Not that I told you so , but here it is…
DID THE PRESIDENT COMMIT A CRIME?
"There is a plausible case against the president," said Rick Hasen, a professor who specializes in election and campaign finance law at the University of California at Irvine.
In order to bring charges, prosecutors would have to prove Trump had criminal intent and "willfully violated the law," said Josh Blackman, a professor at South Texas College of Law Houston. Something that would be perfectly legal to do as a businessman could take on a different standard as a candidate and campaign finance laws are "very open-ended," he said.
Hasen said Trump's lawyers could argue Trump didn't have willfulness to break the law if the payments were completely personal and not connected to the campaign, despite their timing. Some legal experts have also argued that hush-money payments to keep people silent about their affairs are inherently personal, though Hasen said he didn't agree with that argument.
Again it’s not what you know (or with what you agree) it’s what you an prove in court. How many times have you risked going to court on ‘plausible cause’ as opposed to having a knockdown, iron clad, guaranteed case? Huh counselor? Rick Hansen speaks as an academician, not a trial lawyer. Hell, I’m not a lawyer and even I can discern there’s a difference when you’ve got ‘skin in the game’. Again all Trump need say is, I paid hush money to spare my wife and family of embarrassment. Case closed. Then so what. He lied to the press about the payments. It’s hardly a crime. Presidents have lied before. Hell, one violated campaign finance law, paid a fine and the matter was off the front page news in less than a week. That should tell you something!
CAN A SITTING PRESIDENT BE INDICTED?
Legal experts are divided on that question. The Supreme Court has never ruled on whether the president can be indicted or whether the president can be subpoenaed for testimony.
The Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, which provides legal advice and guidance to executive branch agencies, has maintained that a sitting president cannot be indicted. Two Justice Department reports, one in 1973 and one in 2000, came to the same conclusion.
Those reports essentially concluded that the president's responsibilities are so important that an indictment would pose too many risks for the government to function properly.
The defense rests, counselor.
Source: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...ed-while-in-office/ar-BBQG78A?ocid=spartanntp
Conclusion- Bubba Muller’s probe has uncovered ‘original sin’ but nothing criminal against the president. Good luck with an indictment or subpoena. However, Bubba’s report will make for great theatre in Congress as @sses flail in an attempt to sway public opinion. As with the Kavanaugh hearing, it will be required viewing. Better than any soap opera. I can’t wait!
I thank you and have a blessed weekend!
DID THE PRESIDENT COMMIT A CRIME?
"There is a plausible case against the president," said Rick Hasen, a professor who specializes in election and campaign finance law at the University of California at Irvine.
In order to bring charges, prosecutors would have to prove Trump had criminal intent and "willfully violated the law," said Josh Blackman, a professor at South Texas College of Law Houston. Something that would be perfectly legal to do as a businessman could take on a different standard as a candidate and campaign finance laws are "very open-ended," he said.
Hasen said Trump's lawyers could argue Trump didn't have willfulness to break the law if the payments were completely personal and not connected to the campaign, despite their timing. Some legal experts have also argued that hush-money payments to keep people silent about their affairs are inherently personal, though Hasen said he didn't agree with that argument.
Again it’s not what you know (or with what you agree) it’s what you an prove in court. How many times have you risked going to court on ‘plausible cause’ as opposed to having a knockdown, iron clad, guaranteed case? Huh counselor? Rick Hansen speaks as an academician, not a trial lawyer. Hell, I’m not a lawyer and even I can discern there’s a difference when you’ve got ‘skin in the game’. Again all Trump need say is, I paid hush money to spare my wife and family of embarrassment. Case closed. Then so what. He lied to the press about the payments. It’s hardly a crime. Presidents have lied before. Hell, one violated campaign finance law, paid a fine and the matter was off the front page news in less than a week. That should tell you something!
CAN A SITTING PRESIDENT BE INDICTED?
Legal experts are divided on that question. The Supreme Court has never ruled on whether the president can be indicted or whether the president can be subpoenaed for testimony.
The Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, which provides legal advice and guidance to executive branch agencies, has maintained that a sitting president cannot be indicted. Two Justice Department reports, one in 1973 and one in 2000, came to the same conclusion.
Those reports essentially concluded that the president's responsibilities are so important that an indictment would pose too many risks for the government to function properly.
The defense rests, counselor.
Source: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...ed-while-in-office/ar-BBQG78A?ocid=spartanntp
Conclusion- Bubba Muller’s probe has uncovered ‘original sin’ but nothing criminal against the president. Good luck with an indictment or subpoena. However, Bubba’s report will make for great theatre in Congress as @sses flail in an attempt to sway public opinion. As with the Kavanaugh hearing, it will be required viewing. Better than any soap opera. I can’t wait!
I thank you and have a blessed weekend!
