Yes, Trump Is A Felon, Who'll Be Locked Up As Soon As His One Off Term Is Done

"Hmmmm...mebbe I should'na kept calling Mueller's probe a witch hunt."

With last week's  two court filings made by federal prosecutors  out of the Southern District of New York(SDNY).  it's now clear the current resident in the White House is a felon.   Reading the applicable documents (in the link above) one readily sees that Trump  (denoted "individual 1")  directed his then adviser-lawyer, Michael Cohen, to make illegal payoffs to two women who claimed to have had sexual relationships with Trump, implicating the Dotard in the violation of campaign finance laws. They recommended that Cohen receive a prison sentence of about four years.  In the filing, it is also clear that in the process of spelling this out Trump is a so far unindicted co-conspirator.

Let's now get this in perspective: The Dotard's own Justice Department is claiming that he has committed campaign finance violations, paying hush money to two mistresses: Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal. By virtue of this hush money ploy it thereby followed he was trying to manipulate the 2016 election result by buying the women's silence. (Given that had the story materialized charges would have been filed at the time and Trump's odious campaign would have crashed and burned.)

 Note that this is all a separate creature from the Russian conspiracy  (not 'collusion' since there is no federal statute for that) that Robert Mueller is pursuing.  While it is true Mueller said in his own court filing that Cohen had provided him “useful information” on matters at the core of the Trump-Russia investigation,   it is also clear from the separate SDNY filing that Cohen was not as forthcoming with the facts of how and  why Trump had him pay off two mistresses in order to keep his campaign violations secret- and thereby sneak into the White House as a felon.

In their  separate filing, federal prosecutors in New York said Cohen “acted in coordination and at the direction of” Trump when setting up payments to buy the silence of Karen McDougal, a former Playboy model, and Stormy Daniels, a pornographic actress, who were considering making public their allegations of affairs with Trump.  Cohen and Trump paid the women to suppress their damaging stories and “to influence the 2016 presidential election”, according to the filing .  As I noted in a previous post this is a major no-no and indeed, a felony.  A candidate simply cannot hide his campaign finances or redirect them to outside ends to secure his nomination, or election. It's that simple.

Of course, the inbred hillbilly and Trump toady Sarah Sanders, told reporters the filings contained “nothing of value that wasn’t already known”, saying Cohen had “repeatedly lied” and was “no hero”.  But she misses the point as anyone with even non-Mensan IQ can see. That is, that Trump is clearly named as the primary Cohen instigator (and hence felon), directing his thug to buy off the women. A 2-bit Queens thug, grifter and conman hiring another guy of similar pedigree to do his dirty work for him. Who'da thought?

The SDNY prosecutors added that Cohen was motivated by greed and “repeatedly used his power and influence for deceptive ends", noting:

“After cheating the [Internal Revenue Service] for years, lying to banks and to Congress, and seeking to criminally influence the presidential election, Cohen’s decision to plead guilty – rather than seek a pardon for his manifold crimes – does not make him a hero.”

Furthermore, Cohen's perjury didn't end with his lies and omissions to the SDNY   Cohen previously pleaded guilty to lying to Congress about Trump’s plans to develop a building in Russia. He admitted the project continued well into Trump’s campaign for the presidency – contradicting Trump’s account – and that Cohen spoke with a Kremlin official about securing Russian government support.

In other words, we have direct evidence of a devious and nefarious synergy between Trump and the Russkies,  that permeated the Trump campaign.  Let's clear the air here and state emphatically that Trump is guilty of at least two felonies and hence two impeachable offenses.  Sadly, the putative future Dem Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee (Jerry Nadler) seems not to grasp that impeaching Trump is not just a matter of political calculation but of holding him accountable.  As MSNBC's  Lawrence O'Donnell' made clear to Nadler last week any failure to impeach Trump now - even if it doesn't lead to indictment (by the Senate) -means that Trump and any followers will believe he's above the law. (Jerry kept telling Lawrence the Dems "need at least twenty Republicans" - but that is only for indictment in the Senate, not impeachment.)

This cannot be allowed, and that also means skewering the rabid distortions and diversion efforts apparent in the WSJ's editorial today ('Wrap It Up, Mr. Mueller'. p.  A16) in which these lackeys for Rupert Murdoch actually compared Trump's violations to those of John Edwards in 2012 ("for payments made by campaign donors to his mistress.").  But that's comparing rotten apples to fresh oranges.  As Kelly Ann Conway's better half (George) put it, directed at Dotard's tweet that he did nothing and nothing was found:

"Except for that little part where the US Attorney’s Office says that you directed and coordinated with Cohen to commit two felonies."

In Edwards' case there was no conspiratorial direction to intentionally commit felonies. Mucho difference, my friends!  And further,  it isn't a simply reductive case of "lying about sex" as the WSJ's nabobs try to portray it. It is paying hush money to hide the felonies to secure a nomination via fraud, and also an election!   The WSJ editors whining about the length of Mueller's probe is also choice, i.e.  "Mr.  Mueller has been investigating for 19 months....the country deserves an account of what Mueller knows not more dribs and drabs in sentencing memos."  Aw, boo hoo and hoo, cry me a river.  For reference, Mueller is a professional and is aggregating millions of times more real data - including financial -  than Ken Starr used to go after Bill Clinton, for a blow job  And that farce took years, way more than 19 months

Hence, whether an impeachment brings more polarization or division  as Nadler fears (and the WSJ's op-ed trolls anticipate), is irrelevant to the need to impeach the vile maggot in the White House.  What we don't need is more bullshit and disinformation from the likes of the WSJ to try to run interference for the Repukes and obscure the issue for too many 'Muricans.

Still on Sunday's CNN interview  - almost as if precognitively channeling the WSJ codswallop published today  - Jerry Nadler continued his verbal parsing by stating, in regard to the SDNY prosecutors' charges:

"They would be impeachable offenses. Whether they are important enough to justify impeachment is a different question."

Actually,  Jerry is overthinking the issue. IF they are indeed impeachable offenses, then it is manifestly clear that they warrant impeachment, no 'ifs, ands or buts.  What Nadler is really worried about is enraging the Trumpie base, when he spoke on Lawrence O'Donnell's 'Last Word' last week.  But enraging the Trumpie base is what I would call acceptable collateral "damage" if it means refusing to allow the slime ball cretin in the White House to get away with his crimes. And that was also Lawrence O'Donnell's point in his retort to Jerry.

Jerry needs to grow a pair, and grasp that if this foul fungal biped attempted to manipulate the 2016 election result by coercing his mistresses into secrecy then he is guilty.  As a great statesman once put it: "Let justice be done or the heavens fall!"

And hey, at least it's not as violent (or permanent)  as hanging him!

On another sorry note, it appears a Reeptard Senator named Mike Lee is threatening "civil war" if Dems don't toe the line and limit the federal gov't instead of expanding it.   See e.g.

Senate Republican warns of civil war if Democrats continue supporting the federal government

Evidently these Reepo imps like Lee aren't satisfied with repealing the voters' will in WI, NC and MI, they now want a war too. Well, bring it on, Mikey!

See also:

https://brane-space.blogspot.com/2018/08/why-didnt-manafort-jury-find-him-guilty.html

Kim Strassel's Continued Humping Of Clinton Conspiracy Ideations Shows She's Gone 'Round the Bend'

With Robert Mueller's investigation rapidly tightening  the noose around Trump's
 fat neck it's understandable the traitor's boot and ass lickers would do everything in their power to provide him specious cover,  especially in the co-opted, i.e. Trump- tainted,  media. That media that gushes fake facts and distortions to prop up Doh-turd as easily as its denizens breathe.  That includes the likes of Sean Hannity, Jeanine Pirro, Tucker Carlson et al at FOX News, but also the resident Clinton conspiracists at the WSJ, especially Kimberley Strassel (above left) and Holman Jenkins.

But as goofy as he was, Jenkins at least appears to have moved on to other subjects like trade, tariffs, and Elon Musk (Tesla).  Not so with Kimberley Strassel. She keeps relentlessly pounding the drum for a hidden Clinton conspiracy like a brain- jacked refugee from 4chan, or an op-ed columnist who's exhausted her store of significant topics.  

This came to the fore again in her latest effort ('When Justice Is Only Partial', WSJ, Aug. 24, p. A13) in which she fulminates that:

"The country has watched the FBI treat one presidential campaign with kid gloves, the other with informants, warrants and eavesdropping"

Earlier insisting Americans are "furious that Lady Justice seems to have it in for only one side"   adding:

"And they are now witnessing unequal treatment in special counsel Robert Mueller's probe."

Please, Kim, you need to lay off the MJ candy and wine, or maybe at least the wine. It's clear you're so brain-addled now you couldn't write beyond your pet conspiracy obsession if you tried.  What we really need is for this mistress of misinformation to chill out, take a deep breath and look at the facts, at reality and then ask herself: 'Why is it that only one campaign is under the microscope?'

Let's begin by noting the Manafort jury found for 8 charges against this former Trump campaign chairman lowlife, including filing a false tax return in each of the years from 2010 through 2014  as well as two counts of bank fraud. The jury was deadlocked on the other ten counts, likely because one female member held out after watching a Trump "witch hunt" tweet on FOX News.  An even more impactful trial is coming up for Manafort on charges more directly linked to the Russian conspiracy case.

Then there were  the  8 charges on Michael Cohen, revealing a blatant effort by Trump to conceal his unsavory liaisons with a porn star and former Playboy model.  Cohen confirmed he was "directed" by Trump (ID'd as "individual-1") to hide those revelations which likely would have cost him the needed electoral votes to snatch victory from the jaws of certain defeat. In the charging documents filed last Tuesday Cohen claimed Trump directed him to make payments that violated campaign finance laws in an effort to stop Stormy Daniels, the pornographic film actress, and Karen McDougal, a former Playboy model, from going public about alleged extramarital affairs.

Ultimately, this is where Trump... our dear traitor...errr leader, faces gravest peril in that under federal law hush money payments made before an election are considered in-kind contributions to a campaign  and must be  disclosed. This is irrespective of whether the money came from the candidate's own paws or his campaign's. Conspiring to generate such a contribution in excess of $25,000 is an indictable offense and a felony.  While it is claimed "sitting presidents cannot be indicted" this is purely under DOJ current policy - not law. Bear that in mind as this whole sordid tableaux unfolds, and also the primary reason Trump would have used this ploy: to illegitimately snatch an election!

  Kim also appears to forget that it was her master Trump who - on July 26, 2016-  openly implored the Russians to hack Hillary's emails. In other words, openly pandering for the commission of the crime that occurred one day later.  In front of millions, the Orange Turd had baldly blurted:

"I will tell you this, Russia if you're listening, I hope that you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. You will probably be rewarded mightily by our press. Let's see if that happens."

So Trump, in full public view, asked Russia to hack his political opponent.  Did this just come out of the blue as a brain fart blurt? Not at all, given we know Russia has been funding Trump since the late 1980s. Does Kim know any of that? Evidently not.  As per The New Republic (Aug./Sept. 2017, . p. 29):

"A review of the public record reveals a clear and disturbing pattern: Trump owes much of his business success, and by extension his presidency, to a flow of highly suspicious money from Russia. Over the past three decades, at least 13 people with known or alleged links to Russian mobsters or oligarchs have owned, lived in, or even run criminal activities out of Trump Tower and other Trump properties. Many used his apartments and casinos to launder untold millions in dirty money .....Taken together, the flow of money from Russia provided Trump with a crucial infusion of financing that helped rescue his empire from ruin, burnish his image, and launch his career in television and politics....It's entirely possible that Trump was never more than a convenient patsy for Russian oligarchs and mobsters."

Dotard also boasted:   “I love WikiLeaks” and mentioned its revelations 164 times in the last month of the campaign. “This WikiLeaks stuff is unbelievable,” Trump said on Oct. 12. Eight days later, he marveled, “Boy, that WikiLeaks has done a job on her, hasn’t it?"

And Kim has the absolute chutzpah, the sheer nerve,  to question why it's "all on one side".  Jeezus, talk about being divorced from reality!  Another hobby horse of hers has been to try to implicate the Clinton campaign with "illegal" use of Fusion GPS to rain on Trump's parade and justify surveillance. Not in the least aware of several things:

1)  The hysteria about the Fusion GPS oppo research was exposed once it was learned the original firm that hired them was The Washington Free Beacon, a conservative news site. The relevant  WSJ editorial at the time noted it was funded by big GOP donor Paul Singer.  Singer wanted oppo research done on a two bit Queens' chiseler he didn't trust. Singer and a group of old guard GOP donors hired Fusion GPS to do the job of digging up dirt on the Queens' grifter. Subsequently, after Trump won the Repub primary the material was handed off to the Clinton campaign. This was NOT unlawful as Strassel tries to portray - unlike her master who  (along with Don Jr., Manafort, Kushner etc.)  engaged Russian assets (e.g. Natalia Veselnitskaya)  to help him with oppo dirt  on Clinton. 

2) Foreign intercepts of meetings of Trump cronies, e.g. Carter Page, with Russian  (GRU) agents meant that the U.S. had to enter the picture with its own FISA warrants, surveillance, etc. Not to do so would have violated agreements with foreign intel sources, assets. 

3)Strassel's other favorite target has been Christopher Steele, about whom I've written before. He  is no clown or stooge or  likely to be "fooled"  as Kimberly Strassel claimed in an earlier hit job (WSJ, 'The Fusion Collusion').  According to one Financial Times account (Feb. 16) , Steele was the "UK intelligence expert on Russia".  It is, therefore, highly unlikely he'd be "fooled" by any kind of false intel or disinformation as Strassel seems to believe.  James Nixey, the head of Chatham House's Russia and Eurasia program, informed the AP that sections of the dossier document created by Steele "read exactly as reports from the secret services".

The point is there was not a damned thing sinister or wrong about Hillary's campaign hiring Fusion GPS or Fusion recruiting Chris Steele to dig up material on a lowlife vermin who would soon control the nuclear codes - IF he became president.  

Why worry? After Trump's siding with Putin over the U.S.  in Helsinki, e.g.  "I think I have a very good relationship with President Putin.  I think we're being hurt very badly by this witch hunt, I would call it the rigged witch hunt. You know,  in the United States we have this pure stupidity but it makes it very hard to do something with Russia"

 The little degenerate even offered to dispatch American citizens to be interrogated by the KGB! Strassel ought to be worried, and to recognize the wrong person won the 2016 election.

According to Robert Mueller's latest indictment:

"On or about July 27, 2016, the conspirators attempted after hours to spearphish for the first time email accounts on a domain hosted by a third party provider and used by Clinton's personal office. They also targeted seventy-six email addresses at the domain for the Clinton campaign. '

Most interesting, this happened on the very same day Traitor Trump appeared in front of the media cameras and pleaded with Russia to hack Hillary's emails. And after all, Hillary lost thanks to Trump's conspiracy with the Russians to leverage him into power. So who is really the victim here, Kim?  And who, pray tell, did the FBI Director Comey open up on 11 days before the freaking election? A Russian pawn leveraged into high office with the assistance of mobster cronies and foreign agents who hacked and lied (using bots on social media sites) or a woman whose campaign site was hacked by the same vermin? After Trump begged them to do so?  All this is why Ms. Strassel's plaintive whine of "Where is Mr.Mueller's case against Hillary for America?" rings hollow.  There is no case, Kim, because there's no "there" there.

FBI agent Cliff Watts has observed: 

“Without the Russian influence effort, I believe Trump would not have even been within striking distance of Clinton on Election Day.” 

That is the inconvenient truth the Trump lapdogs and conspiracy addled media stooges like Kimberley  Strassel  won’t admit.  But maybe in time we can at least get her to concede the "lady justice" effort now focused on Trump, his nefarious Russkie associates and campaign is not "one sided justice."  Yuh think?

 See also:

Trumputin's Mob Masters Own the White House, but for How Long?

Why Didn't The Manafort Jury Find Him Guilty On ALL 18 Counts?

The unholy criminal trio - from left: Paul Manafort - found guilty on 8 counts, Trump-  implicated as an unindicted co-conspirator by Michael Cohen (right) for directing Cohen to make undisclosed hush money payments to two women to influence the 2016 election. Cohen himself pled guilty to 8 charges at nearly the same time Manafort was found guilty.


A blockbuster of  a terrible day yesterday for the Traitor-in-chief  which one WSJ columnist (Gerald Seib, p. A4 today) referred to as: "the darkest day of the Trump presidency so far"  - a nice qualification given there will be many more as Robert Mueller's noose tightens around Trump's fat orange neck e.g.

Even as he keeps yelping "Witch hunt!" like a demented, obese orange parrot.

Let's cut to Paul Manafort first:  After the Alexandria,  Virginia Jury found him guilty on eight counts, including filing a false tax return in each of the years from 2010 through 2014  as well as two counts of bank fraud, the jury oddly bogged down, becoming deadlocked on the other ten counts.  Those charges, for which the judge declared a "hung jury",  included: three counts for not filing a form to report a foreign bank account (a clear felony proven by the prosecutors' paper trail), and seven counts for conspiracy to commit bank fraud.  IN the latter case there was also more than ample paper crime evidence to dispatch this bitch for at least 30 years - along with the other charges.

SO what happened? Why didn't the Jury go all out on this slime ball? I have two conjectures:1) At least one juror became "tainted" by exposure to outside news (e.g. FOX News) despite being told not to succumb, and 2) Two or more jurors got their brains and exercise of judgments scrambled by the c-word , i.e. conspiracy,  in the charges.  So they were averse to charging this Trumpie criminal and former campaign manager on anything that smacked of conspiracy.

Let's take the first speculation; Without the jury having been sequestered over its four day deliberations-  and just being sent home - there is no way at all to know if one or more broke ranks and was  compromised by external media. By that I mean they deliberately or inadvertently were exposed to a segment of FOX News, say,  that bellowed about Manafort and Dotard's "witch hunt" rants.  Even if only one juror - likely one of six males - was so affected,  it would mean corruption of the jury's decision making. That single juror - guided by the propaganda from a FOX segment -  could then insist on 'not guilty' for the charge or not meeting the standard of "beyond reasonable doubt".

 The indirect tainting by association with the c-word is more controversial but still possible.  We've known for going on fifty years that the corporate media has corrupted the use of the word  conspiracy. First,  by eliding actual conspiracies (e.g. Iran-Contra, BCCI, Watergate, JFK assassination) with daft ideations  such as that no actual lunar landings occurred and they were all filmed on a sound stage. But also this has involved a dedicated and deliberate strategy that commenced with the JFK assassination-   and the use of "Operation Mockingbird" -  i.e.  to put to rest or  divert to the news dustbin any efforts to invoke real conspiracy in that event.  (This despite the House Select Committee on Assassinations, the HSCA, finding for a "96 percent probability" of conspiracy in that event.)

After the actual Watergate conspiracy with Nixon and his CIA  "plumbers" (including one or more who also had plausible roles in the Kennedy hit, like E. Howard Hunt) the efforts went full bore to alter public perceptions.  Thus, one beheld increasing use of the more benign, generic term "scandal" to replace "conspiracy" in a concerted effort to expunge the latter from public consciousness.   In effect, we were then expected by the media to accept the "Watergate Scandal" instead  of Watergate conspiracy, and the "Iran-Contra scandal" instead of Iran-Contra Conspiracy.

  The latter despite the explicit use of the term as well as "conspirators" in the official Iran-Contra Report. To wit, from page 56 and the charges as articulated by then independent counsel Lawrence E. Walsh:

1) Using government resources, the conspirators conducted an unauthorized covert program in support of the contras.”

2) “North and Poindexter used their Government positions to create a hidden slush fund under the exclusive control of the conspirators”

3) “By secretly pursuing their own ends, the conspirators outraged the Iranians they were attempting to persuade and thus jeopardized the success of the Iran initiative.”

It's difficult to fathom how the language could be any more explicit.   But perhaps to these jurors (or maybe just one) it made a difference.   And because the word "conspiracy" appeared in the charge the person or persons became convinced that the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt was not met. Who knows?   As I indicated these are just my conjectures, but the outcome was in denying Mueller a clean victory - as well as lessening the potential time Manafort could spend on ice, from over 30 years to likely less than ten.  It is also difficult to reconcile this partial win with op-ed headlines such as 'Mueller 1, Manafort 0' such as I've seen. It's more like Mueller 1/2 Manafort 0- and there's still a trial of Manafort to go with even more serious charges, some of which (i.e. involving the Ukraine) impinge on the Russia probe.  Even before the next phase, one thing we can say is that Manafort's conviction - even on a fraction of the charges - shows that Mueller's probe is neither "rigged" nor a "witch hunt".

In his upcoming trial Manafort faces charges of failing to register as a lobbyist for the Ukraine government, and "conspiring to tamper with witnesses " in that case.  Note the conspiracy bogey pops up again, so if my conjecture on the adverse influence of the c-word is correct, look for all those c-word related charges to also end up deadlocked. We will see.  

 Meanwhile, in the Cohen guilty plea and statements attendant on the 8 admitted charges yesterday,  there is much more political peril for Trump. After all, Cohen was his prime "fixer" and knows "where all the bodies are buried" - as Janice put it.

In the charging documents filed Tuesday Cohen claimed Trump directed him to make payments that violated campaign finance laws in an effort to stop Stormy Daniels, the pornographic film actress, and Karen McDougal, a former Playboy model, from going public about alleged extramarital affairs. In entering the plea, Cohen did not name the two women, and Trump was referenced as "Individual -1".   So any person -  even sub-Mensa level in IQ  -  could figure it out.  

Another salient point: It isn't just a case of Michael Cohen's word against Trump's. Oh no.  There is a constellation of positive evidence supporting Cohen's claims, including:  thousands of records obtained from Cohen's residence in the April 9, 2018 warrant search conducted by the FBI, e.g.  hard copy financial, legal documents, seized electronic devices, audio recordings made by Cohen, emails,  text messages sent over encrypted applications, records retrieved from the corporation referenced in the charging documents as "Corporation One" and records from the media company also therein referenced.  Last but not least, there is the documented testimony of witnesses involved in the transactions for illegal payoffs. If Trump has any scintilla of sentience left in that febrile brain he ought to be shitting bricks.

Lanny Davis, Cohen’s lawyer, asked in a tweet: “If those payments were a crime for Michael Cohen, then why wouldn’t they be a crime for Donald Trump?   Indeed. And this morning Mr. Davis had to repeat his explanation three times to the boneheads Nora O'Donnell and John Dickerson - who didn't seem to grasp the concept of "dispositive evidence".  When each CBS knucklehead continued to ask "Where's the evidence?" for the "explosive" claim that Trump directed Cohen to make these payments- Davis repeatedly referred to Trump's lawyers who  themselves made that statement as sworn testimony before Mueller. Hence, their recorded statements qualified as "dispositive evidence" . But the dynamic duo of CBS Early Show never did process it.

Ultimately this is where Trump... our dear traitor...errr leader, faces gravest peril in that under federal law hush money payments made before an election are considered in-kind contributions to a campaign  and must be disclosed.  Conspiring (that c-word again!) to generate such a contribution in excess of $25,000 is an indictable offense and a felony.  While it is claimed "sitting presidents cannot be indicted" this is purely under DOJ current policy - not law. Bear that it mind as this whole sordid tableaux unfolds.

See also:

There's Another Major Bombshell Buried in Michael Cohen's Felony Charges

And:

Just Like Nixon: Here's How Trump's Sordid Past Is Finally ...

And:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/aug/22/michael-cohen-has-information-on-conspiracy-by-russians-says-lawyer