The Right Side of the News

Everyone that I know encourages students to ask questions...not simply accept and believe what the teacher says. Do you honestly believe that God does not want us to question Him?

When you put it like that it hardly seems worth committing crimes in order to silence her. But they did ...

I said I wouldn't try to persuade you that the offenses rise to the level of impeachable offenses, and I'll try to stick to that, but I will address your impression that "it looks more like seeking hard to find technical violations of the law" just because they don't like who won, and I'll do it by just taking a brief look at the Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal cases.Mueller was not "seeking hard" to find them. Karen McDougal's story was reported in the Wall Street Journal just days before the 2016 election, but McDougal herself couldn't talk because of the agreement with AMI, and Trump denied it. Stormy Daniels story came out after the election when she went public on her own under the advice and guidance of attorney Michael Avenatti. She noted that at the time of the deal she was represented by an attorney who was in cahoots with Michael Cohen, and that Trump hadn't signed the agreement. It later came out that money for the payoffs was routed through a network of offshore shell companies, and that the deal was money for silence in the days leading up to the election so that news of the affairs wouldn't become public. The payoffs were made to affect the election, not to protect Trump's family as he has so far lied.Michael Cohen was sentenced to three years in prison for felonies that he said Trump directed him to commit: campaign finance violations (unreported contributions that exceeded limits), tax evasion, and making false statements to Congress and to a bank. These actions amounted to defrauding the American people. Trump, caught on tape discussing the Karen McDougal deal with Michael Cohen and attested to by Cohen and Pecker as attending the meeting where the Karen McDougal deal was discussed, is also guilty of felonies and only remains unindicted because he is president.These are not "technical violations" like missing a filing deadline or having some numbers in the wrong columns or making minor misstatements because memory isn't perfect, which happens all the time and are usually dealt with by small fines. What Cohen, and by extension Trump, did *is* fraud. Whether Trump's actions rise to the level of an impeachable offense is up to you, but they are not "technical violations." Trump's approval rating is not a rock solid number that never varies - it varies within a narrow margin. It was at 42.5% on November 23, relatively high for him, but it's been as low as 36.5%. Whatever the magnitude of the effect would have been of two women going public about affairs in the days before the election, it would have been negative. Trump's total margin in the critical states totaled 70,000 votes, which is only 0.05% of total votes cast for Trump and Clinton. Note that that is 0.05%, not 0.05 of the vote. It's a miniscule number dwarfed by the number of votes that would have been affected by such news. As described above, Trump's approval rating moves in a narrow range of about 9 percentage points. It is not immovable.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Add a detail.

First Trump denied knowing about the payments to silence women he'd had affairs with.As more information came to light Trump's story changed: he knew about the payments but never discussed them with Cohen. Michael Cohen, as his personal attorney, always just took care of that stuff.Then more information came to light and Trump's story change again: he did discuss the payments with Cohen, but he left the details up to Cohen.Then more information came to light and Trump's story changed yet again: he did direct Cohen to make the payments, but just assumed Cohen would do it in a legal way. He never directed Cohen to break the law.And all along Trump has claimed the payoffs were about protecting his family, not about the election, never mind that they were made just a couple weeks before the election, and that both Cohen and Pecker (chief executive of AMI, the parent company of the National Enquirer) state that Trump participated in discussions about the payments and how they would be carried out in order to protect Trump during the election's final days.And though the payments were made in the service of the campaign, no campaign donations were ever recorded, and the amounts exceeded legal limits anyway.It is not a crime to lie to the American people. Trump cannot be prosecuted for that. As said in one of the opinion pieces in today's Washington Post, "The evolving strategy on the hush-money allegations is textbook Trump: Tell one version of events until it falls apart, then tell a new version, and so on until the danger passes."--Percy

Dossier is partially verified.It's not totally trumped up.It also was not the basis for the FISA warrant on Carter Page.So what's the big deal about it?

Which he's never going to do. For one thing, it's not possible to close off all those avenues. For another, Mexico would retaliate. What laws are possible and likely?But you are still missing the key point; if Mexico is going to pay for the wall in any real sense, we need to collect money from them that we would not have collected if there was no wall. None of those laws and actions rely on there being a wall.

Snore. Wake me up when you have some actual evidence that any of those things happened.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

The 35% or thereabouts that will never face reality about Trump are still for it. It doesn't make sense for anyone else to be for the wall, and indeed they aren't.

Cruz's shutdown in 2103 cost the government $24 billion they wouldn't have spent without a shutdown.What happens during a government shutdown? 7 things you should know | Fox News

quote:

---

"Essential staff at top level agencies would continue working, but most federal employees whose jobs aren’t vital would likely be sent home," Goldwein said.

​

For example, those who work at national parks, monuments and museums would be told to go home.

​

"It doesn’t feel awesome to be told you’re not an essential employee. It's a little demoralizing to go home because you’re not important," Goldwein added.

​

In the 2013 shutdown, roughly 850,000 employees were furloughed per day, according to the Office of Management and Budget.

​

But not everyone is required to take unpaid leave.

​

The president, presidential appointees and members of Congress are exempt. The Postal Service, the TSA and Air Traffic Control will also continue business as usual.

​

Americans will still be able to get their Social Security and Medicare benefits and food stamps. However, people expecting VA benefits, unemployment benefits, farm subsidies and tax refunds may experience delays.

---

Nope, and it's not guaranteed that they'd ever be paid.

quote:

---

Most likely. The problem: They're not sure when they'll get their money.

​

"Everyone loses from the government shutdown. An employee loses their paycheck at the time he or she needs it," Goldwein said. "Ultimately, we’re going to fund it anyway. It’s kind of silly."

​

Federal employees typically receive back pay shortly upon their return, though, Goldwein says, nothing is certain. Every agency has their own contingency plan in the event of a shutdown.

---

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

You haven't offered a shred of evidence that it is a fake. This is just more Right Wing propaganda and lies.

Having worked in a government job, I can tell you how the shutdown affected my area of work. The research group I was a part of had submitted a rather large grant which had actually been approved for funding, and then the shutdown hit. This threw all funding up in the air, and the grant had to be resubmitted. It wasn't funded until nearly 2 years later, and people almost lost their jobs in the meantime, including me. I also saw job positions that used to take 2 months to be filled take 18 months to get filled because funding in different government offices was all haywire because of the shutdown and because of the sequester that followed.The government is a massive behemoth of a system, and any little funding hiccup can have serious ramifications. It isn't as simple as everyone taking a few days off.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Corrupt use of campaign finances is a pretty big deal in the US. Trump is not be singled out, not by a long shot. There is a congressman that is currently under indictment on campaign finance violations:Duncan Hunter and his wife indicted for using campaign funds for personal expenses | CNN PoliticsIn past presidential elections there have been similar indictments, such as John Edwards being indicted for possible violations when some friends paid to hide his extra-marital affair during his campaign.Also, Trump isn't in potential trouble because he lied to the American people when asked questions by the press. Trump is in potential trouble for violating the laws which require reporting of campaign contributions, and corrupt intent plays a large role in how those violations are penalized. The point of having laws for clean and transparent elections is that we shouldn't have to speculate.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Stormy Daniels confirmed the allegations after the election. The rumours stem from 2011, and http://thesmokinggun.com/...-1were reported in October 2016. The very Wall Street Journal article which reported on Karen MacDougall's story in November mentioned it.

quote:

---

Mr. Davidson also represented Stephanie Clifford, a former adult-film star whose professional name is Stormy Daniels and who was in discussions with ABC’s Good Morning America in recent months to publicly disclose what she said was a past relationship with Mr. Trump, according to people familiar with the talks.

---

Jacob Weisberg of Slate explained why he didn't bother running with the story.

quote:

---

Given what was going on in the final weeks of the campaign, during which Trump was facing a torrent of accusations of sexual abuse, I didn't think an extramarital affair would be a highly significant story.

---

I wasn't talking about his overall approval rating. I was talking about his support amongst those who voted for him in 2016, which is considerably less than 36,5% of the electorate. I'm unable to find where I got this from though.

No one is claiming that Trump's philandering was the key issue in the last few weeks before the election. It was the payoffs, and to keep things simple I stated up front that I was going to mention only one thing in my argument, the payoffs. There is certainly more than one thing, and they can be briefly summarized.If the payoffs for silence had come out before the election it could definitely have swayed more than 0.0005 of the electorate. If his agreement with AMI to squelch stories about his sexual flings had come out it would have affected more. If it had come out that he was also violating campaign financing laws it would have affected more. If we knew that at least 16 people connected with his campaign had had contact with Russians it would have affected more. If we knew that Trump was working on a deal that required the approval of the Russian government it would have affected more. If it had gradually begun to dawn on some people how much Trump lies it would have affected more. The argument that the information Trump kept hidden wouldn't have affected the election doesn't hold water.More importantly, the degree of success of a fraud is only a factor in sentencing and not in whether the fraud was committed.Michael Cohen is going to jail for three years for crimes he committed at the direction of Trump that, as mentioned in the sentencing documents, affected the 2016 election and perpetrated a fraud. I assume you believe Trump equally if not more culpable, for to believe otherwise, and going with a mafia analogy, would be to believe that the guy carrying out the hit is guilty and the guy ordering the hit is not. So Trump is as culpable as Cohen if not more so.Some in the media make a strong case for the payoffs alone being an impeachable offense, this part from the New York prosecutors' sentencing statement being key (from The United States District Court's Southern District of New York's Sentencing Memorandum in the Case of United States of America v. Michael Cohen):

quote:

---

During the campaign, Cohen played a central role in two similar schemes to purchase the rights to stories — each from women who claimed to have had an affair with Individual-1 — so as to suppress the stories and thereby prevent them from influencing the election. With respect to both payments, Cohen acted with the intent to influence the 2016 presidential election. Cohen coordinated his actions with one or more members of the campaign, including through meetings and phone calls, about the fact, nature, and timing of the payments. (PSR 51). In particular, and as Cohen himself has now admitted, with respect to both payments, he acted in coordination with and at the direction of Individual-1. (PSR 41, 45). As a result of Cohen’s actions, neither woman spoke to the press prior to the election.

---

In addition, Mueller hasn't written his report yet, there's the ongoing emoluments case, and now Trump's inaugural finances are under investigation. It is certainly a legitimate opinion to believe the payoffs by themselves do not rise to the level of impeachability, and maybe each of the other offenses by themselves also do not rise to the level of impeachability, but at some point the mountain of offenses rises too high to ignore. Comparisons to Nixon pale, who though he had fatal flaws also had much experience in government and a number of successes on both the domestic and international fronts - for just a couple he founded the EPA and opened relations with China. Trump's is one of most tawdry and unsuccessful administrations in the country's history. Whether he's also impeachable is still a question open to opinion, but many think he is based on some pretty solid evidence that may only be the tip of the iceberg.--Percy

Let's assume these are impeachable offenses. To what end?Impeach Trump and have a heavily Republican Senate exonerate him.So what? Nothing changes. It won't thwart the buffoon's bluster or his lies or his agenda. It does nothing to address the situation.Did I mention his impeachment alone would do absolutely nothing?