My birthday present on December 7, 2018: the United States Department of Justice alleged in writing – almost certainly with corroboration in its back pocket – that Trump directed Cohen to violate campaign finance laws.
Then, two days after Trump becomes an officially acknowledged corroborated co-conspirator to a federal felony, like Richard Nixon, NBC’s Chuck Todd spends his next program with Senator Rand Paul.
A journalistic disgrace.
The contrast with Martha Radditz on ABC could not be more dramatic.
ABC had a legal panel that included Chris Christie, who actually explained to lay viewers what the events of this week meant legally.
To make matters worse on NBC, then the only elected official on the other side was Senator Angus King, who apparently has come from the mountaintop to tell us that we must risk two more years with this charlatan at the helm and let “let the people decide” in 2020, I guess regardless of the charlatan’s disregard for the constitution and the rule of law.
Impeachment is a critical part of our system of checks and balances. In our constitutional system, without checks and balances there is no rule of law.
Angus King treats impeachment like the crazy uncle. When there is a crazy uncle in the White House, impeachment is no longer the crazy uncle.
Unlike the case of the Clinton impeachment, this conspiracy was not meant to hide prior wrongdoing. This was wrongdoing that occurred just weeks before the election, and it was ABOUT the election.
Donald Trump had long since been known to be a womanizer – actually promoting the attention of the New York tabloids on the topic over the years of his divorces and affairs – even to the extent of posing as his own publicist on the phone to gain more media attention on the subject. So this was not about protecting his reputation or his family. This was about defrauding the voters in 2016 just before an election, and doing it by subverting the federal election disclosure laws.
The rule of law must prevail. We do not need politicians to lecture us on its limitations at this time. We have enough of this obfuscation coming from the White House, the Kremlin, and Tiananmen Square.
I too have come off whatever fence I might have been sitting on regarding impeachment. Though I have thought since he fired Comey he warranted impeachment I also understood political practicality. Now with these new revelations and the pending Democratic House this should be added to the list of things the House should pursue even if there is no chance of the Senate taking it up. I’d like this to be bipartisan the way Nixon’s would have been as much as the next guy, but this is not Nixon’s GOP.
It’s time to impeach. In a December 7 Manhattan court filing, federal prosecutors presented evidence that Trump directed a felonious criminal conspiracy to steal the 2016 election.
The country has to be ready for impeachment or resignation or whatever will happen. At a minimum, that means Mueller has to finish his work.
Without moving carefully and thoughtfully, impeachment could damage the country more than leaving Trump in place. An impeachment in the House and a failed trial in the Senate would solve nothing and possibly make things worse.
I actually agree with all of that, Mark Bail. Just as I agree wholeheartedly with the way incoming Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler posed the question. We need to know when it is time pull the trigger. We should do it when it’s clear he has failed on his own. He is almost there, quite on his own.
But we also need to consider how profoundly corrosive it would be to set a precedent that would permit the outright avaricious criminality of this administration to go unaddressed.
The reality is, impeachment is where this is all ultimately headed. To preserve our system of the rule of law and not of men, impeachment is ultimately where we MUST be headed.
People also need to, frankly, separate the issue of impeachment and the issue of conviction. There is no shame in impeaching in the House without conviction in the Senate.
But, both in the long view of history, and also, in my opinion, in the political calculus, NOT to impeach in this extraordinary situation would come back to bite the Democrats in 2020 in terms of a deflated base and deflated turnout.
Must one kill the king if one is to try? Yes. But sometimes, one rues the day one let’s an opportunity pass. Tempus fugit.
In any case he should be, and probably will be, indicted. And the same principle applies there. Whether he is TRIED while in office is a separate question.
“I just don’t get it. If Trump shot someone, he’d be indicted in a New York minute. Nothing in the Constitution prevents his indictment for directing a criminal conspiracy to steal the presidency. Certainly not a DOJ “policy.”
– Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe, today.
As usual, Tribe is dead on.
I don’t get it. Tribe is a smart man and a good constitutional scholar. He should know better. Any protections against indicting the President exist to protect the political process — and not the president– from shenanigans. Wanna know what happened to the last guy capable of mounting a serious challenge to Vladimir Putin’s imperial presidency? Yep. You guessed it… He was indicted and arrested.
I, at the least, am old enough to have seen the genesis of the seething need for vengeance (as yet unslaked) by the Republicans after Nixon was brought down. One of the first truly spurious Senate investigations (but certainly not the last) was the investigation into then President Carters brother Billy Carter and his relationship to Libya. Actual accusations of influence peddling with the President were bandied about in a naked partisan effort to punish the Dems in the way, it was perceived, the Dems had punished Nixon. You think they who waste time and money on spurious investigations would have scrupled to stopped short of spurious indictments? Nixon, who truly did do something egregiously criminal — while in office — wasn’t indicted. The process worked. But if he had been indicted, you can bet that Jimmy Carter would have been also — effectively obstructing the administration — and Bill Clinton, too. They would have indicted Obama simply for being black.
You want to open that can of worms?
Me too. I always felt like the GOP was driven by Nixon’s resignation. That wasn’t the only reason that drove the attacks on Clinton, but it was a big one.
Impeach him six ways from Sunday and all you will get are headlines. The Republican Senate will not, ever, convict and remove him from office.
Mount a massive, huge, worldwide, public relations campaign against all Trump properties. Bankrupt his name, his image, so that no one will ever buy what he or his family is selling.
Hit him in the wallet…..and he will resign.
I love your second paragraph, johntmay!
Mr. Trump’s family is deeply enmeshed in the several criminal conspiracies that are already being unraveled by federal and state authorities. There is compelling evidence that Mr. Trump himself has deep and long ties to organized crime, especially Russian organized crime. Nobody even claims immunity for Donald Trump, Jr, Eric Trump, Jared Kushner, or Ivanka Trump. The evidence already points towards all four.
I suggest that those four be aggressively prosecuted, convicted, and jailed. Use Mr. Manafort as a guide, and confiscate ALL their assets. Aggressively pursue, prosecute, and convict any friend, associate, and adviser connected to any of them.
Building on johntmay’s comment about the Trump “brand”, prosecute everyone involved under the existing RICO statutes against organized crime, and make sure that the entire world knows that everything “Trump” is part of an illegal and fraudulent criminal enterprise.
As Mr. Trump becomes more and more isolated, he will become more and more hysterical. As the full extent of his depravity is revealed, he will behave more and more erratically.
Mr. Trump and his criminal co-conspirators MUST be removed from office.
I’m still on the fence with this no win dilemma: Vote to uphold the Rule of Law, because not to so so proves that you can be above the law VS a sure fire sh*t show that will further divide the body politic into tribalism.
Hopefully Mueller gives us more and impeachment is a slam dunk, drawing SOME GOP votes in the House and Senate. Even in this case it will still probably fail in the Senate, but the American public can see for themselves how bad it really is. (And let’s get the GOP Senators on record voting for acquittal when many of them are up for reelection.)
But if the ceiling is campaign finance violations related to sex…it sounds way to close to the reasoning behind the Clinton impeachment (but it is more serious, but nonetheless, the distinctions will get lost in the noise) and will end up hurting the Dems politically. If so, like the GOP should have done in 1998…the House should vote to censor Trump and MoveOn. But I expect more from Mueller.
I have heard about “dividing the politic” twice before in my memory. The first was after Mr. Nixon resigned, and Mr. Ford used the excuse of “healing” our “wounds” as a rationalization for his unforgivable pardon. The second was when the late George H. Bush used the same excuse to successfully complete the cover-up of the Iran-Contra scandal, and again give unforgivable pardons (in the latter case, blanket pardons to everyone involved).
We already have a sure-fire sh*t-show, we crossed that threshold years ago. So not only am I not concerned about it, I think the alleged concern about further dividing the body politic is nothing but an excuse for denying the reality of what these criminals did.
There is no relationship between illegal hush-money payments and statements made about a private consensual sexual relationship. None. If any distinctions are lost, it is because too many people repeat this canard.
There is compelling evidence that Donald Trump and his co-conspirators committed multiple felonies. Two of those offenses involve illegal campaign contributions.
Even ONE such felony exceeds the threshold set by the Constitution.
If the outcome of all this is that GOP Senators refuse to convict Mr. Trump in spite of compelling proof of guilt, then we might as well finish disbanding the rest of the government — if that’s the case, then American democracy is DEAD.
I’m really not sure how all this unwinds if Mr. Trump remains in office. It is a human tragedy that we have already sunk low enough to have exchanges like this.
By your standard you then supported the Bill Clinton impeachment correct? He did lie about sex under oath.
Nope, not biting.
Maybe because as it stands right now, both Trump and Clinton are accused of the same thing (until Mueller gives us more, hopefully): breaking the law to hide sexual affairs. I’m not trying to be argumentative, just intellectually honest. With the facts we have now, you support impeachment for one and not the other.
The two accusations are most certainly not the same. It is not against the law to attempt to hide a sexual affair.
Since we’re being intellectually honest here, we are talking about the difference between “I did not have sex with that woman” and “I used hundreds of thousands of campaign dollars to attempt to buy that woman’s silence”.
Indeed, with the facts we have now, I support impeachment for the latter and not the former.
” we are talking about the difference between “I did not have sex with that woman” and “I used hundreds of thousands of campaign dollars to attempt to buy that woman’s silence”.
“Lying under oath” was the reason given for Clinton’s impeachment. Along with a lot of rhetoric about “the rule of law”, which undoubtedly made a lot of Republicans feel as righteous as Tom is feeling on this thread.
Nonetheless, impeaching Clinton was a terrible, destructive thing to do. Impeaching Trump over his payment to Stormy Daniels is not much better an idea.
Speaking of the rule of law, can anybody explain how infiltrating the NRA is a crime?
Espionage is a crime. Butina is an unregistered foreign agent (as opposed to a registered foreign agent ,a legal spy if you will). Being an unregistered foreign agent is a crime.
The most likely scenario is that she was key in funneling money from Russia to the NRA to spend on electing Trump.
I’ll accept that definition, Mark, if you will stick with it.
I’ll stick with unless I turn out to be wrong.
I categorically reject the Clinton-is-as-bad-as-Trump meme. It was nonsense during the campaign and it’s nonsense now.
The eagerness to embrace this false conflation exemplifies the dysfunction of so many of today’s alleged Democrats.
Me too. It’s an ahistorical comparison.
“Categorically”? What a surprise! Nobody has suggested that Clinton is as bad as Trump–you’re using a straw man argument.
I’m intrigued by Mark’s comment. Is it a dig at Tom or a Freudian slip?
Comparing two figures 25 years apart, especially these 25 years, is ahistorical. Clinton’s impeachment was considered unfair by many who would now take umbrage that he had an affair with a subordinate. Then, it was considered a private matter between two consenting adults, now it would be a #MeToo moment.
I for one would vigorously object to the Lewinsky situation being a #MeToo moment. She was an instigator and not a victim, at least not of Clinton.
Sure history isn’t repeating itself, but there are rhymes. First I’ll stipulate (hope) there is a lot more here than breaking the law to cover up sex. But at this point, covering up sex is what it looks like 40,000 feet up in public opinion.
On top of this, we need a devastating Mueller report to get better traction and convince 18 GOP senators to honor and follow the Constitution. (Indictments of Trump Organization; Foundation and the kids would embarrass SOME GOP senators to do the right thing.)
It looks like there won’t be a “smoking gun” pee tape like event, so there needs to be an overwhelming amount of circumstantial evidence to embarrass these GOP senators in doing the right thing. I think there is plenty of that coming…but right now all we got is breaking the law to cover up sex. And that rhymes with 1998. Another thing that rhymes is a Senate that is no wherein reaching 67 votes to convict. Just like Clinton, Trump could very be stronger politically after a failed conviction. (But Clinton didn’t have an reelection campaign hanging over his head.)
And so, I saying I think the Mueller report, along with this behavior, will make impeaching (even at the risk of no conviction) Trump imperative for the sake of the Republic and the Rule if Law. I have a line, that if crossed, would have me support the losing cause of Impeachment in the name of the Rule of Law. I’m just not there yet, given that all we got rhymes with 1998.
Paying off Stormy Daniels is the least of my concerns about Trump, though I’m not sure why it’s worth so much to him to cover it up. Other Presidents have had affairs/flings, including good Presidents and Presidents we like.
If you care about the rule of law, then you should care about an illegal campaign contribution. I’m confident that the rest of the story will be revealed by the Mueller investigation if it is allowed to finish and publish its findings.
Al Capone was jailed on tax evasion charges. Mr. Trump’s felonious payments are just as serious.
Yeah, that connection has always struck me as tenuous at best. Trump thrives on publicity in all his endeavors and could have easily made that payment even if he had not been running for President. Campaign finance irregularities have never been what’s gotten my blood boiling anyway. In the scheme of things the Russia stuff is much worse.
A campaign finance “irregularity” is forgetting to dot an i or cross a t in a form.
So it’s ok with you if a candidate uses campaign contributions to buy a house for her children, or new jewelry for a lover, or cover the mortgage of a new vacation home in the Mediterranean? Perhaps cover a few hundred thousand dollars worth of gambling losses?
We’re talking about serious money, serious enough that all the players have lied about it from the moment it came up.
I agree that the Russia stuff is worse. Nevertheless, this is already more than enough to be impeachable.
As I read the reporting, Cohen used his own funds to pay Daniels, and was later reimbursed by Trump, after a characteristically long delay. That payment “helped the campaign” and was a campaign contribution. While still a campaign finance violation, I don’t think it is fair to characterize it as “using campaign funds” with the implication that voter/PAC political contributions were used rather than personal funds. Nevertheless, I gather that the campaign finance violation is a felony.
But so is perjury, which is what Clinton admitted, personally.
I don’t see that they have an impeachment case yet,or that it (at least so far) is worth the candle, given the 0.00% chance of anything happening in the Senate.
I kind of hope that the House does their best to give Mueller cover, let him do his job, and do their own actual investigation, using hearings and the subpoena power.
Trump will have to be defeated at the polls in 2020, and not by impeachment.
Mr. Cohen used his own funds. AMI used company funds (apparently in the expectation that they would be reimbursed by Mr. Trump or his campaign).
I agree that I misspoke when I wrote that Mr. Trump used hundreds of thousands of campaign dollars. I should have written, instead, “I arranged for hundreds of thousands of illegal campaign contributions to be made”.
Each of the two payments is a felony. The legal experts I read report that one important significance of the AMI plea deal is that AMI admits that they KNEW it was an illegal campaign contribution and they did it anyway. The reports also suggest that many more such disclosures are coming.
I think that Mr. Clinton’s perjury is completely different from what we’re talking about here. Different act, different scope, different impact, different motivation — everything is different.
These willful, intentional, and egregious crimes by Mr. Trump should be more than enough to cause him to be removed from office. I agree that they are not, because I agree that the entire GOP is just as corrupt as Mr. Trump, just as self-serving, and just as dishonest.
I think we are facing a historic test of our national commitment to the fundamental principles we claim to hold dear.
We are, so far, failing that test.
There we agree.
Ultimately, he must be defeated at the polls, and that is going to take a number of consecutive elections in which the more liberal voters actually turn out.
It will take successive elections because of the pernicious effects of partisan gerrymandering etc. Much of the present frustration of liberal voters nationwide was made possible by the blowout in 2010 at the state level.
Maybe 2018 is a harbinger of better times, if it can be sustained.
Regardless of how one feels about Clinton’s actions, the Republicans of 1998/1999 put in motion an impeachment and trial on a standard that they have wholly abandoned. And it’s not like all the players are different… Some of the same people who tried Clinton in the Senate, McConnell, Grassley, Inhofe, Hatch, Collins are still there. If they want to go ahead and say Clinton’s actions were wrong, fine. I may not agree, and that’s my right… but all must agree that it’s the simple truth that they simply do not apply the same standard to Trump’s actions.
You may well say they are able to get away with doing it then and reversing themselves in refusing do it now because impeachment is a ‘political process…’ but that puts politics in a self-contained box, apart from anything real and says nothing about the utter wrongness of it: which perfidy, one supposes, ought to come with a political cost to it as well… if politics has anything to do with the real world.
Up is not down. Black is not white. In a world where doublespeak/doublethink is the preferred strategy of power grabbing and where ‘politics’ is just some amoral game with rules wholly apart from reality, telling the truth and thinking for oneself might be the only truly political act left to us…
Why, it must be asked, is it so damned hard for some to do it?
I wonder if you’re similarly tolerant of Republican Congressman Duncan Hunter, who was indicted last August for illegally using campaign funds for personal expenses:
Mr. Hunter was re-elected last November.
Shall we also ignore his crimes?
OK, I thought Trump or Cohen used personal rather than campaign money to pay off Stormy Daniels. Still thinking about whether what you describe is worth either impeachment or jail. There’s a lot of room between being OK with something and advocating throwing the proverbial book.
They conducted a criminal conspiracy to make illegal campaign contributions to benefit the Trump campaign. The money came from the publisher of the National Enquirer. That publisher today admitted its role and agreed to cooperate with prosecutors.
These are felonies, and as such meet the standard of impeachment in my book. We already know that Mr. Cohen is going to jail because of his role in this conspiracy. We also know that he would have faced significantly more jail time if he had not cooperated with prosecutors.
Mr. Trump was just as guilty as Mr. Cohen. The evidence is clear that Mr. Trump was not only aware of these illegal payments, he was leading the conspiracy.
Are you suggesting that jail is not appropriate for Mr. Cohen? Are you arguing that Mr. Cohen should face jail and Mr. Trump should not?
This is an egregious felony violation of campaign finance laws. It is hardly “throwing the book” to enforce those laws.
I’ve honestly always been a bit hesitant to advocate jail for political crimes. Bank-breaking fines and prohibition from future political involvement seem more appropriate. Now I’m confused though. You are saying now this was an illegal contribution, but I thought we were talking about an illegal campaign expenditure.
Have you been reading the news for the last two years?
The payments were illegal contributions to the campaign. The funds came from, for example, AMI (the publisher of National Enquirer). They were paid to the various women. They are illegal campaign contributions because their effect was to silence the women and therefore benefit the campaign.
This has been talked about for years!
I have, but like I said above that connection has always struck me as a bit tenuous since it easily could have happened absent a presidential campaign.
The affair with Ms. Daniels happened in 2006. The hush money didn’t happen until ten years later.
I don’t feel the need to repeat the government’s case — they’ve made it, and it’s compelling.
Impeachment is by definition political, conducted not by an independent, unbiased legal system, but by an elected, partisan Congress that will make its decision based at least in part on politics. The founders established impeachment as a political action.
The principle of checks and balances is not a matter of the rule of law, which is constituted of statutory and case law. Enforcing the rule of law–the job of the executive branch–would mean indicting President Trump for his crimes. Because that’s not possible until Mueller’s report, we should wait until that drops.
Can you count to 20?
Bottom line, you need 20 Republican Senators to remove Trump. Unless there is evidence of a path to 20, we need to keep up the pressure, build a critical mass of evidence, and create a political environment where Senate Republicans are compelled to move off their current stubborn support for Trump,.
I agree with this.
I am appalled that we don’t already have those 20 Republican Senate votes. I’m confident that in 1974 we would have them based on what we already know.
I think that “stubborn” is among the kindest ways to characterize the steadfast refusal of Senate Republicans to perform their Constitutional duty.
It’s probably time to start an impeachment scorecard for Republican senators. NBC is starting to see some small cracks emerging in their solid defense of Trump.
I like this, perhaps an open thread here at BMG. There are already many counts beyond the campaign finance violations. For example (not exhaustive):
1. Emoluments: We know, for example, that Saudi-backed lobbyists booked 5oo rooms at a Trump-owned hotel immediately after the 2016 election:
2. Using the NRA to launder Russian money (emphasis mine):
This is one of the motivations for my mostly tongue-in-cheek Annulment diary — it appears that the Russians funneled large (> $100M) amounts of money into helping the GOP in the 2016 election.
3. Using the powers of his office to bribe and reward corrupt cabinet officials (emphasis mine):
There are several more, I just don’t have time to detail them at the moment.
I very much agree with the praise for Martha Raddatz. She’s the best in the business, in the same league with Tim Russert (who is a tremendous loss to journalism). I wish they would take Mr. Snuffleupagus and let him find his happiness on Good Morning America, Sesame Street, or wherever his skills align with ratings success for ABC, leaving the Sunday Morning show to Martha’s excellence.
Butina’s Crimes
United States vs. Mariia Butina
18 U.S. Code § 951 – Agents of foreign governments
923. 18 U.S.C. § 371—CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES
IMPEACH TRUMP NOW! Defense Secretary Mattis resignation letter : “My views on treating allies with respect and also being clear-eyed about both malign actors and strategic competitors are strongly held and informed by over four decades of immersion in those issues.”
IMPEACH TRUMP NOW! “We must do everything possible to advance an international order that is most conducive to our security, prosperity and values, and we are strengthened in this effort by the solidarity of our alliances.”
IMPEACH TRUMP NOW ! “One core belief I have always held is that our strength as a nation is inextricably linked to the strength of our unique and comprehensive system of alliances and partnerships.”
IMPEACH TRUMP NOW! “While the U.S. remains the indispensable nation in the free world, we cannot protect our interests or serve that role effectively without maintaining strong alliances and showing respect to those allies.”
IMPEACH TRUMP NOW! “General Mattis was a comfort to many who were concerned about the path the Trump Administration would choose to take. His resignation letter is defined by statements of principle — principles that drove him to leave the Administration. All of us should be concerned at this time.” Speaker nominee Pelosi
IMPEACH TRUMP NOW! “My President changed military policy to something Putin wanted without even consulting the military while simultaneously threatening shutdown over a racist ineffective wall the majority of American taxpayers oppose and all I got was this lousy 500 – point stock drop.” John Fugelsang
IMPEACH TRUMP NOW! “Actions have consequences, and whether we’re in Syria or not, the people who want to harm us are there and at war. Isolationism is weakness. Empowering ISIS is dangerous. Playing into Russia and Iran’s hands is foolish. This President is putting our national security at grave risk.” Hillary Clinton
I am unimpressed by Sec. Mattis.
What action finally crossed the line and caused him to resign?
Advocating the end of NATO, a key piece of American security policy since WW2? No.
Advocating the end of the European Union, another key piece of American security policy since WW2? No.
Using military maneuvers as transparent political props for domestic political purposes right before an election? No.
Questioning the honor and loyalty of former members of the military who decline to kiss Trump’s ring? No.
Reducing, not even ending!!,– the stupid and pointless military occupation of Syria and Afghanistan? Well, that does it, that’s too much!