President Donald Trump

[B-Fly]

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 wholly agree. I think he's guilty of the campaign finance felonies, but at the same time I don't think he should be impeached or indicted on these issues alone, if this is the sum and substance of his "provable" crimes.

[B-Fly]

And I hate to say it, but I worry a great deal about the possibility of mass violence and refusal of a smooth transition of power should Trump be impeached or indicted while in office. I'd much rather see him convincingly rejected by the voters, either in a Republican primary or in the 2020 general election. (I also suspect that if his internal polling falls far enough, Trump would seriously consider not running for re-election and creating his own self-aggrandizing narrative for stepping away, rather than risking an unequivocal rejection by the voters - even though he'd surely hint about mass voter fraud against him.)

[swampdragon]

And I hate to say it, but I worry a great deal about the possibility of mass violence and refusal of a smooth transition of power should Trump be impeached or indicted while in office. I'd much rather see him convincingly rejected by the voters, either in a Republican primary or in the 2020 general election. (I also suspect that if his internal polling falls far enough, Trump would seriously consider not running for re-election and creating his own self-aggrandizing narrative for stepping away, rather than risking an unequivocal rejection by the voters - even though he'd surely hint about mass voter fraud against him.)

I have serious concerns too about the peaceful transition of power too.

He will never resign regardless of the situation or health of the country - so that idea is out.

[B-Fly]

I have serious concerns too about the peaceful transition of power too.

He will never resign regardless of the situation or health of the country - so that idea is out.

I think there's a difference, at least in Trump's mind, between resigning, on the one hand, and hanging a virtual "Mission Accomplished" banner and taking a victory lap rather than running for a second term, on the other hand (if he thinks he'd likely lose).

[Judge Jude]

I expect him to take a 'victory lap' and not run again.

[revo]

Trump's claim of "10 Terrorists" caught at the border -- another lie. This guy is unreal:

WASHINGTON — In one of the more eye-popping comments in his unusual and heated Oval Office exchange with Democratic congressional leaders on Tuesday, President Trump seemingly suggested that “10 terrorists” were recently apprehended trying to enter the country. However, when pressed about the president’s comments, officials could not provide evidence of any such apprehension.

https://news.yahoo.com/trumps-ten-terrorists-busted-border-004709585.html

[Bernie Brewer]

Random Thought: We’ve never had a President with the purported wealth of this one. It isn’t uncommon, I suspect, for the super wealthy to ask “employees” to sign NDA’s. If it was offered with a financial consideration payable to the signatory, and was willing accepted by the signatory, isn’t it a valid contract? The performance is in the signatory’s non disclosure of embarrassing, compromising, and/or otherwise private information.

So how can Stormy or McDougal now decide to break their non-disclosures?

Also, IMHO, none of those close to Trump who’ve plead guilty thus far have plead ro anything related to campaign cooperation with Russia. Manafort was found guilty of non reporting of foreign agency, bank fraud, and tax evasion. Cohen was similarly. Other of lying to federal agents. The campaign finance issue doesn’t seem like much, in the sense that Obama, Edwards and many others have been accused of the same without much in the way of consequence. Obama’s campaign settled for a fine. Isn’t one of his defenses likely to be that these people signed NDAs and any funds paid out to either of the two (maybe more) women could have been paid by his own personal wealth and not out of campaign funds. Were the payments paid in an attempt to not influence the election? If these two were threatening to “tell all” isn’t that extortion?

When’s the next election again?

[Igor]

So how can Stormy or McDougal now decide to break their non-disclosures?

I don't McDougal has, and for Stormy, 'Mr. Dennison' never signed the NDA and so it was being haggled in court until -

"Mr. Trump does not, and will not, contest Ms. Clifford’s assertion that the settlement agreement was never formed, or in the alternative, should be rescinded,” the filing says. “Moreover, Mr. Trump covenants that he will not bring any action, proceeding or claim against Ms. Clifford to enforce any of the terms of the settlement agreement.”

[Redbirds Fan]

Random Thought: We’ve never had a President with the purported wealth of this one. It isn’t uncommon, I suspect, for the super wealthy to ask “employees” to sign NDA’s. If it was offered with a financial consideration payable to the signatory, and was willing accepted by the signatory, isn’t it a valid contract? The performance is in the signatory’s non disclosure of embarrassing, compromising, and/or otherwise private information.

So how can Stormy or McDougal now decide to break their non-disclosures?

Also, IMHO, none of those close to Trump who’ve plead guilty thus far have plead ro anything related to campaign cooperation with Russia. Manafort was found guilty of non reporting of foreign agency, bank fraud, and tax evasion. Cohen was similarly. Other of lying to federal agents. The campaign finance issue doesn’t seem like much, in the sense that Obama, Edwards and many others have been accused of the same without much in the way of consequence. Obama’s campaign settled for a fine. Isn’t one of his defenses likely to be that these people signed NDAs and any funds paid out to either of the two (maybe more) women could have been paid by his own personal wealth and not out of campaign funds. Were the payments paid in an attempt to not influence the election? If these two were threatening to “tell all” isn’t that extortion?

When’s the next election again?

Just as a purely legal matter, and not specific to this issue, not all contracts are legally enforceable even if they are willingly entered, if they are found to be against public policy. It's a sticky area of the law, but it is being used to challenge NDAs.

[B-Fly]

Just as a purely legal matter, and not specific to this issue, not all contracts are legally enforceable even if they are willingly entered, if they are found to be against public policy. It's a sticky area of the law, but it is being used to challenge NDAs.

Correct. If entering into the contract was illegal in the first place (in this case pursuant to campaign finance laws), then it might be deemed null and void by the courts. In any event, even if Daniels or McDougal did potentially face a civil breach of contract suit for damages based on breaking a NDA, it presumably wouldn't bear one way or another on Trump's potential guilt/liability under campaign finance laws.

[Redbirds Fan]

Correct. If entering into the contract was illegal in the first place (in this case pursuant to campaign finance laws), then it might be deemed null and void by the courts. In any event, even if Daniels or McDougal did potentially face a civil breach of contract suit for damages based on breaking a NDA, it presumably wouldn't bear one way or another on Trump's potential guilt/liability under campaign finance laws.

Right, but not my point. If entering the contract is illegal in the first place (such as a contract for illegal gambliing), the court absolutely won't enforce it. What I am saying is that courts will sometimes not enforce otherwise legal contracts if the effect is injurious to the interests of the public.

People are starting to argue that the whole concept of NDAs is contrary to the public interest, especially when public figures are involved, and trying to have them set aside after the fact. I haven't researched it, but it seems to be a stretch.

Good point about the criminal liability.

[Bernie Brewer]

From our Oresident just now on Twitter.

I never directed Michael Cohen to break the law. He was a lawyer and he is supposed to know the law. It is called “advice of counsel,” and a lawyer has great liability if a mistake is made. That is why they get paid. Despite that many campaign finance lawyers have strongly.......stated that I did nothing wrong with respect to campaign finance laws, if they even apply, because this was not campaign finance. Cohen was guilty on many charges unrelated to me, but he plead to two campaign charges which were not criminal and of which he probably was not.....guilty even on a civil basis. Those charges were just agreed to by him in order to embarrass the president and get a much reduced prison sentence, which he did-including the fact that his family was temporarily let off the hook. As a lawyer, Michael has great liability to me!

I don’t know why I posted this. It was is too stupid to not post!! Who watches him and counsels him before using his twitter account?

[Bernie Brewer]

Right, but not my point. If entering the contract is illegal in the first place (such as a contract for illegal gambliing), the court absolutely won't enforce it. What I am saying is that courts will sometimes not enforce otherwise legal contracts if the effect is injurious to the interests of the public.

People are starting to argue that the whole concept of NDAs is contrary to the public interest, especially when public figures are involved, and trying to have them set aside after the fact. I haven't researched it, but it seems to be a stretch.

Good point about the criminal liability.

Red, I may need your help soon on my Noncompete / nondisclosure agreement! It’s In the public’s interest for me to be not unemployed.

[swampdragon]

From our Oresident just now on Twitter.




I don’t know why I posted this. It was is too stupid to not post!! Who watches him and counsels him before using his twitter account?

that is the scariest part of all - NO one stops him - NO one advises him - NO one ever says anything

[umjewman]

that is the scariest part of all - NO one stops him - NO one advises him - NO one ever says anything

I'm not so sure that nobody advises him or says anything. Does Trump strike you as someone who would listen to someone telling him not to do something?