The mother of all Conspiracy Theories belongs to the Lib Dems - lol

And it's a Nothing Burger - lol

The media agree that the Russia Collusion farce is a vast left-wing Conspiracy Theory -

The most respectable conspiracy theory in Washington

[theweek.com]

A year into Donald Trump's presidency, with the end of Robert Mueller's painstaking investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election nowhere in sight, I have a confession to make.

On multiple occasions over the last several years I have attended private meetings with individuals who are members of a Moscow-based international organization that opposes gay marriage, the European Union, globalism, and secularism. Also present at some of these meetings were right-leaning journalists, heads of think tanks, and even federal officials. Over drinks — sometimes, yes, vodka — and cigarettes, political issues were discussed, the Obama administration roundly criticized, and at least once there was a long conversation about Russian intelligence. Between meetings I communicated via email and Twitter with these individuals, who were based for a time in Australia, where both were involved in politics and even lobbying. On more than one occasion I was responsible for ensuring that payments in the four-figure range were made into the bank account of one of the individuals. A few months before the first of the above encounters, I met Trump himself at a D.C. hotel. At a later meeting, the individual I had been compensating appeared at another meeting in Manhattan with prominent social conservatives at which she made arguments on behalf of Trump. A few months later he was president.

I hope Mueller's people are taking notes. The fact that the individuals in question are old friends, one of whom contributed to a magazine where I used to be an editor, that the Russian group to which they belong is the Orthodox Church, that one of these gatherings was their wedding reception, and that the discussion of foreign intelligence was actually a conversation about the old BBC television adaptation of John le Carré's Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy are probably irrelevant. Written vaguely enough, filtered through two or three other sources in a kind of telephone game, they sound like a breathless Daily Beast scooplette about what I like to think of as "the Russia thing." If I lied to a federal investigator about any of this — claiming, for example, that I was not in any way involved with the payments in question even though I negotiated the rates because our accounting department was responsible for mailing the check or getting the timeline of my first meeting with the president wrong — I could be writing this column under house arrest. Which might be fair, but would hardly prove "collusion."

That Trump in some unknown and indescribable but absolutely significant manner "colluded" — whatever that might involve — with "Russia" — a vague entity that might refer to anything or anyone from a nameless academic to Vladimir Putin himself — in order to steal the 2016 election from Hillary Clinton, who was otherwise an attractive candidate with a firm base of support even in the states she didn't bother to visit, is now one of the most begged questions in American history.

It's time to stop begging it. The investigation that began under James Comey and has continued under Robert Mueller has turned up absolutely nothing to support this thesis. Michael Flynn lied to the FBI about a conversation with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak that took place after the election, which is shocking if you want to pretend that there is anything out of the ordinary about a member of a presidential transition team contacting foreign officials. An obscure character named George Papadopoulos once emailed an equally obscure character known only as "the Professor," an exchange that went nowhere. Paul Manafort has pled not guilty to money laundering, which is as unsurprising as it is far removed from what the investigation is supposed to be about. The Russia thing is a tedious and lurid spectacle, a shooting match, like Whitewater before it, in which armed participants are allowed to circle endlessly, at taxpayers' expense, around invisible targets that they mysteriously never manage to hit but whose existence is as obvious to one group of partisan onlookers as it is unthinkable to the other.

It is also a master course in how to construct a political narrative, something reporters and commentators do without realizing it. Most of them have memories as short as those of their readers and a frame of reference that, except for a handful of clichés about McCarthyism and Boss Tweed and the Compromise of 18-something-or-other, doesn't extend much further than Pizza Rat. It doesn't matter. Start with an irresistible general narrative, sprinkle in some suitably exotic if unconfirmable details about obviously grotesque characters, quote a handful of decontextualized communications, throw in some legalese that you don't understand, and you have an appalling scandal that deserves the attention of the entire American public, one that makes a mockery of the august values upon which this country was founded.

If the Russia thing has legs, so does Benghazi, a story about how individuals in the State Department actively worked to cover up the woeful under-preparedness of the security forces at a U.S. consulate in a war-torn country at the behest of the individual responsible for its ill-fated bombardment by NATO forces. So too does the new right-wing comic strip about a sinister "deep state" plot to prevent Trump from taking office — we even have a text message from an actual FBI agent admitting they have an "insurance policy" against it, guys! The news that a special prosecutor marched in to the offices of an obscure federal department and demanded records instead of obtaining them via subpoena is not going to keep me up at night agonizing over the future of the republic. But neither is anything that the Russia investigation has turned up or is ever likely to turn up.

That doesn't mean I'm going to pretend that "Russia" rather than the voters of Macomb County elected him president or that it is a good use of anyone's time to spend any more than a year of federal resources combing through Nigerian prince emails and asking gotcha questions trying to prove otherwise.

Media Start To Second-Guess Trump-Russia ‘Collusion’ Conspiracy Theory

[dailycaller.com]

Investigators have still found no evidence Trump colluded with Russia

Politico editor-in-chief confesses “skepticism” of the narrative

Media slow to admit there’s no evidence of collusion

Thirteen months into President Trump’s administration, there is still no evidence whatsoever that Trump or any of his associates colluded with Russian operatives meddling in the 2016 presidential campaign.

That total lack of evidence has some establishment journalists finally wondering if there wasn’t any Trump-Russia collusion after all, despite Democratic conspiracy theories to the contrary.

Politico Magazine editor-in-chief Blake Hounshell over the weekend penned a piece “confessing” his skepticism of the collusion conspiracy theory. Hounshell’s primary argument was that the Trump campaign was too inept to have successfully colluded with Russia without the public finding out.

Mark Levin - The Great One - Great Legal Mind

Mark Levin: "Rogue Prosecutor" Mueller Investigating Nothing; Trump's Not Going To Be Indicted

[www.realclearpolitics.com]

Because this is a rogue prosecutor who is investigating nothing. You understand that? He is investigating nothing. There is no underlying crime.

There are no criminal statutes.

The official position of the United States Department of Justice under Democrat administration and Republican administration was set out by the Office of Legal Counsel. That's the constitutional office within the Department of Justice in two memoranda.

And this memoranda says the president of the United States cannot be indicted while he is in office. Cannot be indicted while he is in office. So he can't be a criminal target. The president of the United States can't be a criminal target because he can't be indicted.

There are no criminal statutes or criminal violations.

Here is Jonathan Turley - Liberal - interview about the Democrats' Russian Collusion Conspiracy Theory -

Turley: "Not A Strong, Credible Case Of Crime" Against Trump Emerging From Mueller Investigation

[www.realclearpolitics.com]

JONATHAN TURLEY, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY LAW PROFESSOR: "Yes, there is a troubling pathology in the news where people seem to be unwilling to cover what is positive news for President Trump. There is not positive news as well. But that rather one-sided account is getting increasingly alarming.

The fact is that there is not a strong credible case of crime that is emerging from this investigation. After a year, after hundreds of thousands of documents that have been turned over, after multiple cooperating witnesses, after dozens of criminal counts, none of those filings have created a nexus between a criminal act and the president or even the campaign for the most part.

"There is not a strong credible case of crime from this investigation. None of the filings have created a nexus between a criminal act and the president or the campaign."

On collusion, there is an absence of evidence. There is an absence of anything connecting the president or the campaign. The last major filing said that no Trump official knowingly engaged Russians in their hacking aspect of their intervention."

*********

The Hill article by Jonathan Turley -

When will the media accept that Trump is not a criminal target?

[thehill.com]

Rather than refusing to accept indicators of impending death, many journalists and analysts seem incapable of accepting signs that the Trump presidency could survive.

That painful process was more evident Tuesday night when the Washington Post reported that special counsel Robert Mueller told the White House last month that Trump was not considered a “target” but only a “subject” of the investigation. After a year of being assured that “bombshell” developments and “smoking gun” evidence was sealing the criminal case against Trump, the dissonance was too great for many who refuse to accept the obvious meaning of this disclosure.

The U.S. Attorney’s manual defines a “subject” as a “person whose conduct is within the scope of the grand jury's investigation.” It is a designation that can change but it is also a meaningful description of the current status of an individual. Mueller at this time apparently does not believe Trump meets the definition of a target or a “person as to whom the prosecutor or the grand jury has substantial evidence linking him or her to the commission of a crime and who, in the judgment of the prosecutor, is a putative defendant.” That would have been less notable when Mueller was appointed in 2017 than it is now, after more than a year, dozens of criminal counts, hundreds of thousands of documents, and a bevy of cooperating witnesses.

That Mueller does not believe there is “substantial evidence linking [Trump] to the commission of a crime” would seem to merit some, albeit grudging, recognition. However, there has been a disturbing lack of objectivity in the coverage of this investigation from the start. Throughout it, some of us have cautioned that the criminal case against Trump was far weaker than media suggested.

In February, Mueller handed down indictments of 13 Russian nationals and three Russian organizations for election-related crimes, from hacking to identity fraud. Not only did these charges not implicate Trump or his campaign, but the filing expressly stated that no one in the Trump campaign knowingly engaged Russians in these efforts. Now, Mueller reportedly has said he does not consider Trump a “target” of the criminal investigation. Looking at each of the prior filings, the disclosure would seem consistent with a lack of compelling evidence of a crime by Trump. Indeed, it would indicate Trump’s status has not changed from when Comey told Congress that Trump was not a target.

The obvious point is that, after months of investigating Trump, Mueller still does not have sufficient evidence to make him a “target.” True, a “subject” can become a “target” and a “target” can then become a “defendant,” but so can a “witness.” Clearly, Trump is a subject since he was the subject of the election itself and directly involved in the underlying matters under investigation. What is new is that Mueller confirmed Trump’s status has not changed.

This continued refusal to acknowledge positive developments for Trump is a disturbing pathology. Just because Trump is a subject of investigation does not mean he cannot become a target. Moreover, Mueller as expected has indicated he will prepare a report on his investigation. This still is a positive development for Trump. It shows that Trump’s status has not materially changed but neither has the status of much of the coverage. Many media commentators clearly are stuck on denial and are a long way from acceptance in dealing with the legal status of Donald Trump.

"Politics before Justice, that's what you're seeing here," said Mark Levin.

Legal Expert Alan Dershowitz - Liberal - said Mueller is inventing a crime.

Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz reacted to reports that Special Counsel Robert Mueller is investigating President Donald Trump for possible collusion, but does not consider Trump a criminal target in the probe.

Dershowitz, a longtime Democrat who supported Hillary Clinton in 2016, said Mueller would be "inventing a crime" to charge Trump in that case.

"There's no such crime as 'collusion' in the federal statute," he said.

Dershowitz on Alleged Trump Collusion: Robert Mueller 'Inventing a Crime'

Mueller's Endless and Limitless Witch Hunt -

[insider.foxnews.com]

You can't just make up crimes. It would be a political sin, but you can't make up a crime by declaring "now collusion is a crime."

Quote Trumpkin Jennifer-The media agree that the Russia Collusion farce is a vast left-wing Conspiracy Theory -

Fox Moo's is not media!, spin again

So my dear that's why we have these guilty pleas right?

Try and give some other evidence to support Trump that makes sense.

With the guilty pleas it shows you have the blind eye on again


The full list of known indictments and plea deals in Mueller’s probe
1) George Papadopoulos, former Trump campaign foreign policy adviser, pleaded guilty in October to making false statements to the FBI.
2) Michael Flynn, Trump’s former national security adviser, pleaded guilty in December to making false statements to the FBI.
3) Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign chair, was indicted in October in Washington, DC on charges of conspiracy, money laundering, false statements, and failure to disclose foreign assets — all related to his work for Ukrainian politicians before he joined the Trump campaign. He’s pleaded not guilty on all counts. Then, in February, Mueller filed a new case against him in Virginia, with tax, financial, and bank fraud charges.
4) Rick Gates, a former Trump campaign aide and Manafort’s longtime junior business partner, was indicted on similar charges to Manafort. But he has now agreed to a plea deal with Mueller’s team, pleading guilty to just one false statements charge and one conspiracy charge.
5-20) 13 Russian nationals and three Russian companies were indicted on conspiracy charges, with some also being accused of identity theft. The charges related to a Russian propaganda effort designed to interfere with the 2016 campaign. The companies involved are the Internet Research Agency, often described as a “Russian troll farm,” and two other companies that helped finance it. The Russian nationals indicted include 12 of the agency’s employees and its alleged financier, Yevgeny Prigozhin.

21) Richard Pinedo: This California man pleaded guilty to an identity theft charge in connection with the Russian indictments, and has agreed to cooperate with Mueller.
22) Alex van der Zwaan: This London lawyer pleaded guilty to making false statements to the FBI about his contacts with Rick Gates and another unnamed person based in Ukraine.
Two ex-Trump advisers lied to the FBI about their contacts with Russians

Michael Flynn Mario Tama/Getty
So far, no Trump associates have been specifically charged with any crimes relating to helping Russia interfere with the 2016 election.
The closest we’ve come to that is that both Papadopoulos and Flynn both now admit that they lied to the FBI about their contacts with people connected to the Russian government. (Papadopoulos’s contacts took place before the election, and Flynn’s after it.)
Papadopoulos: Back in April 2016, Papadopoulos got a tip from a foreign professor he understood to have Russian government connections that the Russians had “dirt” on Clinton in the form of “thousands of emails.” He then proceeded to have extensive contacts with the professor and a Russian woman, during which he tried to plan a Trump campaign trip to Russia.
But when the FBI interviewed Papadopoulos about all this in January 2017, he repeatedly lied about what happened, he now admits. So he was arrested in July, and later agreed to plead guilty to a false statements charge and start cooperating with Mueller’s probe.
Flynn: In December 2016, during the transition, Flynn spoke to Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak about sanctions that President Barack Obama had just placed on Russia, and about a planned United Nations Security Council vote condemning Israeli settlements.

But when FBI agents interviewed him about all this in January 2017, Flynn lied to them about what his talks with Kislyak entailed, he now admits. In December 2017, Flynn pleaded guilty to a false statements charge and began cooperating with Mueller’s investigation.
Both Papadopoulos and Flynn may now be providing Mueller’s team with information that could incriminate others in Trump’s orbit. But we haven’t seen the fruits of their cooperation just yet.
Several Russians were indicted in connection with a propaganda effort
More recently, Mueller’s team has indicted 13 Russian nationals and three Russian companies in connection with alleged interference with the 2016 campaign.
The indictments’ main emphasis is on the propaganda efforts of one Russian group in particular: the Internet Research Agency. That group’s operations — which included social media posts, online ads, and organization of rallies in the US — were, the indictment alleges, often (but not exclusively) aimed at denigrating Hillary Clinton’s presidential candidacy and supporting Donald Trump’s.
Specifically indicted were:
The Internet Research Agency itself
Two shell companies involved in financing the agency (Concord Management and Concord Catering)
The alleged financier of the agency, Yevgeny Prigozhin.
Twelve people who allegedly worked for the agency (Mikhail Bystrov, Mikhail Burchik, Aleksandra Krylova, Anna Bogacheva, Sergey Polozov, Maria Bovda, Robert Bovda, Dzheykhun Ogly, Vadim Podkopaev, Gleb Vasilchenko, Irina Kaverzina, and Vladimir Venkov)
The specific charges in the case include one broad “conspiracy to defraud the United States” count, but the rest are far narrower — one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and bank fraud, and six counts of identity theft. It is highly unlikely that the indicted Russians will ever come to the US to face trial.
No Americans have been charged with being witting participants in this Russian election interference effort. However, one American, Richard Pinedo of California, pleaded guilty to an identity fraud charge, seemingly because he sold bank account numbers created with stolen identities to the Russians. Pinedo agreed to cooperate with the probe as part of his plea deal.
Two other ex-Trump advisers are facing charges related to their past work for Ukraine

Paul Manafort outside a Washington, Dc courthouse in January 2018. Chip Somodevilla/Getty
Then there are former Trump campaign aides Paul Manafort and Rick Gates. The pair were indicted by Mueller’s team indicted last October in Washington, and Mueller piled on yet more charges against them in Virginia.
The charges against the pair related to nearly a decade of foreign work they did for the Ukrainian government and Ukrainian politicians before they joined Trump’s campaign.

Manafort and Gates allegedly “acted as unregistered agents” for the Ukrainians, generating “tens of millions of dollars in income,” which they then “laundered” through “scores of United States and foreign corporations, partnerships, and bank accounts,” per their indictment. They were also accused of failing to appropriately disclose their foreign work and foreign assets, and of committing tax, financial, and bank fraud crimes, some of which took place as recently as last year.
The specific charges Manafort is currently facing are:
5 counts in Washington, DC: One count each of conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to launder money, acting as an unregistered agent of a foreign principal, making false and misleading Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA) statements, and a false statements charge in connection with FARA.
18 counts in Virginia: 5 counts of filing false income tax returns, 4 counts of failing to report foreign bank and financial accounts, and 9 counts of bank fraud or bank conspiracy
Manafort did his foreign work for Ukraine’s pro-Russia political faction, but so far, it is not clear if these charges have any connection to the topic of Russian interference with the 2016 campaign. He has pleaded not guilty on all counts.
Gates, meanwhile, has since agreed to a plea deal in which he’ll cooperate with Mueller’s team. Accordingly, all the charges against him were dropped except two he pleaded guilty to — one conspiracy to defraud the United States charge, and a false statements charge. (With the latter, Gates admitted lying to Mueller’s team in a meeting earlier this month.)
An associate of Gates’s also pleaded guilty to making false statements to the FBI

Screenshot of van der Zwaan’s page on Skadden Arps circa mid-2017 Skadden Arps/Wayback Machine
Finally, the probe into Manafort and Gates’s Ukrainian work has ensnared one other person so far: Alex van der Zwaan.
Van der Zwaan was a lawyer for the London office of the New York law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom. The son-in-law of a Russian oligarch, he worked with Manafort and Gates on behalf of Ukraine’s government in 2012, to write a report defending the government’s prosecution of a former prime minister.
In November 2017, Mueller’s investigators interviewed van der Zwaan about his Ukrainian work. But according to the charging document, van der Zwaan:
Lied about when his last communications with Gates and another unnamed person took place
Lied about deleting and not providing relevant emails to the special counsel’s team
We don’t yet know what, exactly, van der Zwaan was trying to cover up here. But on February 20, 2018, he pleaded guilty to a false statements charge.

In this Storystream
Russia indictments: Robert Mueller brings charges against foreign nationalists for interfering in the 2016 election
Mueller just connected a top Trump campaign staffer to Russian intelligence
All of Robert Mueller’s indictments and plea deals in the Russia investigation so far
Meet the shady Putin crony funding Russia’s troll farm and mercenary army
View all 202 stories
Next Up In Politics & Policy
The horrifying sexual misconduct allegations against Missouri Gov. Eric Greitens, explained
A disturbing report finds Missouri Gov. Eric Greitens coerced a woman into sex, then blackmailed her
Black members of Congress criticize Zuckerberg: Facebook “does not reflect America”
9 essential lessons from psychology to understand the Trump era
California’s ambitious plan to regulate health prices, explained
The privacy question Mark Zuckerberg kept dodging


Most Read

Paul Ryan isn’t retiring because he’d lose. He’s retiring because Republicans are screwed.

House Speaker Paul Ryan was the biggest fraud in American politics

Mark Zuckerberg has been apologizing for reckless privacy violations since he was a freshman

Quote Jennifer -The Democrats' Russia Collusion Conspiracy Theory


by the way my dear
Rod Jay Rosenstein and Robert Mueller are both republicans.

Now how about the raids on Rico Trumps lawyer.

Dam Lib's

Regarding your post where you - or whoever you copied and pasted - outlined the charges against the various Republicans...

********

Number 1. Mueller was given carte blanche to investigate anything and anyone - which is an abuse of power.

(Read This)

From Andrew McCarthy -

"These columns have many times observed Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s failure to set limits on Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation. To trigger the appointment of a special counsel, federal regulations require the Justice Department to identify the crimes that warrant investigation and prosecution — crimes that the Justice Department is too conflicted to investigate in the normal course; crimes that become the parameters of the special counsel’s jurisdiction.

Rosenstein, instead, put the cart before the horse: Mueller was invited to conduct a fishing expedition, a boundless quest to hunt for undiscovered crimes, rather than an investigation and prosecution of known crimes."

Number 2. If the shoe were on the other foot and any Democrats could be investigated for anything and everything, there would be as many or more charges against them than what Mueller has found against the Republicans.

Number 3. None of the charges/pleas for any of these guys is connected to Collusion Between Trump and Russia, which is what this investigation was supposed to be investigating. End of story.

**********

So Mueller can investigate a million Republicans and come up with a million crimes and a million guilty pleas, but it's all moot, because -

The Democrats' Conspiracy Theory is that - Trump Colluded with Russia to win the Election - lol

And there is absolutely no proof or evidence of a Trump/Russia Collusion.

Just one big Democrat Conspiracy Theory. Huuge.

Quote Blind eye Jennie-Number 3. None of the charges/pleas for any of these guys is connected to Collusion Between Trump and Russia, which is what this investigation was supposed to be investigating. End of story.

Jennifer I think you meant end of your story telling



both Papadopoulos and Flynn both now admit that they lied to the FBI about their contacts with people connected to the Russian government. (Papadopoulos’s contacts took place before the election, and Flynn’s after it.)
Papadopoulos: Back in April 2016, Papadopoulos got a tip from a foreign professor he understood to have Russian government connections that the Russians had “dirt” on Clinton in the form of “thousands of emails.” He then proceeded to have extensive contacts with the professor and a Russian woman, during which he tried to plan a Trump campaign trip to Russia.
But when the FBI interviewed Papadopoulos about all this in January 2017, he repeatedly lied about what happened, he now admits. So he was arrested in July, and later agreed to plead guilty to a false statements charge and start cooperating with Mueller’s probe.
Flynn: In December 2016, during the transition, Flynn spoke to Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak about sanctions that President Barack Obama had just placed on Russia, and about a planned United Nations Security Council vote condemning Israeli settlements.

Spin again my dear

Quote
riverhousebill

both Papadopoulos and Flynn both now admit that they lied to the FBI about their contacts with people connected to the Russian government. (Papadopoulos’s contacts took place before the election, and Flynn’s after it.)
Papadopoulos: Back in April 2016, Papadopoulos got a tip from a foreign professor he understood to have Russian government connections that the Russians had “dirt” on Clinton in the form of “thousands of emails.” He then proceeded to have extensive contacts with the professor and a Russian woman, during which he tried to plan a Trump campaign trip to Russia.
But when the FBI interviewed Papadopoulos about all this in January 2017, he repeatedly lied about what happened, he now admits. So he was arrested in July, and later agreed to plead guilty to a false statements charge and start cooperating with Mueller’s probe.

Flynn: In December 2016, during the transition, Flynn spoke to Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak about sanctions that President Barack Obama had just placed on Russia, and about a planned United Nations Security Council vote condemning Israeli settlements.

Again, the above proves nothing and isn't evidence of a "Trump/Russian Collusion." And the time frames don't jibe with Collusion to Win the Election.

Just because someone connected to Trump had a connection to Russia or a meeting with a Russian or went to Russia or all those other Russia scenarios, doesn't mean Trump colluded with Russia to win the Election. And that someone connected to Trump lied does not mean that Trump Colluded with Russia to win the Election.

Quote Jennifer-Just because someone connected to Trump had a connection to Russia or a meeting with a Russian or went to Russia or all those other Russia scenarios, doesn't mean Trump colluded with Russia.




Yeh it's just a coincidence that people who came on board the Trump crazy train
had Russian conections, how could Trump ever know?

Ryan had sense to get off the sinking ship, Many others have started to jump ship.
Many more wont ride on the crazy train much longer.

I don't much care for republicans, But I like Mueller and his boss, it's starting to sound like Trump's heading for the freakout tent, his own staff very worried he is coming apart.
Pee Pee tapes. And Cohen Trump's lawyer now say he is worried he might be a fall guy, Yeh OK get the picture?

I think this Trump Admin will go down in history as one of the most corrupt in U.S. history in the near future, THE END IS NEAR

In Vietnam they have a saying Tongue Has No Bone,

this fits Cohen, Trump, and Trumpettes, Cohen yesterday said he is not worried about the raid, next day Quote Cohen I'm worried I might become Fall guy

THE END IS NEAR!

Quote
riverhousebill

The full list of known indictments and plea deals in Mueller’s probe

3) Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign chair, was indicted in October in Washington, DC on charges of conspiracy, money laundering, false statements, and failure to disclose foreign assets — all related to his work for Ukrainian politicians before he joined the Trump campaign. He’s pleaded not guilty on all counts. Then, in February, Mueller filed a new case against him in Virginia, with tax, financial, and bank fraud charges.
4) Rick Gates, a former Trump campaign aide and Manafort’s longtime junior business partner, was indicted on similar charges to Manafort. But he has now agreed to a plea deal with Mueller’s team, pleading guilty to just one false statements charge and one conspiracy charge.

Then there are former Trump campaign aides Paul Manafort and Rick Gates. The pair were indicted by Mueller’s team indicted last October in Washington, and Mueller piled on yet more charges against them in Virginia.
The charges against the pair related to nearly a decade of foreign work they did for the Ukrainian government and Ukrainian politicians before they joined Trump’s campaign.

Manafort and Gates allegedly “acted as unregistered agents” for the Ukrainians, generating “tens of millions of dollars in income,” which they then “laundered” through “scores of United States and foreign corporations, partnerships, and bank accounts,” per their indictment. They were also accused of failing to appropriately disclose their foreign work and foreign assets, and of committing tax, financial, and bank fraud crimes, some of which took place as recently as last year.
The specific charges Manafort is currently facing are:
5 counts in Washington, DC: One count each of conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to launder money, acting as an unregistered agent of a foreign principal, making false and misleading Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA) statements, and a false statements charge in connection with FARA.
18 counts in Virginia: 5 counts of filing false income tax returns, 4 counts of failing to report foreign bank and financial accounts, and 9 counts of bank fraud or bank conspiracy
Manafort did his foreign work for Ukraine’s pro-Russia political faction, but so far, it is not clear if these charges have any connection to the topic of Russian interference with the 2016 campaign. He has pleaded not guilty on all counts.
Gates, meanwhile, has since agreed to a plea deal in which he’ll cooperate with Mueller’s team. Accordingly, all the charges against him were dropped except two he pleaded guilty to — one conspiracy to defraud the United States charge, and a false statements charge. (With the latter, Gates admitted lying to Mueller’s team in a meeting earlier this month.)
An associate of Gates’s also pleaded guilty to making false statements to the FBI

Regarding the charges against Manafort and Gates -

Instead of just repeating the mainstream media narrative, if you want the Truth and want to understand the Legality of the Russia Collusion Conspiracy Theory Investigation, it would behoove you to read articles or listen to interviews of lawyers and law professors. That's who I read and watch - legal experts like Mark Levin and Andrew McCarthy and Judge Nap.

So here is an article by Andrew McCarthy explaining the abuse of power/slight of hand of Mueller, and summarizing the Manafort and Gates indictments/charges -

If you want to understand a little of the devious shenanagans of Mueller's investigation from hell -

***********

Mueller’s Investigation Flouts Justice Department Standards

[www.nationalreview.com]

Gates was charged with $100 million in financial crimes — and pled guilty to two minor offenses, one of them highly questionable.

That deviation, it turns out, is not the half of it. With Rosenstein’s passive approval, Mueller is shredding Justice Department charging policy by alleging earth-shattering crimes, then cutting a sweetheart deal that shields the defendant from liability for those crimes and from the penalties prescribed by Congress. The special counsel, moreover, has become a legislature unto himself, promulgating the new, grandiose crime of “conspiracy against the United States” by distorting the concept of “fraud.”

Why does the special counsel need to invent an offense to get a guilty plea? Why doesn’t he demand a plea to one of the several truly egregious statutory crimes he claims have been committed?

Good questions.

The Multi-Million-Dollar Fraud Indictments . . . and Penny-Ante Plea

On Thursday, February 22, with now-familiar fanfare, Mueller filed an indictment against Paul Manafort and Richard Gates, alleging extremely serious crimes. Let’s put aside for now that the charges have absolutely nothing to do with the stated rationale for Mueller’s appointment, namely, Russian interference in the 2016 election and possible Trump-campaign collusion therein.

According to the special counsel, Manafort and Gates conspired to commit more than $25 million in bank fraud. In all, the indictment charges nine bank-fraud counts, each carrying a potential penalty of up to 30 years’ imprisonment (i.e., 270 years combined). Furthermore, the two defendants are formally charged with $14 million in tax fraud (the indictment’s narrative of the offense actually alleges well over twice that amount). There are five tax-fraud counts, yielding a potential 15 years’ imprisonment (up to three years for each offense), against each defendant.

Mind you, this indictment, filed in the Eastern District of Virginia, is not a stand-alone. It piles atop an earlier indictment in the District of Columbia. That one, filed back in October, accuses Manafort and Gates of an eye-popping $75 million money-laundering conspiracy, a charge that carries a penalty of up to 20 years’ imprisonment.

The two indictments contain many other felony charges. But sticking with just these most serious ones, we can safely say that, on February 22, Manafort and Gates were portrayed as high-order federal felons who faced decades of prison time based on financial frauds in the nine-digit range. And while I have previously discussed potential proof problems for the money-laundering charge, proving bank fraud and tax fraud is comparatively straightforward. The indictment indicates that the evidence of these crimes is well documented and daunting.

Yet, the very next day, Friday, February 23, Mueller permitted Gates to plead guilty to two minor charges — a vaporous “conspiracy against the United States” and the process crime of misleading investigators, each carrying a sentence of zero to five years in jail. This flouted Justice Department policies designed to ensure that federal law is enforced evenhandedly across the nation.

‘The Most Serious Readily Provable Charge’

In plea negotiations, federal prosecutors are instructed to require that a defendant plead guilty to “the most serious readily provable charge consistent with the nature and extent of his/her conduct.” (See U.S. Attorney’s Manual, sec. 27.430.) In a properly functioning Justice Department, a defendant is not accused of over $100 million in financial fraud and then, within 24 hours, permitted to plead guilty in a wrist-slap deal that drops the major allegations and caps his potential sentence well beneath the penalties applicable by statute.

As outlined above, Mueller accused Gates of significant felonies totaling over 300 years of potential incarceration. Had the special counsel simply demanded a plea to a single bank-fraud count — the most serious statutory crime charged and, according to the indictment’s description, an offense that is readily provable — Gates would have faced up to 30 years’ imprisonment.

If, as all appearances suggest, Mueller’s goal is to get Gates to cooperate, such a plea, besides honoring Justice Department guidelines, would have provided plenty of incentive. Under federal law, the prosecutor does not need to sell out the case for a song to induce cooperation. The prosecutor can demand a guilty plea that reflects the gravity of the defendant’s actual offenses. Then, if the defendant cooperates fully and truthfully, the law permits the prosecutor to ask the judge to impose a sentence beneath the severe term that would otherwise be called for — a sentence of little or no jail time.

Under federal law, the prosecutor does not need to sell out the case for a song to induce cooperation. The prosecutor can demand a guilty plea that reflects the gravity of the defendant’s actual offenses.

The Justice Department’s manual further admonishes prosecutors to refrain from guilty pleas that could “adversely affect the investigation or prosecution of others.” That is exactly what Mueller has done to the ongoing prosecution of Manafort. By giving Gates a pass on the bank-fraud (and tax-fraud, and money-laundering) charges, Mueller signals that these allegations are inflated. A jury could well feel justified in giving Manafort a pass on them, too.

By contrast, let’s imagine that Mueller had followed Justice Department protocols by insisting to Gates that nothing less than a guilty plea to the most serious readily provable charge — a 30-year bank-fraud count — would suffice. In his plea allocution, Gates would inevitably have implicated Manafort as his bank-fraud co-conspirator. Manafort would know that, were Gates to testify at trial, he would tell the jury that Manafort conspired with him in the bank-fraud scheme. That would markedly increase the likelihood that Manafort would be convicted of the bank-fraud charges. It would ratchet up the pressure on Manafort to plead guilty. It would help the investigation and prosecution.

Despite the prevalence of tax charges in the Virginia indictment, note that Mueller did not demand that Gates plead guilty to any of them, either. The manual (in sec. 6-4.245) requires the Justice Department’s tax division to approve a prosecutor’s decision not to proceed on tax charges. Did Mueller, after months of painstaking work by revenue agents, announce a high-profile tax case against Gates only to get the tax division’s okay to drop it in less than 24 hours? (Mueller’s plea agreement with Gates drops the tax counts, among other charges — see agreement, p. 2, para. 3.)

But we’re just getting warmed up.

Using the ‘Catch-all’ Conspiracy Statute to Slash Sentencing Exposure

Mueller’s pleading shenanigans are an affront to the Constitution’s separation of powers. To begin with, he undermines Congress’s clear intent to punish grave conspiracy offenses with severe penalties. He does this by making promiscuous use of the comparatively minor conspiracy offense set forth in Section 371 of the penal code. We will come momentarily to the manner in which Mueller distorts the fraud provision of this statute. For now, let’s focus on the penalty provision.

(There's a lot of legal explanation that you can read in the article itself.)

The lesson is clear: The concept of fraud, including fraud on the government, is to be given its traditional, commonsense meaning of a deprivation of money or tangible property. If there is to be criminalization of other kinds of schemes that deprive the government, not of its tangible assets, but of its capacity to carry out its functions effectively, it is for Congress to proscribe these schemes in clear criminal statutes. Prosecutors may not legislate new crimes by mushrooming the definition of “fraud.”

Yet this is exactly what Mueller is doing.

Think about how bizarre this is. For public consumption, the special counsel alleges breathtaking felony offenses — bank fraud, tax fraud, and money laundering, crimes involving over $100 million when aggregated. Yet, to obtain a guilty plea from one of the allegedly serious felons, Mueller finds it necessary to abandon the hair-raising felonies he purports to have found. If these felonies are readily provable, as Mueller has claimed in his indictments, they are supposed to form the basis of any plea under Justice Department policy. If Gates is the mega-criminal nine-digit fraudster the special counsel has portrayed, he is not supposed to get a slap on the wrist. Yet Mueller accepts a plea to minor charges, including a Section 371 conspiracy that is a prosecutorial invention — designed to shield the allegedly serious felon from penalties Congress has decreed for the misconduct involved.

These charges against Gates and Manafort have nothing to do with “collusion with Russia,” the investigation for which Rosenstein appointed Mueller. There is no reason this case could not have been prosecuted by regular Justice Department lawyers. There was no need for a special counsel for this. And regular Justice Department prosecutors, overseen by engaged Justice Department superiors ensuring adherence to well-established Justice Department policies, would not prosecute a case this way.

Reminder - Mueller's Witch Hunt/Wild Goose Chase is going nowhere. Besides the fact that there was no collusion between Trump and Russia -

A Sitting President Cannot be Indicted

Here again is Mark Levin on Sean Hannity the other night reiterating such -

'Take It to SCOTUS': Levin Says DOJ Precedent Shows 'Rogue' Mueller Cannot Indict Trump

[insider.foxnews.com]

Constitutional attorney and radio host Mark Levin said two previous Department of Justice memoranda outlaw the ability of a sitting president to be indicted.

Levin said both a 1973 and a 2000 edict interpret the Constitution to delineate that a sitting president cannot be indicted by a prosecutor.

"This is the Department of Justice speaking, [not me]," Levin said. "Special prosecutors cannot supplant Congress."

Levin said that both DOJ opinions and Constitutional precedent demand that the only way to remove a president is through Congressional impeachment proceedings.

He said Special Counsel Robert Mueller also cannot trigger the 25th Amendment and remove President Donald Trump that way.

Levin said that, in addition, Trump does not have to comply with a subpoena before a grand jury because precedent declares that such a move would interfere with his Constitutionally-mandated duties to protect and serve the country.

He demanded that Mueller be forced to explain his "defiance of DOJ policy, which you are required to follow as an employee of the Department of Justice."

"Take it to the Supreme Court," he said of any attempt by Mueller to indict Trump or present him before a grand jury.

He said the 49 questions leaked from the Mueller probe ask nothing of criminal statutes, but only intent.

"They want to treat him like they treated Martha Stewart... he's the president," Levin said, referring to how the home and garden mogul was jailed after a federal investigation.

*************

Also, Levin said on his show -

"This is an endless assult on the Presidency. An endless assult on the Election Results.

This is a silent coup. They are trying to unseat a sitting president.

Mueller is a special pleader for Jim Comey. Mueller knows he has nothing on Trump, he is crushing everybody around him, intimidating everybody around him, digging, not to find a crime, to find hundreds of pieces of information to throw at the president to trip him up.

There's no evidence they're conducting a Russian Investigation. They're conducting a Trump Impeachment Investigation. "

Reminder - Mueller's Witch Hunt/Wild Goose Chase is going nowhere.


trump would be out of office aleady if he didn't have people come to his support like Jennifer.

To say probe is going nowhere sounds like someone must have inside info?

I will wait till the fat lady sings at Trumps Funeral in near future.

Jennifer this defense for Trump you make up shows you are really a Trumpkin.
I understand why you deni that,

Quote Jennifer-A Sitting President Cannot be Indicted

YES we can my Dear, He will be Impeached!

There is one point upon which constitutional scholars uniformly agree: The best course in dealing with a felonious president is to first remove the president from office through the impeachment process and then indict the former president in the wake of the Senate conviction. That is no favor to a president. Impeachment is not subject to the rules of criminal procedure and does not include most of the due process protections afforded to criminal defendants such as evidentiary protections and prohibitions against hearsay evidence. It can also undermine a criminal defense in a later prosecution by inducing statements from a president that could later be used against him in a criminal trial.

From Mark Levin:

By threatening to subpoena President Trump, we have a rouge prosecutor, Robert Mueller, who’s pushing the limits of the constitution like no other prosecutor in modern day history. They just want to notch up victories and they want their biggest victory – take out a sitting president by smear or false charges. According to an official 1973/2000 DOJ memoranda, the long-held official policy of the Department of Justice is that a sitting president of the United States cannot be indicted. If you can’t indict a sitting president, you can’t subpoena a sitting president for the purpose of investigating whether or not he should be indicted. The DOJ were concerned about a prosecutor like this with no self-restraint. Also, former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy calls in to explain that it’s time for Congress to step in and rein in Mueller’s out-of-control witch-hunt of Trump. The supervision of this prosecutor has broken down and somebody has to be asking some hard questions, and that somebody often is Congress.

Here is Mark Levin and Andrew McCarthy - two brilliant Constitutional lawyers - discussing Rogue Prosecutor Robert Mueller's Bogus Investigation -

[www.youtube.com]

************

Here is Andrew McCarthy's (former assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York and resigned from the Justice Department in 2003) article in The National Review -

Mueller’s Questions for Trump Show the Folly of Special-Counsel Appointments

[www.nationalreview.com]

You're right - Impeachment of a president has nothing to do with The Law. Impeachment is a political processs, not a legal one. If the Lib/Dems take over the House, they'll start the impeachment process. Articles of Impeachment or whatever; I don't know much about the impeachment procedure.

And so Mueller is looking for material to use for the Impeachment of Trump, although it's an abuse of power for him to be using the Investigation into the bogus Trump/Russian Collusion to do so.

That's why a VA Federal Judge spoke out about this folly today -

Judge Questions Mueller’s Authority to Prosecute Manafort

Federal judge in Virginia challenges scope of special counsel’s charges against ex-Trump campaign chairman

[www.wsj.com]

ALEXANDRIA, Va.—A federal judge Friday questioned Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s authority to bring tax and bank-fraud charges unrelated to the 2016 election against former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort.

Judge T.S. Ellis suggested the charges before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia were just part of the Mueller team’s designs to pressure Mr. Manafort into giving up information on President Donald Trump or others in the campaign.

“The vernacular is ‘to sing,’” Judge Ellis said, adding that he had “been here a long time” and likening the strategy to prosecuting a drug case for higher-value information.

The judge appeared sympathetic to Mr. Manafort’s efforts to have the charges dismissed, without indicating he was inclined to do so.

After this article was first published online, Mr. Trump on Friday read part of it aloud from the stage at a National Rifle Association meeting in Dallas, adding, “I’ve been saying that for a long time. It’s a witch hunt.”

Mr. Manafort has been indicted in separate cases in Washington and Virginia over work he did for Russian-backed politicians in Ukraine before the 2016 campaign. Prosecutors allege he failed to report that lobbying work and to pay taxes on millions of dollars in related income, and later falsely inflated his income to obtain $20 million in loans. Mr. Manafort has pleaded not guilty to the charges.

After Mr. Manafort was arraigned on the Virginia charges in March, Judge Ellis said Mr. Manafort “faces the very real possibility of spending the rest of his life in prison,” given “the apparent weight of the evidence against him.”

Mr. Manafort’s legal team has filed to dismiss both cases, arguing that the charges had nothing to do with Mr. Mueller’s mandate of examining Russian interference in the 2016 election.

In a hearing last month, the federal judge overseeing the Washington case was skeptical of Mr. Manafort’s argument. But Judge Ellis, a 1987 appointee of President Ronald Reagan, saved many of his harshest words on Friday for Mr. Mueller’s office.

When Michael Dreeben from the special counsel’s office said the allegations in the Virginia case were covered by the scope of the initial appointment of Mr. Mueller, Judge Ellis retorted, “The scope covers bank fraud from 2005?”

“How does this have anything to do with the campaign?” Judge Ellis asked. After Mr. Dreeben said Mr. Manafort had been in touch with Russia-affiliated people in Ukraine, the judge admonished the prosecutor, saying “You’re running away from my question.”

In court papers, Mr. Mueller’s lawyers have said they have authorization to investigate Mr. Manafort, citing among other things an August memo from Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein laying out avenues of inquiry. Mr. Mueller’s office said the probe “would naturally cover ties that a former Trump campaign manager had to Russian-associated political operatives, Russian-backed politicians, and Russian oligarchs.”

Judge Ellis said Friday it appeared that the special counsel’s office wanted merely to pressure Mr. Manafort to provide information about Mr. Trump or others involved with the campaign.

He also ordered Mr. Mueller‘s office to provide an unredacted copy of the August memo under seal in two weeks. “I’ll be the judge,” he said.

Still, it appeared unlikely Judge Ellis would dismiss the indictment based on Mr. Manafort’s claims, a move that would likely result in another set of federal prosecutors filing similar charges.

Mueller knows this -The best course in dealing with a felonious president is to first remove the president from office through the impeachment process and then indict the former president.

Well, this guy doesn't think Impeachment of Trump is feasible -

Forget About Impeaching Trump

Democrats should be building the legal case for an indictment instead.

[www.politico.com]

"Impeachment is a dead end because the congressional jury pool is tainted. Mueller has been systematically demonized for weeks by Trump and his allies. For example, earlier this week Fox News host Sean Hannity warned of a proverbial “civil war … if Robert Mueller is so pompous and so arrogant and so power hungry and so corrupt” that he would accuse Trump of a crime (as if that’s the only motivation Mueller could possibly have). In turn, more than half of Republicans disapprove of Mueller’s handling of the investigation, giving House Republicans no incentive to get crosswise with their base and support impeachment.

Even if Democrats take control of the House after the November elections, and unify around impeachment (both big ifs), a two-thirds vote of conviction in the Senate is almost surely impossible. In the wildest Democratic midterm election fantasy—a complete sweep of every 2018 Senate contest—Democrats would reach 58 seats, leaving them nine short of a two-thirds supermajority. Realistically, several more than nine Republicans would be needed to convict. But good luck finding even that many who would play Brutus to Trump’s Caesar. The only Republican senators who have vocally criticized Trump got hounded out of running for reelection and won’t be around to convict an impeached president."

Well, this guy doesn't think Impeachment of Trump is feasible -

Forget About Impeaching Trump

Democrats should be building the legal case for an indictment instead.


That may very well be true.


what ever its going to be we should know in the near future.

the political theatre is beyound asburd, Both partys Dems and repubs are Rico, the worlds greatest threats not even on the radar,
we have done a piss poor job for the youth of this world,

Or, if the planet survives 4 whole years of this nut-case president/wanna-be dictator/swamp slurping slug, he can be indicted then. And maybe some of his swamp muck crew along with him.

Lies tend to have a pretty short life-span (like for instance the one Trump told about his ignorance of the $130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels. That one lasted, what, a month?) Truth has much better endurance and will still be around for 2020, just 2 years away.



Edited 8 time(s). Last edit at 05/05/2018 09:27AM by suncloud.

I saw a red tailed fox when I was out running through the forest. She stopped on the trail and then a baby of hers came out. She looked at me for some 5 minutes and then let out a couple of growls to tell me to back off. Amazing...

(LIFE is NOT a dress rehearsal)...

Quote
Jennifer
Well, this guy doesn't think Impeachment of Trump is feasible -

Forget About Impeaching Trump

[www.politico.com]

"Impeachment is a dead end because the congressional jury pool is tainted. Mueller has been systematically demonized for weeks by Trump and his allies. For example, earlier this week Fox News host Sean Hannity warned of a proverbial “civil war … if Robert Mueller is so pompous and so arrogant and so power hungry and so corrupt” that he would accuse Trump of a crime (as if that’s the only motivation Mueller could possibly have). In turn, more than half of Republicans disapprove of Mueller’s handling of the investigation, giving House Republicans no incentive to get crosswise with their base and support impeachment.

Even if Democrats take control of the House after the November elections, and unify around impeachment (both big ifs), a two-thirds vote of conviction in the Senate is almost surely impossible. In the wildest Democratic midterm election fantasy—a complete sweep of every 2018 Senate contest—Democrats would reach 58 seats, leaving them nine short of a two-thirds supermajority. Realistically, several more than nine Republicans would be needed to convict. But good luck finding even that many who would play Brutus to Trump’s Caesar. The only Republican senators who have vocally criticized Trump got hounded out of running for reelection and won’t be around to convict an impeached president."

So because of the Cohen conviction, the Democrats are busting at the seams thinking they're going to impeach Trump as soon as they take the House in November. But it's not going to happen.

Plus Cohen was charged with a crime he didn't commit. It's not against the law for Trump to pay off Stormy Daniels.

Lany Davis had Cohen plead guilty to two counts of criminal law that do not exist - lol

Here's the legal expert/constitutional scholar, Mark Levin, on THE LEGAL FACT that the Cohen guilty plea to the charges of campaign finance violations means absolutely nothing - watch the video at the link - It's fabulous. I love Mark Levin. He's brilliant.

Levin on Cohen guilty plea: ‘Donald Trump’s in the clear’

[www.conservativereview.com]

Tuesday night on Fox News, LevinTV host Mark Levin appeared on “Hannity” to discuss the guilty plea of former Trump attorney Michael Cohen.

Cohen pled guilty Tuesday to charges of campaign finance violations, tax evasion, and false statements to a financial institution. He alleges that candidate Trump directed him to make hush payments to women whom Trump had affairs with to buy their silence during the presidential election. Levin argued that these payments don’t qualify as campaign finance violations and that Cohen’s lawyer, Lanny Davis, convinced his client to plead guilty to criminal offenses that aren’t criminal.

“I wanna help the law professors, the constitutional experts, the criminal defense lawyers, the former prosecutors, and of course the professors, I wanna help them understand what the law is,” Levin said. “The general counsel for the Clinton mob family, Lanny Davis, he had his client plead to two counts of criminality that don’t exist.”

“Just because a prosecutor says that somebody violated a campaign law doesn’t make it so. He’s not the judge; he’s not the jury,” Levin said. “We didn’t adjudicate anything. It never went to court.”

Levin explained that a campaign expenditure under U.S. campaign finance law is an expenditure “solely for campaign activity.” He argued that any supposed reimbursement Trump paid to Cohen with his own money after Cohen paid off Stormy Daniels or any other woman who slept with the president is “perfectly legal.”

“A candidate who spends his own money, or even corporate money, for an event that occurred not as a result of the campaign — it is not a campaign expenditure,” he said.

Levin gave several examples of potential payments Trump could have made, showing that none of them would be illegal.

“Nothing here was spent out of the campaign. Nothing was done with the campaign or to the campaign,” Levin said. “Mr. Lanny Davis had his client plead guilty to two offenses that aren’t offenses that the prosecutor insisted were offenses. That’s why he’s no good.”

“Donald Trump’s in the clear. Let’s say Donald Trump even directed Michael Cohen to make payments in nondisclosure agreements. So what? He’s allowed to do that.”

He concluded by addressing the news media directly.

“I want the news media to understand — you know what took place in the southern district of New York? Nothing that matters. Zippo. There was no violation of campaign laws. Lanny Davis blew it.”

In other words -

Cohen pleaded guilty to a crime that doesn't exist!

*********

Alan Dershowitz: Michael Cohen ‘Pleading Guilty to a Crime that Doesn’t Exist’ so Democrats Will Target Trump

[www.breitbart.com]

Harvard Law School Professor Emeritus Alan Dershowitz said Michael Cohen, President Donald Trump’s former attorney, is “pleading guilty to a crime that doesn’t exist” to further Democrats’ plans to impeach the president. He offered his analysis during a Wednesday interview with Breitbart Senior Editors-at-Large Rebecca Mansour and Joel Pollak on SiriusXM’s Breitbart News Tonight.

I don’t think there’s an impeachable offense,” said Dershowitz. “I believe you need to have a specific crime — treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors — and none of the things that [Michael] Cohen pleaded guilty to would rise to that level or even come close to it. What Cohen pleaded guilty to may not even be a crime, the part about the election campaign laws.”

LISTEN: (This was great!)

[soundcloud.com]

Dershowitz continued, “Even if it’s true that President Trump contributed $280,000 for the explicit purpose of paying hush money in order to prevent the public from knowing that he had these alleged affairs with these two women, that would simply not be a crime. It might be a political sin, but it would not be a crime.”

Dershowitz advised political observers to maintain scrutiny when consuming “media … that is part of the posse of ‘let’s get Trump at all costs.'”

“There’s a hard question about whether any crime has been committed at all,” stated Dershowitz.

Dershowitz maintained that payment for a non-disclosure agreement from a candidate’s personal funds is entirely lawful. Mark Levin echoed this analysis on Tuesday.

Dershowitz explained, “A candidate can give contributions [to his campaign]. So even if it’s true that the only purpose was to help his campaign — obviously it had multiple purposes; it was obviously designed to also prevent embarrassment to his family, his wife, his children, and all that — but even if you could show, even if he had a memo saying, ‘I want you, my lawyer, to pay $80,000. I’ll pay you back. It’s my campaign contribution, and I want it to be hush money in order to help me be elected president,’ no crime. No crime.”

Dershowitz added, “You don’t charge people with a crime when the law is vague.

On Wednesday, Lanny Davis — Clinton associate and Cohen’s attorney — framed Trump’s alleged conduct as amounting to “a high crime and misdemeanor.” Dershowitz rejected Davis’s characterization.

“This isn’t even close to high crimes and misdemeanors,” said Dershowitz. “First of all, it has to be a crime, and this isn’t a crime.”

Dershowitz concluded, “Cohen is pleading guilty to a crime that doesn’t exist. The only reason they put it in there [is because] they had him dead to rights on other crime. The only reason they put it in there is to connect Trump because Trump isn’t connected to any of the other crimes to which he pleaded guilty. Those are real crimes.”

***********

So take that, you Libs.

You got Nothing!

Get over it, RHB.

Back to the drawing board with you guys

Lies Mueller sent the Mobsters to prison Lies Lies and more lies.

Qoute Judge Federal Judge Gertner

-There is no evidence that the assertion is true. I was the federal judge who presided over a successful lawsuit brought against the government by two of those men and the families of the other two, who had died in prison. Based on the voluminous evidence submitted in the trial, and having written a 105-page decision awarding them $101.8 million, I can say without equivocation that Mr. Mueller, who worked in the United States attorney’s office in Boston from 1982 t

Quote
riverhousebill

Lies Mueller sent the Mobsters to prison Lies Lies and more lies.

Qoute Judge Federal Judge Gertner

-There is no evidence that the assertion is true. I was the federal judge who presided over a successful lawsuit brought against the government by two of those men and the families of the other two, who had died in prison. Based on the voluminous evidence submitted in the trial, and having written a 105-page decision awarding them $101.8 million, I can say without equivocation that Mr. Mueller, who worked in the United States attorney’s office in Boston from 1982 t

Lol - is that all you got!

Please listen to last night's Mark Levin Show. He's great! He's a great criminal lawyer and constitutionalist.

He will explain The Truth on what is happening with the latest developments concerning Cohen and the Mueller Witch Hunt, the legality and constitutionality of it -

THE MARK LEVIN SHOW PODCAST AUGUST 24 2018

[www.youtube.com]

THERE IS NO CAMPAIGN VIOLATION!

Cohen pleading to non-existing crimes!