WebsterMark wrote on 08/22/18 at 09:21:16:


No, not fake news at all.  To be clear, the whitewater investigation did go on for about 4 years and revealed nothing incriminating (it should be noted that the 'trumped up" controversy surrounding the deal was being spun even before Clinton ran for president).

Looking back a the "scandal" of Whitewater, it's really nothing compared to what trumps been doing...

The perjury was about Monica, nothing more.

An international businessman with a construction empire having dealings with Russia isn't a surprise. It might be a surprise if he didn't. I'm sure that's why he won't release his taxes, to maintain the identity of his business associates.

Is it illegal or treasonous to get dirt on your opponent? If NBC news had gotten dirt on Trump from a Russian, what would that be called?

Both our sides have a little bit of a blind spot going on here. But I would say you loathe  Trump far more than I support trump so you're blind spot is a mile wide.  everything you see is evidence of something that may or may not be there.  Frankly, you're not much different then a 911 conspiracy theorists. You see free fall when there isn't any. You see coordinated explosions where they don't exist.

WebsterMark wrote on 08/22/18 at 10:09:57:


I think you're wrong in that.  trump has had every opportunity to clear his name.  He's been given time to prove himself.  He's done nothing to help his case.  He could release his taxes and show that everything is above board but he refuses.  He could curb his tweets but he refuses.  He could stop commenting on the Mueller investigation but he refuses.  He could mandate that his maga gear be made in the USA but he refuses.

He's childish, impish.  It bears repeating - he is not fit for the office of President of the United States.

WebsterMark wrote on 08/22/18 at 11:46:04:


Again, it goes to the situation.  trump didn't have to say anything, certainly not what he did - but he's so thin-skinned and self-centered that he couldn't resist.  It seems he must feed is ego to the point where he doesn't seem to care what it costs.

WebsterMark wrote on 08/22/18 at 13:16:31:

True.

Mueller does...  
The fact that Cohen has opened up,... reveals that there is definitely something to expose...
Something worth trading...
Something that can be proven in a court of law...


Then why didn't he trade?  Why is he pleading guilty to anything?

Exactly what I was thinking.

"An overzealous prosecutor could, of course, stretch the words of the accordion-like statute to target a political enemy, or read it more narrowly to favor a political friend. If the same morass of laws were being applied to a President Hillary Clinton, civil libertarians would be up in arms about their ambiguity and lack of clarity.

As a civil libertarian who voted and campaigned for, and contributed to, Hillary Clinton, I am critical as well of efforts to stretch these laws so as to target a president against whom I voted. The guilty plea of Michael Cohen, coupled with the conviction of Paul Manafort, do not make President Trump look good politically. He promised the American people to surround himself with the best advisers but he surrounded himself with too many people who broke the law, even if he himself was not legally complicit. But the rule of law demands that we distinguish between political sins and federal felonies. As the record now stands, Donald Trump appears to be guilty of political sins, but not federal felonies or impeachable offenses.

You wouldn’t know that if you just watched those cable-television stations that are determined to find crimes and impeachable offenses against President Trump without regard to the law, the facts or consideration of civil liberties. If one applies a single standard without regard to politics, what I call “the shoe on the other foot test,” there are still large gaps between Michael Cohen’s plea of guilty, on the one hand, and crimes or impeachable offenses against Donald Trump on the other. Until and unless those gaps are filled with credible evidence of criminal behavior by the president, his enemies should be cautious about tolling the death knell for this presidency."

Lie is a word who's definition has been significantly expanded when it comes to Trump. Did Obama lie when he said if you like your plan you can keep it? Did Hilary lie about her emails? So are they liars? I could pick any speech from Obama or Hilary and find 'lies' if I use the NY Times definition of lie as it relates to Trump. Granted, Trump gives the opposition a lot more material to look through, I'll give you that.

But I still think this is not a solid case at all. It's not a crime to pay money to someone to not tell a story or to settle a dispute.  That is not a campaign violation in and of itself.  Maybe if campaign funds were used, but I don't know that part of the law. The fact it was over an affair isn't relevant from the legal point of view.

He pleaded guilty to charges the prosecutor brought against him based on that prosecutor's interpretation of the law. I've read plenty of comments from other prosecutors who say that's not a correct interpretation. Again, I think Cohen pleaded guilty to the theft charges and these 'charges' and got the best deal he was going to get. I just think if he had absolute Trump colluded evidence, he could have asked for a house on Hawaii and they would have given it to him.