Quantcast
Trump's Personal Lawyer And Campaign Manager Both Going To Prison

Forums - Politics Discussion - Trump's Personal Lawyer And Campaign Manager Both Going To Prison

NightlyPoe said:
Hiku said: 

Anyway, if influencing an investigation leads to obstruction of justice, a president is not allowed to do that. Nixon was charged on obstruction of justice because he tried to use the CIA to interfere with the FBI's investigation. It was his attempts to cover up the crime that got him, rather than the crime itself.

Genuine question:  How do you quote individual lines?

I create a new table for each quote.

Yellow circle is new table.



Select 1 Col and 1 Row.
If you mess something up, you can delete the table by placing your cursor inside of it, then clicking on the button in the red circle.

NightlyPoe said: 
Nixon was never actually charged with anything.

Because congress dropped its impeachment proceedings once he resigned. And President Ford pardoned Nixon from further criminal prosecution.
But before the resignation, they were going to charge him on obstruction of justice.

NightlyPoe said: 
And, yes, using one government agency to interfere with another's investigation would indeed be obstruction of justice.  But Trump didn't do that.  His methods were so straightforward that it was perfectly legal.  He's the president.  He's allowed to make his desires known to his subordinates.  It's shady, but perfectly legal.

By desires, you mean the way he phrased it to Comey? It may depend on how a jury would see it.
If someone walks up to you and says "That's a nice daughter you have there. It'd be a shame if something were to happen to her...", the "I was just expressing my thoughts and concerns" defense probably wouldn't convince a jury that it wasn't a threat. 
Comey said under oath that he was "stunned" by Trump's request, and that he "saw it as a direction".

Couple this with asking Comey for loyalty, and then firing Comey because (at least partially) of the Russia investigation, and it does look like there's a decent case to be made for obstruction of justice. Both when he talked to Comey alone, and when he fired him.

Comey was replaced by a special council, who was appointed right when Trump was interviewing a replacement for Comey, so Trump may very well have just made the situation even worse for himself. But when it comes to obstruction of justice, it doesn't matter whether or not it resulted in the intended outcome. Intent is enough.

NightlyPoe said: 
I'm sure it would.  But information is strictly free in a legal sense.  Otherwise, anyone that offered a candidate good advise that they take and see an uptick in their polls would be violating campaign finance laws because that advise was worth more than $2,700.

I don't know that "a think of value" would be measured in dollars. I don't expect that to be the case.
However, this law relates to something of value gained from a foreign nation. If this wasn't a legal issue, Trump and his team probably wouldn't change their story about his knowledge and involvement of this meeting multiple times, and his son wouldn't have been questioned about it by the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Though since I'm not a legal expert, I can only comment on how it appears. But legal experts are saying that they could very well have committed a crime.

Former federal prosecutor Jeff Cramer said that if Trump approved the meeting, it was “clearly a violation of criminal law”—specifically, the campaign-finance laws that prohibit campaigns from soliciting things of value from foreign nationals. “And it gives color to all the cover-ups,” Cramer said.  Trump and his surrogates have denied that the president knew about the meeting approximately 20 times over the last year. Trump also personally dictated a misleading statement about the meeting on his son’s behalf, which left out the fact that the Russians had offered the campaign dirt on Clinton.

Michael Zeldin, a former federal prosecutor in the Justice Department’s Criminal Division and a former special counsel to then–Assistant Attorney General Robert Mueller, said that if prosecutors “could establish that Trump approved the meeting with foreign nationals to receive derogatory information about his opponent—a thing of value—it would fall squarely within the black letter of campaign-finance laws. It would be difficult to dispute that the campaign received a thing of value when the candidate knew of the purpose and approved of the meeting.”

If former federal prosecutors say it would be a clear cut case of a crime, then I don't think it's something that can be ruled out.

NightlyPoe said: 
That is factually incorrect.  The travel restrictions were upheld in several courts.  And those courts that issued injunctions found them overturned by the Supreme Court long before June.  Furthermore, the notion that they had to be redrafted many times is incorrect.  The original travel restrictions were indeed flawed as they could be interpreted to restrict travel for people who already had legal access to the United States, even green card holders.  However, instructions quickly went out stating not to interpret the orders that way.  The travel restrictions then had a single major renovation about a month later which stood in courts and was allowed to remain in effect until it expired on its own.  Once the temporary restrictions expired, Trump then issued the presidential proclamation that is currently in effect.

The notion that the travel restrictions had to be re-written several times is a false narrative.  The truth is that there was only one significant revision, and that was issued barely a month later.

Well here's how I read it;

"Large portions of the order were subsequently blocked by federal courts, which ruled that those sections violated the Fifth Amendment. The revised Executive Order 13780 was also blocked by the courts. The third version, Presidential Proclamation 9645, was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States on June 26, 2018 in the case Trump v. Hawaii."

It sounds like there were three versions of the travel ban. The first two were in the form of executive orders, and the third was through a presidential proclamation.
As for what changed in the third version, I've only skimmed through it, but one change between version 2 and 3 was that Sudan was no longer on the list of banned countries. It was in Version 2.

I wasn't aware that some courts upheld it though, so that was my mistake. Not sure which 'Yellen' you're refering to. But my point was that Sally Yates decision to oppose it was not an outlandish decision that several courts, including the Supreme Court, didn't do as well.
Yates was told by Ted Cruz that she was fired because she refused to implement an executive order based on a law that grants the president the right to "suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants."
Yates added that there was a provision added to that very law, that stated: "no person shall receive preference or be discriminated against an issuance of a visa because of race, nationality, or place of birth".

She was probably fired primarily due to this and the fact that she was supposed to leave anyway.
But it's interesting to see the timeline of her contact with the White House about Michael Flynn.
She was acting Attorney General between Jan 20 - Jan 30.

And she was in contact with the White House about her concerns over Flynn on January 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, and 30.
The 28th and 29th were Saturday and Sunday (not sure if she worked those days) but basically she was in contact with the White House about her concerns over Flynn pretty much every day since she first raised the issue, until she got fired.
Here's a timeline of events: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/timeline-sally-yates-warnings-white-house-mike-flynn/story?id=47272979

Considering how Trump risked obstruction of justice charges with Comey to protect Flynn, it's not out of the realm of possibility that another reason for why he fired Yates was to get her to stop inquiring about Flynn. But that's a thought I would only revisit if we at one point find out that Flynn knows something very damaging for Trump. Until then, it's just something to keep in mind.

NightlyPoe said: 
That's not the way precedent works.

Ah, so that's the disconnect.  There was no jury.  Cohen plead guilty.  That stopped there from being any "actual controversy" for the court to decide.  Hence, no judge ever ruled on it and there is no precedent to be had.

So the onus is still on the prosecution for any future cases to prove that their interpretation of the law is correct.

I didn't actually mean a precedence in legal terms. I probably should have avoided that term. But it was similar to what I had in mind, so.

I don't mean that the Cohen case would establish how future cases on this particular law is handled. I meant that in the eventuality of a Trump trial, the fact that Cohen was convicted for a crime for doing the exact same thing, is something that the jury would be aware of, when they make their decision. So if you're a member of the jury and leaning towards believing it was a crime, it would be hard to ignore that another man pleaded guilty to doing exactly that. Knowing that someone was sentenced for this exact thing can prevent second guessing yourself.

By 'the onus is on Trump's legal team' I was referring to changing the only legal ruling we have on the act.
Cohen is to be sentenced for committing a crime. And Trump was named as a co-conspirator in that crime.
If the act that Cohen committed is ever going to be considered anything but criminal, it would be Trump's legal team who would be tasked with doing it. Of course, they wouldn't just voluntarily do this for no reason. It would start with the prosecution making a case against Trump.

All I originally meant to say was, if there would ever be a day where courts would potentially define the Cohen payoff as legal, rather than illegal, Trump would need to stand trial for that. The reason I said that in response to you talking about whether or not it was a crime, is because it would be very interesting to see Trump stand trial.

NightlyPoe said: 
I'm not sure how federal laws would make it worse.  Personally, I think that perjury is the bigger crime as it comes to being a president.  If this were firmly law, I might think they were equal, but the stretched interpretation needed to charge Trump seems a lesser crime than the bright line that Clinton crossed.

And, like I said, I haven't seen anything that makes me think the Russia stuff is anything more than a dry well.

Oh no, I mean "the crime" that the coverup is meant to hide, rather than the cover up itself.
And to avoid further confusion, I'll state this right now. Clinton having sex wasn't a crime, which is why I put it in quotations. And I'm aware that the coverup of it is a crime.

What I mean is, Clinton's coverup was ultimately about having sex. Trump's coverup would be about federal law, and possibly several other things as well that are much more severe than having sex in the oval office.
One of the reasons Democrats didn't vote against Clinton during the impeachment, aside from party over country, and how deep the cover up went (he didn't fire anyone investigating him for example) was probably the nature of the act he was trying to cover up.
If it wasn't sex, but a matter of national security, or worse, then we may very well have seen a different turnout.
However, I will say that I doubt "sex in the office" vs "campaign finance laws" would make much of a difference (on the assumption that Trump and Clinton's coverups went equally deep). It would have to be something more serious.


But it may very well come down to how deep and severe the cover up is.

NightlyPoe said: 
Well, Trump hasn't said anything under oath so far, so you're literally projecting a future crime.  Though I don't disagree and I expect that's why Trump will never answer any questions under oath.  The guy is a B.S. artist by birth and can't help himself.

Either way, until he actually is placed under oath he certainly hasn't committed perjury, so it doesn't matter as to this discussion.

Yeah, but because it's Trump of all people, it's something worth thinking about. I watched the Comey hearing live, at a sports bar. I don't know who asked them to flip to that channel, but I was surprised to see so many people interested in it, in a sports bar of all places.
Anyway, as fascinated as I was to hear what Comey had to say, you bet I would be many times more interested to see how Trump speaks under oath considering his history with saying things that aren't true. I almost wouldn't be surprised if he perjures himself on something completely irrelevant and unnecessary.

NightlyPoe said: 
It's possible.  But the whole thing really feels like a fishing expedition to me.  Since the start I thought that it would follow the typical presidential investigative course and come up empty on the original charge, but morph into catching people on process charges or other completely unrelated items.  See Clinton's investigation starting with Whitewater or the Valarie Plame investigation hitting Scooter Libby, not the leaker, on perjury.

frankly find the hubbub about Russia itself to be a lot of wishful thinking.

Well the purpose of the investigation was to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 election. On that note, it's staying on track, with more indictments and guilty pleas rolling in all the time. Though some of these charges that have come as a result of the investigation have been unrelated to the Russian interference. But that's just fine if you ask me. The more crooks they take off the streets, the better.
It's not a Trump investigation. If he was involved somehow then that's a bonus for anyone who wants Trump gone, but even in the case that they find no wrongdoing from Trump, it's important that they're able to finish their investigation properly.

Last edited by Hiku - on 23 August 2018

Around the Network
bowserthedog said:
Hiku said:

By "excessive donations", are you referring to the hush money Cohen paid to the women?
Well in this case we have a criminal conviction for just that, while his co-conspirator, and the person who instructed him to do it, was named under oath.
I believe the Sander's case you're referring to was in regards to some Australian's who offered to volunteer for his campaign? The difference there was that it seemingly was an honest mistake, and it involved something of relatively low value in comparison, so they simply paid a fine for it. Not to mention that Sanders himself probably wasn't aware of every volunteer working for him. In this case we not only have Trump and Cohen on tape discussing the matter (and there's supposedly more info to come), but according to Cohen's lawyer just now, Trump's lawyers wrote to the special council and told them that Trump "directed Cohen to make that payment."
So there seems to be no question or dispute of Trump's involvement. But his legal team would probably try to make the case that it didn't break campaign finance laws, if he were to stand trial.
And since Cohen was convicted on this specific charge, it certainly raises the possibility that the named co-constrictor of this criminal charge stands trial as well, if possible. 

As I said in an earlier post. Clinton was impeached for lying about having sex in his office. In comparison, this seems like a bigger deal.

It may "seem" that way. But its not.  There's nothing illegal about paying hush money. 

Cohen pleaded guilty to breaking campaign finance laws due to those hush payments.
If the payments would benefit Trump's campaign, they should be registered as campaign finances. And they were not.

Last edited by Hiku - on 23 August 2018

bowserthedog said:
Hiku said:

By "excessive donations", are you referring to the hush money Cohen paid to the women?
Well in this case we have a criminal conviction for just that, while his co-conspirator, and the person who instructed him to do it, was named under oath.
I believe the Sander's case you're referring to was in regards to some Australian's who offered to volunteer for his campaign? The difference there was that it seemingly was an honest mistake, and it involved something of relatively low value in comparison, so they simply paid a fine for it. Not to mention that Sanders himself probably wasn't aware of every volunteer working for him. In this case we not only have Trump and Cohen on tape discussing the matter (and there's supposedly more info to come), but according to Cohen's lawyer just now, Trump's lawyers wrote to the special council and told them that Trump "directed Cohen to make that payment."
So there seems to be no question or dispute of Trump's involvement. But his legal team would probably try to make the case that it didn't break campaign finance laws, if he were to stand trial.
And since Cohen was convicted on this specific charge, it certainly raises the possibility that the named co-constrictor of this criminal charge stands trial as well, if possible. 

As I said in an earlier post. Clinton was impeached for lying about having sex in his office. In comparison, this seems like a bigger deal.

It may "seem" that way. But its not.  There's nothing illegal about paying hush money. 

I guess it's too bad that Cohen didn't consult you before he pleaded guilty.  Your expertise on finance law could have saved him a world of trouble.



Paying someone to be quiet about an affair is not a crime. Using your own money to pay is not a crime. Running a campaign for 17 months as Trump did means you need people to help including a Manager. Manifort was Manager for less than 4 months of that 17 months. Every charge against Manifort was from 5-10 years ago. Before he even knew Trump. I guess Trump could have asked he was hiding any decade old crimes before hiring the guy.[?] Cohen needs to save his skin so badly he plea dealed for something that isn't a crime[paying your own money to get silence by Trump]. He purposely picked a Clintons friend as a lawyer, Lanny Davis. And not one iota of any of this is related to Russian anything. That dossier says 14 times that Cohen went to Prague to meet with Russians. Lanny Davis says those are 14 lies. Davis HATES Trump. So all-in-all Trump is feeling sad that two of his employees are probably going to jail because of the fake witch hunt into Russian collusion which caught up these two men for something else they might have done. Can't wait to see what goes down when the Congress finally gets to look into the Hillary Collusion net she made. Then maybe some justice will get to see the light of day...



Wiibaron said:
Paying someone to be quiet about an affair is not a crime. Using your own money to pay is not a crime. Running a campaign for 17 months as Trump did means you need people to help including a Manager. Manifort was Manager for less than 4 months of that 17 months. Every charge against Manifort was from 5-10 years ago. Before he even knew Trump. I guess Trump could have asked he was hiding any decade old crimes before hiring the guy.[?] Cohen needs to save his skin so badly he plea dealed for something that isn't a crime[paying your own money to get silence by Trump]. He purposely picked a Clintons friend as a lawyer, Lanny Davis. And not one iota of any of this is related to Russian anything. That dossier says 14 times that Cohen went to Prague to meet with Russians. Lanny Davis says those are 14 lies. Davis HATES Trump. So all-in-all Trump is feeling sad that two of his employees are probably going to jail because of the fake witch hunt into Russian collusion which caught up these two men for something else they might have done. Can't wait to see what goes down when the Congress finally gets to look into the Hillary Collusion net she made. Then maybe some justice will get to see the light of day...

If the payment Cohen made would benefit Trump's campaign (and Cohen said they were made to influence the election), then it had to be registered under campaign finances.

And according to Trump himself yesterday on Fox News, it sounds like it wasn't his money initially. Because he said "I learned of the payments later on".
Which doesn't make any sense anyway because we've heard him on tape discussing at least one of the payments before it happened, but whatever.

As for Manafort, he was found guilty of two bank fraud charges from 2016. But he will face the more serious charges against him in his next trial in a few weeks.

Last edited by Hiku - on 23 August 2018

Around the Network
Hiku said:

That Cohen said that Trump instructed him and co-conspired with him to commit federal crimes is huge.
If Trump had not won the election, he would likely have been indicted. (You can't indict a sitting president.)

I'm also interested in the second trial for Manafort coming up. He's 69 years old, and will likely spend the rest of his life in prison just on the 8 convictions he got from the first trial. If he has something incriminating on Trump, now would be the time to make a deal with the special council. 
If he doesn't and Trump doesn't pardon him, then at least one crook is off the streets.

NightlyPoe said: 
Manafort doesn't amount to much. His run at the top of the Trump campaign for like five minutes before getting fired because Trump's inner circle didn't trust him. And his convictions don't have anything to do with Trump.

Cohen, on the other hand, by implicating Trump in the pay off, is a real thing and the first time that Trump is facing any real exposure.

There will be a second trial for Manafort in a few weeks, and that one is where the more serious charges come in.
It will be very interesting to see how that plays out, because if he has something incriminating on Trump to hand over to the special council, this is the time he would do it.
Manafort was present during the infamous Trump tower meeting where they went to get dirt on Hillary Clinton from a Russian official, so he may have something in regards to that.

If Trump all of a sudden pardons Manafort before the second trial is over, then we can be 100% sure that he has something valuable to offer the special council in a plea deal.

Xxain said: 
Gawd damn. What does mean for trump himself?

Because he is the president, he is exempt from being indicted for crimes. But the house can move to impeach him on these grounds. However, the Republicans control the house and will undoubtedly not do it. But if enough people vote democrat in the midterms this year, he could very well be impeached for this and stand trial.

AS to the part about a sitting president cant be indicted, that is not entirely true. Actually Clinton tried to make this defense in the Paula Jones case and the Supreme Court explicitly stated that not even the President is above the law and could still be dragged into court. Instead, what is going on here, is the Justice Department has a policy that they will not indict a sitting president as to not have the President distracted from his duties to defend himself in court.

But this policy has never been tested, tbh. It brings about an interesting legal question, and a constitutional crisis likened to that in the Nixon administration. However, it is important to note this is a prosecutorial discretion moment, not a constitutional one. As far as the Constitution and the Supreme Court is concerned, a US president is not above the law and can be indicted by a federal prosecutor and brought before a court.



Zucas said:
Hiku said:

That Cohen said that Trump instructed him and co-conspired with him to commit federal crimes is huge.
If Trump had not won the election, he would likely have been indicted. (You can't indict a sitting president.)

I'm also interested in the second trial for Manafort coming up. He's 69 years old, and will likely spend the rest of his life in prison just on the 8 convictions he got from the first trial. If he has something incriminating on Trump, now would be the time to make a deal with the special council. 
If he doesn't and Trump doesn't pardon him, then at least one crook is off the streets.

There will be a second trial for Manafort in a few weeks, and that one is where the more serious charges come in.
It will be very interesting to see how that plays out, because if he has something incriminating on Trump to hand over to the special council, this is the time he would do it.
Manafort was present during the infamous Trump tower meeting where they went to get dirt on Hillary Clinton from a Russian official, so he may have something in regards to that.

If Trump all of a sudden pardons Manafort before the second trial is over, then we can be 100% sure that he has something valuable to offer the special council in a plea deal.

Because he is the president, he is exempt from being indicted for crimes. But the house can move to impeach him on these grounds. However, the Republicans control the house and will undoubtedly not do it. But if enough people vote democrat in the midterms this year, he could very well be impeached for this and stand trial.

AS to the part about a sitting president cant be indicted, that is not entirely true. Actually Clinton tried to make this defense in the Paula Jones case and the Supreme Court explicitly stated that not even the President is above the law and could still be dragged into court. Instead, what is going on here, is the Justice Department has a policy that they will not indict a sitting president as to not have the President distracted from his duties to defend himself in court.

But this policy has never been tested, tbh. It brings about an interesting legal question, and a constitutional crisis likened to that in the Nixon administration. However, it is important to note this is a prosecutorial discretion moment, not a constitutional one. As far as the Constitution and the Supreme Court is concerned, a US president is not above the law and can be indicted by a federal prosecutor and brought before a court.

That is interesting. I didn't know the origin of that claim, but I saw it mentioned in many places.
I guess it's more like, it's unlikely for the Justice Department to indict a sitting president. But then I guess it would come down to the severity of the charges?

And who would be the one to make this decision? Jeff Sessions?

Last edited by Hiku - on 23 August 2018

Hiku said:
Zucas said:

AS to the part about a sitting president cant be indicted, that is not entirely true. Actually Clinton tried to make this defense in the Paula Jones case and the Supreme Court explicitly stated that not even the President is above the law and could still be dragged into court. Instead, what is going on here, is the Justice Department has a policy that they will not indict a sitting president as to not have the President distracted from his duties to defend himself in court.

But this policy has never been tested, tbh. It brings about an interesting legal question, and a constitutional crisis likened to that in the Nixon administration. However, it is important to note this is a prosecutorial discretion moment, not a constitutional one. As far as the Constitution and the Supreme Court is concerned, a US president is not above the law and can be indicted by a federal prosecutor and brought before a court.

That is interesting. I didn't know the origin of that claim, but I saw it mentioned in many places.
I guess it's more like, it's unlikely for the Justice Department to indict a sitting president. But then I guess it would come down to the severity of the charges?

And who would be the one to make this decision? Jeff Sessions? But he recused himself from matters involving the Russia investigation, and I'm not sure if this case counts.

I mean for the most part it is accurate and I think it is highly unlikely the Justice Department would ever want to indict a president. But again, this hasn't been tested because usually the president isn't in this situation. That's why I think it comes down to the severity of the crime. As to who makes the decision, I'm not even sure the Justice Department knows that answer. If I was an attorney with the Justice Department right now, I wouldn't want to make that call. As of right now, the federal prosecutor at the Southern District of New York can make that call as it was their case with Cohen. But again, this will come down to a lot more internal discussion than just this person's decision.

I would love to write some law and policy about this matter to help guide the Justice Department haha. But they will likely take the safer route and see if impeachment proceedings occur. The political process is there for a reason I suppose. 



Hiku said:

By desires, you mean the way he phrased it to Comey? It may depend on how a jury would see it.
If someone walks up to you and says "That's a nice daughter you have there. It'd be a shame if something were to happen to her...", the "I was just expressing my thoughts and concerns" defense probably wouldn't convince a jury.
Comey said under oath that he was "stunned" by Trump's request, and that he "saw it as a direction".

Let me make this as clear as I can.  If Trump had walked up to Comey and said "I order you to drop the matter and will fire you if you don't" that still would have been legal.  As the president, that's completely within his power and is not obstruction of justice.  We don't have to dance around whether it was an implied order or threat or whatever.

Heck, Trump publicly attacks and threatens to fire Sessions and Rosenstein all the time on this matter and others.  It's still not obstruction of justice.

You throw around the term "obstruction of justice", but as a criminal matter, Trump is totally in the clear as far as his conversation with Comey goes.

Of course, impeachment is a political matter, so the law is more vague.  If Trump were using his position to defend himself, one could say that it is "high crimes" which is a lower standard than it sounds.  It basically means that people in office need to execute their duties faithfully, which, if Trump is refusing to execute laws faithfully, he is not doing.  Of course, the last president expanded the definition of prosecutorial discretion rather broadly.

If former federal prosecutors say it would be a clear cut case of a crime, then I don't think it's something that can be ruled out.

The problem is that when we get talking heads, they say stupid stuff.  A few weeks ago we had the former CIA Director running around saying that Trump committed treason in his meeting with Putin, which was, of course, ridiculous.

Well here's how I read it;

"Large portions of the order were subsequently blocked by federal courts, which ruled that those sections violated the Fifth Amendment. The revised Executive Order 13780 was also blocked by the courts. The third version, Presidential Proclamation 9645, was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States on June 26, 2018 in the case Trump v. Hawaii."

I'm not sure what your source is, but the Supreme Court, starting in June 2017, the Supreme Court lifted the injunctions and began to do so routinely until they made their ruling.  That is the simple fact of the matter.

But my point was that Sally Yates decision to oppose it was not an outlandish decision that several courts, including the Supreme Court, didn't do as well.

My bad about the misnaming (Yellen is the former Fed chair btw).

My point is that it was not Sally Yates job to make that decision at all.  If she felt that the president's instructions were illegal and she couldn't, in good conscience follow them, that's fine.  The proper course of action is to resign.  There's honor in that.  When Nixon ordered his attorney general to fire Archibald Cox, the special prosecutor investigating Watergate, the the attorney general submitted his resignation instead of complying.  When Nixon then ordered the deputy attorney general to do the same, he also received a resignation instead.

My point, above all, is that it is not for Yates or anyone else within government to order a major department of government to ignore the orders and undermine the policies of the President of the United States.  If she cannot participate in the execution of the president's directives, then she leaves.

She was probably fired primarily due to this and the fact that she was supposed to leave anyway.
But it's interesting to see the timeline of her contact with the White House and Michael Flynn.

There's nothing interesting about it.  The timing and cause for Yates's dismissal was entirely her own.  The minute she tried to take the justice department rogue, Trump had to fire her.  Can you think of any president that would countenance an agency head that declares themselves sovereign over its affairs and not the chief executive?  I'm sorry, but I'm not even going to entertain the conspiracy theory about this.  She left Trump with no choice.

Considering how Trump risked obstruction of justice charges with Comey to protect Flynn,

Again, there was no risk of obstruction of justice charges.  That whole segment of view on the matter needs to dissolve because you're basing a lot on a falsehood there.

I meant that in the eventuality of a Trump trial, the fact that Cohen was convicted for a crime for doing the exact same thing, is something that the jury would be aware of, when they make their decision.

Are you going down the road of how jurors can be mislead?  I don't see how that's relevant to the discussion.

By 'the onus is on Trump's legal team' I was referring to changing the only legal ruling we have on the act.

There is no legal ruling in existence.  Cohen's pleading guilty does not change that the interpretation is untested.

What I mean is, Clinton's coverup was ultimately about having sex. 

Actually, it was in regards to a sexual harassment lawsuit, which I'll grant you isn't as serious a charge as it's a civil matter.  Though as morality goes, sexual harassment actually does rank as worse than paying someone to not talk and tripping over a new interpretation of election law.

Yeah, but because it's Trump of all people, it's something worth thinking about.

I'm not holding my breath on that ever happening.  His lawyers know better.

Cohen pleaded guilty to breaking campaign finance laws due to those hush payments.
If the payments would benefit Trump's campaign, they should be registered as campaign finances. And they were not.

Hmm, I think you just talked your way into a hole in the legal reasoning.  Would Trump even be allowed to use campaign funds to pay these women off?  I rather think not.  It would be a misappropriation of funds.  Therefore, it could well be argued that these can't be campaign contributions specifically because the law precludes the possibility.

Huh.

Thanks for the assistance on block quotes.



Xxain said:
Gawd damn. What does mean for trump himself?

That he had his lawyer commit a crime, that his lawyer is now sentenced for?

If thats not enough for impeachment then I dont know what is.