President Donald Trump

[baldgriff]

breaking reports that Congress is finalizing a deal on a bill that would force lawmakers who settle sexual harassment claims have to foot the bill themselves. so we taxpayers are off the hook.

fascinating that they paid out tens of millions over the years - and now pick this moment in time to get religion on the issue

Do we know which individuals have settled claims on the tax payers dime? Is it even possible to find out who has done this? I asked earlier, but I didnt see a response to the question.

Thanks

Edit to add: Is it possible that this information will come out in some sort of Trump defense??

[Judge Jude]

"The biggest difference I see is that Elizabeth Edwards worshipped John and Melania Trump loathes Donald and was well aware of his nature, so the idea that he paid off these "starlets" to avoid getting in trouble with his wife is pretty laughable."

for one, I suspect their pre-nup is about him getting creamed in a divorce if the court of public opinion becomes aware of his dalliances - not if he has the dalliances.

plenty of women can live with philandering hubbies - but only if people aren't aware of it. Trump seemed likely to be having these affairs, but until this scenario we didn't have such clear proof.

I also don't know of any tangible proof that she "loathes" him - I thought you were the attorney who focused on what's relevant regarding the law.

Edwards had far more to lose politically by an affair becoming public, so if he could sell the 'spouse' card as the focus, it wouldn't surprise me for Trump's attorneys to use it - for reasonable doubt, if nothing else.

the bottom line is that John and Jane Q Public, hearing about Trump paying off his conquests, thinks that is sleazy but not a crime.

[baldgriff]

the bottom line is that John and Jane Q Public, hearing about Trump paying off his conquests, thinks that is sleazy but not a crime.

Specifically because they are sleazy and not criminal. Unless of course these women were actual prostitutes - then sure he solicited sex which is a criminal act. In NY, I believe prostitution is a class B misdemeanor (from a quick google search). I cant imagine solicitation is much more than that.

[OaklandA's]

so if he could sell the 'spouse' card as the focus, it wouldn't surprise me for Trump's attorneys to use it - for reasonable doubt, if nothing else.

Again, it is almost impossible to sell the 'spouse card' to jurors if all of the people in the room (except for Trump) testify under oath that the payments were specifically to protect the campaign, and there are supporting tapes and messages to support that explanation.

[Judge Jude]

I would think you would need to have Trump saying something about the campaign - and even then, a lawyer could say that everyone knew it was more about Melania, but it was too awkward to admit so they pretended it was the campaign.

and that infamous audio tape as well as, well, pretty much entire life, means that the idea that his sterling family man reputation would be destroyed seems silly. it's also quite possible that he paid off dozens of women over the years, which would undermine the entire case. he wasn't in a campaign then, so why did he pay THEM off?

again, if Obama had this sort of dirty laundry come out during a campaign, it would have destroyed him. he didn't bring military or business experience to the table - he brought a "good guy" to it.

[OaklandA's]

and that infamous audio tape as well as, well, pretty much entire life, means that the idea that his sterling family man reputation would be destroyed seems silly. it's also quite possible that he paid off dozens of women over the years, which would undermine the entire case. he wasn't in a campaign then, so why did he pay THEM off?

The timing of the payoffs is the key point here. The payoffs to Daniels and McDougal were just a couple of weeks before the general election. We saw with the Access Hollywood tape that it created a temporary drop in Trump's approval ratings before they eventually bounced back. Many people, including Republicans, though Trump was finished when that tape came out. The same thing could have happened here, and that's what Trump's campaign was trying to prevent. In fact, that's exactly what Giuliani, Cohen, and Pecker are on record as saying.

[Judge Jude]

if someone has paid off women for many years, and then he does it again in a campaign year, I don't know how you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this time it's only about the election. and how much credibility do the accusers have? (then again, how much credibility does Trump have?)

look, I don't know how or why he got elected - beyond Hillary hiring the dumbest political advisers in the history of the republic - but he won. I think that impeachment or even prosecution on just this is problematic.

smells like a hung jury to me, and for that we get a more polarized populace than ever? is it worth it? The Clinton impeachment wasn't, and that was lying under oath in a civil lawsuit to gain advantage.

two congenital liars - one is slick, the other is crude. if they tell you it's a sunny day, bring an umbrella. (Trump is 1000x the liar, but even a lot of his supporters know it. Bill to this day has more acolytes who don't realize how they got bullshitted. even in the wake of #metoo, I think he bullshits his way into a prime speaking spot at the 2020 Democratic convention. if that isn't slick, I don't know what is.)

I was angry at Gerald Ford when he pardoned Nixon, because I wanted Nixon to get his. but not too many years later, I realize that Ford did the right thing for the country - even if it cost him the 1976 election.

if we don't get more on Trump than this (and we well might), then let's just grimace and move on, to coin a phrase.

[gcstomp]

if we don't get more on Trump than this (and we well might), then let's just grimace and move on, to coin a phrase.

obstruction has been established just from info available to public. trump is allowed to fire whoever he wants, unless action is with corrupt intent. as we have seen trump in holt interview explain he fired comey because of russia, its not just speculation. publicly holding out possible pardon to manafort, calling investigation a witch hunt some 150 times, the attacks on judicial system, the in the open proof comes out daily regarding obstruction.

also, there hasnt been a day of real pressure yeton trump. house majority starts in january, trump is in violation of emoluments clause. just from the on the record of saudi govt who rented 500 rooms of trumps $700 a night suites and stated openly it was to be in trumps good graces, this bit is not even tip of iceberg, but again, just from what is public, this is not speculation.

the mueller investigation isnt about illegal hush payments and cover up to playboy or pornstar women. the big deal is what was every member of trump transition team involved with russia and in lying over and over about those contacts. to think this is far away from trump, but everyone around him is risking not just career suicide but criminal prosecution just to lie on their own to cover tracks for trump who knew nothing is not in realm of reasonable. this is not just a clinton lying about a woman and the fallout.

but what are the possible outcomes? i dont think anyone wants to impeach, pence is a nutjob, and you couldnt get R majority senate to vote to impeach even if you literally had trump shooting people on 5th avenue caught on tape and replaying it on a loop on a jumbotron in times square. and if you cant criminally charge a sitting president, is this all pointless?

[OaklandA's]

if we don't get more on Trump than this (and we well might), then let's just grimace and move on, to coin a phrase.

I'm not saying that Trump should be indicted or impeached over this. What I'm saying is that we have strong, corroborated evidence that Trump is guilty of committing a felony, including tapes and sworn testimony from two of Trump's closest allies (David Pecker, Michael Cohen). Hard to believe that people are so willing to just shrug that off.

[Judge Jude]

"trump is in violation of emoluments clause. just from the on the record of saudi govt who rented 500 rooms of trumps $700 a night suites and stated openly it was to be in trumps good graces, this bit is not even tip of iceberg, but again, just from what is public, this is not speculation."

"obstruction has been established just from info available to public."

if you can find a credible, independent source for inevitable indictments from that claim, I am all ears.

this guy is corrupt beyond all levels, but outkicking the coverage is never a good idea.

meanwhile, props to MSNBC coverage tonight for noting that the judge's sentencing puts most of the sentence on Cohen's own personal tax evasion.

I still can't believe I was dealing regularly with these 2 guys a decade ago.

usually I can tell you that the public persona doesn't match the major power players if you get to know them.

but with these two? it is what it is

[Judge Jude]

I'm not saying that Trump should be indicted or impeached over this. What I'm saying is that we have strong, corroborated evidence that Trump is guilty of committing a felony, including tapes and sworn testimony from two of Trump's closest allies (David Pecker, Michael Cohen). Hard to believe that people are so willing to just shrug that off.

I don't shrug anything off.

but I didn't back Hillary prosecution, either, over deleting countless emails and basically claiming "they all were with my daughter talking about yoga classes." if you believe that, I have a nice new bridge in Brooklyn to sell you at a bargain price.

if you're committed enough on one edge, you may have a case. but it was also not worth it.

Trump paying off conquests is part and parcel of what he is.

that's the key point here. with no help from us, the American people elected this guy, and trying to throw him out of office for the same stuff he was known for before election is not a winning play.

that's where Clinton resonates. his supporters knew he was what he was, so learning more if it after election means that he got re-elected with a known - and now, very belatedly, understood to be a likely far more insidious pattern - doesn't mean he can be removed from office.

I am reminded of the great NH Senator Warren Rudman interviewing Oliver North in the Iran-contra hearings. Both supported the same side fervently. but Rudman told North, "The American people have a right to be wrong."

indeed

[OaklandA's]

but I didn't back Hillary prosecution, either, over deleting countless emails and basically claiming "they all were with my daughter talking about yoga classes."

I hate to rehash Hillary's emails again, but there was no evidence found of intent. All of the investigations showed that she was careless, and valued convenience over security, but had nothing to hide. Trump knowingly and intentionally violated the law.

[Judge Jude]

"no evidence found of intent."

that strikes me as weak. are you comfortable, personally, with the with the idea that none of those deleted Hillary emails might have been problematic?

why go for half a loaf here?

[gcstomp]

if you can find a credible, independent source for inevitable indictments from that claim, I am all ears.

I said he was guilty, as in he has been obstructing, not that he will be indicted for anything, just based on what is in public info. how can you deny holt interview, trump states plainly why he fired comey. i also said trump would not be impeached even if his public shooting of people was replayed on a jumbotron in times square, and i dont think trump will be indicted of diddly. but i can guarantee rough water ahead starting with the D majority house in january. the white whale would be subpoened tax returns.

[nots]

I hate to rehash Hillary's emails again, but there was no evidence found of intent. All of the investigations showed that she was careless, and valued convenience over security, but had nothing to hide. Trump knowingly and intentionally violated the law.

The use of bleach bit doesn’t really scream ‘nothing to hide’ to me, but YMMV.