Jolted by ex-allies' criminal cases, Trump faces election and legal risks

[webfact]

Jolted by ex-allies' criminal cases, Trump faces election and legal risks

By Steve Holland and James Oliphant

 

U.S. President Donald Trump speaks to the news media on the tarmac about the federal conviction of his former presidential campaign chairman Paul Manafort as the president arrives for a campaign event in Charleston, West Virginia, U.S. August 21, 2018. REUTERS/Leah Millis

 

WASHINGTON/CHARLESTON, W.Va. (Reuters) - President Donald Trump suffered twin setbacks on Tuesday with two ex-advisers facing prison sentences - and one of them saying Trump told him to commit a crime - possibly hurting his Republican Party's election prospects and widening a criminal probe that has overshadowed his presidency.

 

Within minutes of each other in separate courts, former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort was found guilty on tax and bank fraud charges, while Trump's former personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, pleaded guilty to a range of charges.

 

Cohen also testified that Trump directed him to commit a crime by arranging payments ahead of the 2016 presidential election to silence two women who said they had had affairs with Trump.

 

The setbacks refocused attention on Special Counsel Robert Mueller's inquiry into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election, whether Trump's campaign colluded with Moscow and whether Trump obstructed justice by firing then-FBI Director James Comey, who was formerly in charge of the investigation.

 

Trump has denied collusion, calling Mueller's probe a "witch hunt."

 

Of the two latest developments, Cohen's plea deal was the more troublesome, said those around Trump.

 

"We've dubbed him Michael 'the Rat' Cohen," said one source close to the president, who asked not to be identified.

 

"A bad day for the home team," the source said, adding that the legal woes could depress voter turnout and increase Republicans' risk of losing their 23-seat majority in the House of Representatives in November's congressional elections.

 

"This hurts our midterm prospects."

 

A Democratic victory in November would limit Trump's ability to push through legislation and increase the risk of calls for his impeachment.

 

Cohen's lawyer, Lanny Davis, said late on Tuesday that his client was "more than happy" to tell Mueller's legal team everything he knows about Trump.

 

Democrats pounced on the Cohen and Manafort cases, saying they bolstered their argument that the Trump White House was weighed down by scandal.

 

"The American people deserve answers regarding the president’s role in these corrupt and criminal actions," said Democratic Representative Rosa DeLauro.

 

Rodell Mollineau, a senior Democratic strategist, said the news "adds to a constant drumbeat that will ultimately affect some independent voters" and help Democrats at the polls.

 

"Manafort being convicted, on its own, might not sway any votes. But given the totality of criminality uncovered ... it will be hard for some Republicans to ignore and even harder to explain.”

 

Still, there were no immediate calls for Trump's impeachment and Republican lawmakers did not join the chorus of criticism from Democratic ranks.

 

LOYAL SUPPORT

The long-term impact of the Cohen and Manafort cases will likely depend on how they affect the turnout of Republican and Democratic voters in November.

 

While he undoubtedly had a bad day on Tuesday, some analysts said Trump might be able to turn the setbacks to his advantage by reinforcing core supporters' views that he is under siege, said Andy Smith, director of the University of New Hampshire Survey Center.

 

"In midterm elections, the president’s party tends to be less interested and less motivated to vote. But one thing that will motivate people to get out and vote is if they believe the party is being attacked unfairly," he said.

 

At a rally in Charleston, West Virginia, on Tuesday night, a relatively subdued Trump did not mention either the Cohen or Manafort case.

 

Instead, as supporters cheered him on, he made fun of his opponents' focus on the Mueller investigation, saying they were desperate to find collusion with Russians.

 

"Where is the collusion? Where is it?" he said, mimicking his critics.

 

Josh McGrew, who traveled from Huntington, West Virginia, for the rally, called the investigation a “smear campaign” and said his support for Trump was unshaken.

 

“This is all about finding out anything they can in somebody’s past,” McGrew said. “They haven’t come up with anything in a year and a half, almost two years.”

 

Polling by Ipsos/Reuters has shown Trump's job approval rating holding steady at about 40 percent, even with Mueller's investigation already bringing guilty pleas by several former Trump advisers.

 

The Cohen and Manafort cases were unlikely to erode Trump's support from his political base or the Republican Party establishment, said Larry Sabato, a political analyst and director of the University of Virginia Center for Politics.

 

“I don’t think there is any change at all,” said Sabato. “That’s the amazing part of it. The Trump base and virtually the entire Republican Party could care less. The polls will bear me out.”

 

(Reporting by Steve Holland and James Oliphant; Additional reporting by Ginger Gibson and Jonathan Landay; Editing by Kevin Drawbaugh and Peter Cooney)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2018-08-22

[zaphod reborn]

And no mention that the first two GOP congressmen who pledged support for the Trump for president campaign have now been indicted.

 

Rep. Chris Collins - first to pledge support, indicted for insider trading for calls to his son to sell stock based on information from a hearing that the family's stock holdings in a biotech were about to plummet in value following a failed drug trial.  The calls were made from the White House lawn at a BBQ party.

 

Rep. Duncan Hunter -second to pledge support, was indicted yesterday for using campaign funds for family vacations in Hawaii and Italy, his childrens' educational expenses and other personal expenses.

 

Basically, two seats that were firmly in GOP control for the upcoming midterms (Buffalo NY and San Diego CA) that are probably going to go to the dems.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/21/us/politics/duncan-hunter-indicted.html  

Edited August 22, 2018 by zaphod reborn

[mtls2005]

1 hour ago, webfact said:

"Where is the collusion? Where is it?" he said, mimicking his critics.

 

It's always a nothing-burger until it isn't.

 

Why are trump/supporters so eager for "collusion" (conspiracy) to be charged?

 

When it is so charged, they will have an "excuse"..."I didn't know Vladimir was a Russian."

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 22, 2018 by mtls2005

[Thailand]

House of cards?

[Bluespunk]

5 hours ago, webfact said:

 

Within minutes of each other in separate courts, former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort was found guilty on tax and bank fraud charges, while Trump's former personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, pleaded guilty to a range of charges.

Lock them up

 

Lock them up

 

Lock them up...

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

From reading the day's news coverage, one problem I'm seeing here is explanation about the Justice Department's interpretation (and it's just that interpretation, never tested in court, apparently) that the Constitution somehow prevents the Justice Department from charging a sitting U.S. president with criminal offenses.

 

I don't know that I agree with either that interpretation or the wisdom of that kind of policy. Whatever happened to the notion that NO ONE is above the law, not even the president?

 

Just as a common citizen, I can accept the notion that perhaps a president, if found guilty of a crime, cannot be incarcerated while holding office. But especially if the criminal offenses relate to campaigning for office or the person's official conduct in office, I think it's a bad precedent to give president's blanket immunity while in office.

 

Recall that years ago, Trump's current Supreme Court nominee wanted to hang Bill Clinton from the yardarms over the Monica Lewinsky affair, and wanted/demanded to question under oath a sitting president about whether he stuck things into the woman's private parts -- which had nothing to do with his official duties or actions as a candidate or president.

 

But now, somehow, the same hypocrite nominee seems to think that sitting presidents should not be "burdened" with either civil or criminal litigation while in office, and the only recourse should be either impeachment by Congress or prosecution after they've left office.

 

If he makes it onto the Supreme Court, the swamp of Trump's presidency is only going to get deeper and deeper.

Edited August 22, 2018 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

1 hour ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

From reading the day's news coverage, one problem I'm seeing here is explanation about the Justice Department's interpretation (and it's just that interpretation, never tested in court, apparently) that the Constitution somehow prevents the Justice Department from charging a sitting U.S. president with criminal offenses.

 

I don't know that I agree with either that interpretation or the wisdom of that kind of policy. Whatever happened to the notion that NO ONE is above the law, not even the president?

 

 

Here's the article I was mentioning above that offers the context about the Justice Department interpretation that it cannot indict a sitting U.S. president for criminal charges:

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/cohens-claim-about-trump-may-spark-calls-for-impeachment-but-is-unlikely-to-lead-to-charges/2018/08/21/4e432aec-a167-11e8-93e3-24d1703d2a7a_story.html

 

 

Quote

 

Such an explosive assertion against anyone but the president would suggest that a criminal case could be in the offing, but under long-standing legal interpretations by the Justice Department, the president cannot be charged with a crime.
 

The department produced legal analyses in 1973 and 2000 concluding that the Constitution does not allow for the criminal indictment of a sitting president.
 

Those opinions have never been tested in court, and doing so would require a prosecutor to buck the department’s guidance and attempt to bring charges anyway.

 

 

But there is another party/entity that certainly could be criminally charged with the same offense in this sordid affair, and that's the National Enquirer / American Media Inc., which basically played the same role in this as Cohen and with the same motivation of making big payments to benefit and protect Trump's candidacy.

 

Quote

 

Prosecutors left little doubt that A.M.I. Inc., owner of The National Enquirer, became a de facto campaign proxy for Mr. Cohen in his efforts on behalf of Mr. Trump.

According to court papers, the publisher agreed in August 2015, months before the first primaries, to look out for damaging stories about Mr. Trump and his alleged affairs with women during talks with Mr. Cohen and “one or more” members of Mr. Trump’s campaign.

The tabloid company agreed to identify those stories “so they could be purchased and their publication avoided,” the prosecutors said on Tuesday — an inverted role for a tabloid scandal sheet such as The Enquirer, which went on to savage Mr. Trump’s opponents while promoting and protecting him.

That deal led to the arrangement with Ms. McDougal, which was struck in August 2016. It only came together, prosecutors said, after Mr. Cohen promised A.M.I. it would be reimbursed for the McDougal payment.

 

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/21/nyregion/michael-cohen-plea-deal-trump.html

[saminoz]

13 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

Here's the article I was mentioning above that offers the context about the Justice Department interpretation that it cannot indict a sitting U.S. president for criminal charges:

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/cohens-claim-about-trump-may-spark-calls-for-impeachment-but-is-unlikely-to-lead-to-charges/2018/08/21/4e432aec-a167-11e8-93e3-24d1703d2a7a_story.html

 

 

 

But there is another party/entity that certainly could be criminally charged with the same offense in this sordid affair, and that's the National Enquirer / American Media Inc., which basically played the same role in this as Cohen and with the same motivation of making big payments to benefit and protect Trump's candidacy.

 

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/21/nyregion/michael-cohen-plea-deal-trump.html

The very fact that we, as removed as we are from this cesspool, are debating and discussing this here, and in these terms, is a sure sign of the immeasurable damage the orange buffoon has done to the Presidency, the USA and Democracy itself!

Honestly, I think a single assassin's bullet would be the kindest, most charitable outcome for this charlatan.

Whichever way this ends (and it is not going to be nice and clean) this idiot has runined not only his future, but those of his many sycophants too.

You reap what you sow.

I don't envy whoever has to take over from this cretin and try to restore some semblance of dignity to the role of POTUS and try to re-establish the USA as a credible democracy and legitimate world power.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

2 minutes ago, saminoz said:

The very fact that we, as removed as we are from this cesspool, are debating and discussing this here, and in these terms, is a sure sign of the immeasurable damage the orange buffoon has done to the Presidency, the USA and Democracy itself!

Honestly, I think a single assassin's bullet would be the kindest, most charitable outcome for this charlatan.

Whichever way this ends (and it is not going to be nice and clean) this idiot has runined not only his future, but those of his many sycophants too.

You reap what you sow.

I don't envy whoever has to take over from this cretin and try to restore some semblance of dignity to the role of POTUS and try to re-establish the USA as a credible democracy and legitimate world power.

 

I can't and won't endorse your 2nd pgh comment...

 

But everything else, agree 100%.

[mtls2005]

We're told that the president is too busy golfing, tanning, campaigning, rallying to take the time to defend himself on criminal charges.

 

Who knew we'd elect a criminal, and have to deal with these questions?

 

Indict him, then try him after he leaves office.

 

Impeach and convict him in Congress. He might be impeached in the House, he'll never be convicted in the Senate barring some really startling evidence (bodily fluids).

 

 

 

 

[saminoz]

16 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

I can't and won't endorse your 2nd pgh comment...

 

But everything else, agree 100%.

"I can't and won't endorse your 2nd pgh comment..."

Understood and respected Sir.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

In my common man's view, I'd argue the situation depends on the offense (recognizing this common sense approach is apparently not what the Justice Department would follow):

 

--If a president has committed some campaign finance laws offense only, I don't see that as grounds for impeachment or removal from office. But I still think if a president has committed a crime, they should be able to be prosecuted for it.

 

--If a president has engaged in a deliberate conspiracy to delude the American public and corrupt the system of democracy and elections by paying money to silence/hide compromising, politically damaging information, that I'd support impeachment and removal from office for. And likewise support criminal prosecution while in office, if there's a criminal case to be made.

 

--If a president has colluded and conspired with a foreign government and its representatives to advance his election prospects and/or damage the prospects of his election opponent(s), then I'd absolutely support impeachment and removal from office for that. And likewise support criminal prosecution while in office.

 

Unfortunately, the U.S. Justice Department apparently doesn't see it that way.

 

And BTW, I'd make those same arguments and take those same positions regardless of the political party or political views of the candidate/president involved.  Unlike many Republicans, who wanted to impeach Bill Clinton for lying about his Monica Lewinsky affair, but now think Trump shouldn't face any consequences for all the lying and other misdeeds he's done as both a candidate and president.

[tomacht8]

The sooner this senile clown leaves office, the better for the entire world. He is simply too stupid, even to understand the simplest climate change data. In the end he is just a money-hungry, criminal liar.

[BuaBS]

Typical . If you're associated with Trump , they go after you for petty things . When you're Hillary or associated with her , charges fade away.

Since the MSM is on the left , negative news on "their" people is suppressed .

[Becker]

4 minutes ago, BuaBS said:

Typical . If you're associated with Trump , they go after you for petty things . When you're Hillary or associated with her , charges fade away.

Since the MSM is on the left , negative news on "their" people is suppressed .

Typical, just a load of BS.

[mtls2005]

16 minutes ago, BuaBS said:

Typical . If you're associated with Trump , they go after you for petty things . When you're Hillary or associated with her , charges fade away.

 

Aw shucks, somebody's going all snow-flakey on us.

 

Maybe listen to the audio of a trump rally chanting "lock her up, lock her up, lock her up" as you cry yourself to sleep tonight.

[scorecard]

3 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

Lock them up

 

Lock them up

 

Lock them up...

 

Also meaning drain the critters and low-life from the swamp...

[Denim]

Is it me, or is all the news eminating from America these days just Trump this Trump that , ladies underwear Trump bla bla bla.

 

Get over it and choose someone else next time ( subject to Putin's approval ) .

 

Bad as all the Brexit spiel. We want out but we want in, do the okey kokey etc.

 

Democracy works like this. If you can't trust the masses who can you trust ?

[bristolboy]

37 minutes ago, Denim said:

Is it me, or is all the news eminating from America these days just Trump this Trump that , ladies underwear Trump bla bla bla.

 

Get over it and choose someone else next time ( subject to Putin's approval ) .

 

Bad as all the Brexit spiel. We want out but we want in, do the okey kokey etc.

 

Democracy works like this. If you can't trust the masses who can you trust ?

It's you.

[metisdead]

A post containing an offensive reference to the POTUS has been removed.  The removed posts were also using oversize font, please learn to control your font size when posting. 

[Tug]

Sorry he is a criminal and a danger to all of us

[Denim]

10 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

It's you.

 

Oh hell. Of to the shrink tomorrow then......but not Trumps. Must be a cheaper one out there.

[Slip]

1 hour ago, mtls2005 said:

 

Aw shucks, somebody's going all snow-flakey on us.

 

Maybe listen to the audio of a trump rally chanting "lock her up, lock her up, lock her up" as you cry yourself to sleep tonight.

The 'but but butism' has been staggering in the build up to today's revelations.  I suppose it is to be expected now that The MagaTs realise the game is up.  In fairness to our ones here on TV most have have the awareness to keep their heads down a bit today at least.  A better class of deplorable?

[Scott]

A post which modified a quote has been removed along with reply.  

[Tug]

To have one party in power across the whole of our government is a gift view politicians ever receive to think this man squandered this is a crime on so many levels in its shame

[mlmcleod]

3 hours ago, BuaBS said:

Typical . If you're associated with Trump , they go after you for petty things . When you're Hillary or associated with her , charges fade away.

Since the MSM is on the left , negative news on "their" people is suppressed .

Pardon me for disagreeing but this is just Republican partisan propaganda!  The Republicans pulled out every stop to get Hillary Clinton but after years of effort found nothing criminal in any of her actions.  The supposedly missing 30,000 emails have all been examined minutely and no new evidence was found.  The Republicans smeared her name and reduced her credibility enough to get Trump elected.  Lincoln would weep to see the state of his namesake party.

 

FYI, I do not think $100,000+ payments to Trump's dollies is petty or insignificant!  

[FritsSikkink]

4 hours ago, BuaBS said:

Typical . If you're associated with Trump , they go after you for petty things . When you're Hillary or associated with her , charges fade away.

Since the MSM is on the left , negative news on "their" people is suppressed .

"Petty things" ?, stop being a troll and accept the truth.

[Basil B]

7 hours ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

From reading the day's news coverage, one problem I'm seeing here is explanation about the Justice Department's interpretation (and it's just that interpretation, never tested in court, apparently) that the Constitution somehow prevents the Justice Department from charging a sitting U.S. president with criminal offenses.

Presume there is no reason, just protocol.

 

As Trump has already torn up the protocol book and given the gravity of many of the accusations against Trump I would have to say that if they do not do something they would be neglecting their duties. 

[Basil B]

5 hours ago, BuaBS said:

Typical . If you're associated with Trump , they go after you for petty things . When you're Hillary or associated with her , charges fade away.

Since the MSM is on the left , negative news on "their" people is suppressed .

You think "insider trading" and "embezzlement" is petty???

[mtls2005]

13 hours ago, Denim said:

Is it me, or is all the news eminating from America these days just Trump this Trump that , ladies underwear Trump bla bla bla.

 

tRUmp wearing lady's underwear?

 

Was this in the Dodgy Steele Dossier?

 

Stormy said he wore tighty whities, which makes sense.

 

tRUmp has loved being "in the news" since the 1980's.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 23, 2018 by mtls2005