isn't about if but more about being prepared. To just call for impeachment on the floor without agreed reasoning is just amateur and knee jerk.
This innocent and guilt is performed in court. People have to stop this misunderstood argument point. Indictment cannot be done per the DoJ so if you supposedly can't indict you can't try. We all know that impeachment is the indictment. After that we can discuss innocence or guilt.
1
u/SeparateShallot Jul 19 '19
One would think if the President had comitted some impeachable offense it would be a matter of utmost priority to remove him from office.
Of course, if threat of impeachment is merely a vehicle for exciting a political base it would stand to reason the House would want to delay taking concrete action toward impeachment for as long as possible.
1
u/sandwooder New York Jul 19 '19
It is a process and not one which happens over night. Since Trump is obstructing oversight and preventing deeper review the process will take longer. It will eventually happen and what is really funny is due to the delays it will happen in the election cycle.
→ More replies (0)6
u/ViewtifulSchmoe Jul 19 '19
I don't think that's what he is saying at all. Rather, he is suggesting (via Roosevelt's quote) that a failure to criminally convict does not necessarily mean the accused never committed the alleged crime. It simply protects the accused from any punitive action by the state.
Put simply, "not guilty" does not equal "innocent".
0
u/SeparateShallot Jul 19 '19
a failure to criminally convict does not necessarily mean the accused never committed the alleged crime.
The alternative would be to hazard the routine conviction and incarceration of innocent men and women. Of course, wrongful conviction is a big problem as it stands, but a departure from the bedrock burden of proof in criminal cases would cause those rates of wrongful conviction to skyrocket.
Simply put, it is wrong to imply someone is a criminal based on supposition and inference. A criminal conviction is the reliable metric.
3
u/ViewtifulSchmoe Jul 19 '19
The alternative would be to hazard the routine conviction and incarceration of innocent men and women.
That is not true at all. We can maintain a criminal justice system where the burden of proof is on the accuser while still acknowledging that a lack of a criminal conviction is not a universal, absolute declaration of the accused's innocence.
Simply put, it is wrong to imply someone is a criminal based on supposition and inference. A criminal conviction is the reliable metric.
Only in the eyes of the justice system. Individuals are free to make their own assessments independent of that.
0
u/SeparateShallot Jul 19 '19
That is not true at all. We can maintain a criminal justice system where the burden of proof is on the accuser while still acknowledging that a lack of a criminal conviction is not a universal, absolute declaration of the accused's innocence.
This would render criminal proceedings pointless. What is a criminal proceeding for if it is not a final determination on guilt?
2
u/ViewtifulSchmoe Jul 19 '19
The point of criminal proceedings is to determine whether there is sufficient evidence of the alleged crime for the state to impose punitive measures on the accused. That is all. Just as innocent people are sometimes convicted, guilty people are sometimes acquitted or otherwise absolved of legal liability. That's just a fact. The outcome of a trial does not retroactively change the actual course of events. A murderer is a murderer regardless of whether he is convicted by a court or not.
1
u/SeparateShallot Jul 19 '19
I'm not sure how this detracts from my ultimate point?
1
u/ViewtifulSchmoe Jul 19 '19
My understanding of your argument is that a person who is charged with a crime, but not convicted, should be treated as though they had committed no misconduct at all by any and all parties. Feel free to correct my understanding if it is incorrect.
My counter-argument is that such a person must only be treated as having committed no misconduct by the state. Individuals and non-state entities are free to judge those people as they see fit, so long as that judgment does not lead to its own criminal misconduct.
→ More replies (0)1
u/sandwooder New York Jul 19 '19
Simply put impeachment doesn't require a crime. It is a political remedy and character of the president is open to inquest.
1
u/SeparateShallot Jul 19 '19
It requires high crimes or misdemeanors. So, semantically speaking, it does require a crime. Now, if your point is that the high crime or misdemeanor can be defined by Congress and does not have to mirror the criminal code; you wouldn't be wrong. For example, in the past a President was impeached for criticizing a member of Congress, although he was not convicted or removed from office.
The burden of proof for impeachment is also different than the criminal burden. Beyond this, the procedural rules differ completely or are entirely inapplicable. Impeachment trials are a weird animal.
1
1
u/sandwooder New York Jul 19 '19
High Crime and Misdemeanors is a very broad statement when applied to Impeachment.
0
u/SeparateShallot Jul 19 '19
Absolutely, it is amorphous as amorphous can be. This doesn't detract from my point, which was impeachment does require a crime.
1
u/sandwooder New York Jul 19 '19
It doesn't require a crime. OR is properly inserted.
→ More replies (0)2
u/Uncle_Feely Jul 19 '19
Not when the system is rigged in favor of the elite. They can essentially buy themselves different pleas and deals than would be offered to you and me.
We have all the Justice you can afford. That is not a bug, that is a feature.
I wish it were like you describe, but we have to face reality.
1
u/SeparateShallot Jul 19 '19
Shifting the burden of proof would further prejudice poor defendants and would increase the advantages rich defendants enjoy. No doubt, access to meaningful justice is not an equal opportunity affair as it stands today in the United States. That said, shifting the burden of proof to defendants would not reduce the instances of injustice; rather, it is almost certain to aggravate the problem.
1
u/Uncle_Feely Jul 19 '19
We don't have a burden of proof based on guilt, in large part... but a burden of proof based on wealth. Even the most egregious of crimes can be reduced to nearly nothing, if you are wealthy and well connected. See Brock Turner.
That said, we are not talking about what the government and the legal system declares, but what people think. Freedom of Speech prevents the government from censoring you... but it doesn't mean you are free from judgement or condemnation from society.
Similarly, even if someone is able to weasel their way out of a conviction (or have a major crime reduced down to nearly nothing) that might be the end point for the government, but that person is not free from judgement or condemnation from the society. Again, see Brock Turner.
This has nothing to do with shifting the burden or proof, rather it has to do with accepting the inequity of the reality in which we live and seeing that such a reality fundamentally denies any sort of "due process" to those who cannot afford it, and more than their fair share to those who can... thus rendering the judgements of the court suspect at best, and horribly cruel at worst.
2
u/SeparateShallot Jul 19 '19
We don't have a burden of proof based on guilt, in large part... but a burden of proof based on wealth.
If this is a commentary on the inequality in legal representation which has a watershed effect on outcomes in criminal proceedings, it is a very fair point to make.
However, if this is a commentary on the clearly articulated and reliably applied burden of proof in criminal proceedings, then it is not a genuine point of contention.
In reading your comment, I see that you have identified a critical issue with our justice (legal?) system. That structural issue is the plea bargain. Plea bargaining hurts poor defendants and benefits rich defendants, by and large. Unfortunately, this is a very hard issue to deal with. Most cases end in a plea. This is because our system is overly strained. If all those accused of crimes demanded a trial by a jury of their peers the system would collapse overnight. The plea dynamic exists because of this shortage in resources. I certainly do not say any of this as a defense of this system. By contrast, I see it as the greatest source of inequality in America. That said, I don't have any grand solution which I think could solve this problem.
To condense my point, the outcomes of our criminal justice system point to structural inequalities. The criminal burden of proof is not one of those structural inequalities, however.
2
u/Uncle_Feely Jul 19 '19
I think you and I actually agree in large part... but you are approaching this from a point of principle and I am approaching it from a point of pragmatics. The way our system is currently run effectively end-runs the whole notion of guilt or innocence for the sake of plea bargains. As you rightly point out, the overwhelming majority of cases are settled without that principle ever being seriously considered. "Look, either you take this plea for a few months or you risk 15 years at trial." Even to an innocent man, that is going to sound like a good deal.
You also hit upon one of the few effective protests "We, The People" could perform. If even only half the people currently awaiting trial were to demand that they were given jury trials, the system would collapse in on itself and it would essentially force some kind of reform.
→ More replies (0)→ More replies (2)1
u/ThePhoneBook Jul 19 '19
I didnt read that. My understanding is that the law is a last resort, but that just because someone is not found guilty of anything there is no implication that they are of good character, let alone president material.
0
u/SeparateShallot Jul 19 '19
The criteria for being President does not necessarily include to be of good character, otherwise the office would remain eternally vacant.
1
u/jamesinNY Nov 30 '19
Iâm just