Michael Cohen, in a court room, under oath, stated that the President directed him to commit a federal crime.

You really can’t spin this one.

Haha. They “invent a technicality” like federal campaign finance law?

I’m really not sure if you think this makes you look smart, P2, but it makes you look absolutely ridiculous. I hope it feels like everyone is laughing at your mental gymnastics to defend Daddy here... because we are 🤣

1. Mueller is still investigating that. Stay tuned.
2. Paula Jones wasn’t paid off. She sued and settled. That’s not a campaign expenditure.
3. He can pardon himself for federal crimes only. There could be state crimes here as well. And he can be impeached regardless.

But it’s not a crime because the president has the authority to do what he needs to! Besides, Cohen’s truth isn’t really truth no?

@PWC this would be a crime that he committed while a candidate.

Also, Cohen stated this in court under oath. If he’s lying he’s in big trouble

*wooooossshhhhhh*

Lol. Trump supporters are legitimately saying stuff like that so it’s hard to know who is being ironic.

P2 - 2. What about ism

None of the articles I've seen on this include Cohen saying he used campaign funds. If you have a link to that I'd like to see it. If personal funds were used to silence a potential lawsuit or buy the rights to a story from a media outlet, then no crime was committed. High profile people do those types of payments all the time to avoid publicity and trials. So do large corporations.

Watch out for that Twitter handle

Trumpers are reduced to "breaking campaign finance law isn't as bad as treason so suck it MAGA!"

Pathetic.

If CG is referring to Steele, which I think (s)he is, the opposite is true. The Steele dossier research was started by GOP oppo research and was picked up by the DNC later, and at least some parts have been confirmed as true by intelligence services. Don’t have the article handy but I read that in the last few months

I missed some part of the story. What crime did Trump direct him to commit?

Payoff of women for silence for the purpose of influencing an election

And I don’t think 3. Is really resolved. That’s their claim but it’s never been done and I think a lot of people would disagree that he can. I mean, think of the practical considerations. It would mean essentially limitless power or at least no accountability. Pretty sure that’s not what the founders intended.

@K1: You know how it took countless millions of years of evolution for humans to evolve out of amoebas, from invertebrates into vertebrates with strong, functional spines? The GOP have lost their backbones so quickly it might just be another few million years until they grow back. Same goes for their guts.

Of course, a non-trivial percentage of them don’t actually believe in evolution, so it may be a moot point.

D2, I didnt see that in the 3 articles I read earlier today. I will do some more reading.

And meeting with foreign powers is not actually illegal. Both campaign organizations did it. The Clinton campaign has been confirmed to have worked with foreign agents to produce a false dossier on Trump. The actual content of the meeting has the potential to make it illegal. Simply talking to Russians offering information about the opposition candidate is not automatically illegal. If there was no offer of a quid pro quo for services by the Russians to rig the election, then again no crime. I agree with people thinking the country could have done better than Trump as President. But I'm also willing to wait for real evidence to be presented before hanging him. So far his policies have been pretty profitable for my investments.

@Cap1: It is absolutely illegal for foreign powers to contribute anything of value to a campaign. There does not need to be a quid pro quo. If Clinton’s campaign did it, that’s a whole other issue but doesn’t make Trump any more innocent.

I’m curious how much smoke you need to believe there may be a fire. Do you need to see the match, or is the billowing smoke enough?

Also a quote from today’s story: the payments were “for the principal purpose of influencing the election.” Pretty sure it doesn’t matter which bank account it comes out of.