Cohen Files Implicate Trump, Hope Hicks & David Pecker in Campaign Finance Crime

[Eunoli]

At 11:30 am EST today, a judge released the transcript that was previously redacted in the Michael Cohen trial. It implicates Trump, Hope Hicks and David Pecker.

There still aren't any full articles describing the scope of Individual One's participation in the crime and there's still no explanation as to why the prosecutors stopped pursuing the case after Barr came on board. It could be that they just got to a place where they knew they couldn't indict him and decided to shelf it until/if he's out of office. Or - it could have been quashed by Washington. Hopefully, we'll find out.

This means that the FBI has proof that Trump committed a federal crime (which we already pretty much knew, but having it in plain print for anyone to read is much harder to spin or ignore).

None of these below are full articles - people are still going through the document.

CNBC Article
Daily Beast Article
Independent Article

I decided against including this in the "Jail" thread, because it is an impeachable offense and on the record. Any other president would go down for this.

 

[Cristalle]

This "you can't indict a sitting president" rule has become the most pernicious get-out-of-jail-free card.

 

[Kara Spengler]

This "you can't indict a sitting president" rule has become the most pernicious get-out-of-jail-free card.

Yes, it has its uses for holding down distractions (does anyone REALLY want an actual president to be in one minor court or another fighting off nuisance suits) but there should be a point where it is no longer applies.

 

[Aribeth Zelin]

Well, if things were working right, he'd be impeached for breaking these laws.

 

[Kara Spengler]

Well, if things were working right, he'd be impeached for breaking these laws.

Exactly. Unfortunately the R controlled senate will block any impeachment even if Pelosi allows it.

 

[Eunoli]

Exactly. Unfortunately the R controlled senate will block any impeachment even if Pelosi allows it.

And if they block it, a huge portion of the country will be led to believe he was proved innocent and the Dems tried to steal the election - and that turns into a giant mess in 2020. This is literally a lose-lose situation. If you ignore the obligation under the constitution, this gets normalized. If you don't, he might retain power because of Mitch McConnell, the Russians and Fox News.

 

[Brenda Archer]

And if they block it, a huge portion of the country will be led to believe he was proved innocent and the Dems tried to steal the election - and that turns into a giant mess in 2020. This is literally a lose-lose situation. If you ignore the obligation under the constitution, this gets normalized. If you don't, he might retain power because of Mitch McConnell, the Russians and Fox News.

I think at this point the House should try to impeach anyway. If Dem voters come to feel no one is holding Trump to account, they’re likely to sit out the next election, with disastrous results.

Nothing can be done about the people who are sucked into the Fox vortex, but getting out the vote of usually Dem voters is still possible and the only chance of success.

I don’t understand why people think Dems should chase MAGA voters. It’s futile and unnecessary.

 

[Eunoli]

Nothing can be done about the people who are sucked into the Fox vortex, but getting out the vote of usually Dem voters is still possible and the only chance of success.

I don’t understand why people think Dems should chase MAGA voters. It’s futile and unnecessary.

Its not about the main base of MAGA voters. Its about those moderates in the swing states that went for Trump. A large portion of them have already swung back Dem - but could swing back again if there's a Trump exoneration by the Senate. Without at least a few of those states, there isn't a chance in hell.

I don't know that Pelosi's strategy will work, either. I've been super negative lately in that I'm not sure there is any scenario where Trump loses except a very, very public "PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN" moment - and you know Fox ain't letting that happen.

 

[Kara Spengler]

I think at this point the House should try to impeach anyway. If Dem voters come to feel no one is holding Trump to account, they’re likely to sit out the next election, with disastrous results.

Nothing can be done about the people who are sucked into the Fox vortex, but getting out the vote of usually Dem voters is still possible and the only chance of success.

I don’t understand why people think Dems should chase MAGA voters. It’s futile and unnecessary.

Exactly, the house should go ahead. The senate will block it but that should not be a factor for Pelosi. All that matters is she did her job. As a plus whatever Ds are running get to point to the senate blocking them for an easy win with their base.

 

[Brenda Archer]

Its not about the main base of MAGA voters. Its about those moderates in the swing states that went for Trump. A large portion of them have already swung back Dem - but could swing back again if there's a Trump exoneration by the Senate. Without at least a few of those states, there isn't a chance in hell.

I don't know that Pelosi's strategy will work, either. I've been super negative lately in that I'm not sure there is any scenario where Trump loses except a very, very public "PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN" moment - and you know Fox ain't letting that happen.

Anyone who could vote for Trump now is either hugely misinformed or genuinely approves of him. We can’t waste time and money on these people who have problems mere politics cannot repair.

All that energy should go into getting out the vote with actual Dems and liberal young nonvoters.

There are a lot of people who have been persuaded the parties are both equally corrupt but they are also likely targets of the racism/sexism/other isms of the hard Right. Vision and action from an assertive candidate could win them over. Sleepy senile old men cannot.

We’ve got to stop acting like Boomers are the only votes that matter.

Trying to convince cultists with political arguments doesn’t work because they’re well armored and have been trained in reactionary scripts. They have goals that are literally not from reality and our logic won’t pierce that. The very few who could be picked off at this point are not enough to swing a state.

If a state really is deep red, we should forget it, but in truth, most of them have blue cities where voting would matter and especially down ticket.

Example: Arizona can be purple with enough young people voting.

The question I want to see answered, if can get both Congress and the Presidency, is can we finally make DC and PR into states? We could fix the mess we’re in for good without having to tinker with the Constitution at all.

 

[Eunoli]

Anyone who could vote for Trump now is either hugely misinformed or genuinely approves of him. We can’t waste time and money on these people who have problems mere politics cannot repair.

All that energy should go into getting out the vote with actual Dems and liberal young nonvoters.

There are a lot of people who have been persuaded the parties are both equally corrupt but they are also likely targets of the racism/sexism/other isms of the hard Right. Vision and action from an assertive candidate could win them over. Sleepy senile old men cannot.

This really is just not true. Have you watched any of the interviews of voters in swing states? The answers they give are almost universally "I need to vote for my bank account and Trump will help that" - even those being hurt by the current policies. I watched one yesterday with a young, black man who said he was going to vote for Trump. He literally began to crumble as an older woman on his panel started to talk about not hiding behind his money. I suspect Ohio is not really a swing state anymore, but the rest still are.

Now is no time to stick our heads in the sand and try to win with an unwinnable number of electoral votes. We could have an 80% turnout in the blue states and it wouldn't matter if we can't cross that line. We won the last election, remember? Didn't matter.

 

[Brenda Archer]

This really is just not true. Have you watched any of the interviews of voters in swing states? The answers they give are almost universally "I need to vote for my bank account and Trump will help that" - even those being hurt by the current policies. I watched one yesterday with a young, black man who said he was going to vote for Trump. He literally began to crumble as an older woman on his panel started to talk about not hiding behind his money. I suspect Ohio is not really a swing state anymore, but the rest still are.

Now is no time to stick our heads in the sand and try to win with an unwinnable number of electoral votes. We could have an 80% turnout in the blue states and it wouldn't matter if we can't cross that line. We won the last election, remember? Didn't matter.

I just don’t see how it’s going to work. How are we going to persuade people who are *still* willing to vote for Trump and the rest of the Neo-Confederate Republicans? What are we supposed to say to them exactly?

That we sympathize? With what exactly?

If the average Trump voter that is not an evangelical or a frank racist is voting because he has wealth, how does it help to reassure him we won’t go back to a normal tax structure? The government is running out of money and that’s without a reasonable amount of funding for healthcare, safety net, environment or infrastructure. Should we promise these people we won’t tax again?

I don’t see any argument that Dems can make to these people that won’t also serve to alienate young, poor and minority voters.

 

[Brenda Archer]

 

[Kalel]

This really is just not true. Have you watched any of the interviews of voters in swing states?

got to be careful with what you see on tv... it's easy for them pick the best interviews that get the most attention and slice it in a way that gets more views..

Here in florida... i know allot of people in my 25-35 age group avoid voting as they don't believe it matters. i've spent time trying to convince them but they are convinced both sides are horrible and it's pointless. Outside of the Tricountry south florida area and orlando the rest of the state goes red. on top of the limited polling stations, voter suppression, and voter fraud that we get all the time. people just don't care and let what happen.. happen..

 

[Eunoli]

I just don’t see how it’s going to work. How are we going to persuade people who are *still* willing to vote for Trump and the rest of the Neo-Confederate Republicans? What are we supposed to say to them exactly?

That we sympathize? With what exactly?

Talking to them would help, for a start. We didn't do so much of that last election.

Candidates talking about every day issues in those states will make all the difference in the world. Many of the Dem candidates are already doing this. But, its still early and they will need to do more and more of it. Most of the people in the swing states aren't racists. They aren't the assholes attending the rallies. They aren't happy with the policy on the border. They're pure economic voters who go republican because they think the Democrats are promoting policies that will make putting food on the table harder to do. They hear "socialist" and they respond with fear. These are things that could be addressed with communication.

 

[Eunoli]

Here in florida... i know allot of people in my 25-35 age group avoid voting as they don't believe it matters. i've spent time trying to convince them but they are convinced both sides are horrible and it's pointless. Outside of the Tricountry south florida area and orlando the rest of the state goes red. on top of the limited polling stations, voter suppression, and voter fraud that we get all the time. people just don't care and let what happen.. happen..

They aren't really that wrong. That's why I think that an Elizabeth Warren or a Kirsten Gillibrand (corruption and corporate ownership of the federal government were most of what she talked about last debate) or another candidate willing to not just take on big money, but to communicate exactly how they are going to do it could have a chance with younger voters - if they find a way to make themselves heard. Changing elections to publicly funded only would also make a great deal of progress, but only if a Dem wins to push for that change.

 

[Brenda Archer]

Talking to them would help, for a start. We didn't do so much of that last election.

Candidates talking about every day issues in those states will make all the difference in the world. Many of the Dem candidates are already doing this. But, its still early and they will need to do more and more of it. Most of the people in the swing states aren't racists. They aren't the assholes attending the rallies. They aren't happy with the policy on the border. They're pure economic voters who go republican because they think the Democrats are promoting policies that will make putting food on the table harder to do. They hear "socialist" and they respond with fear. These are things that could be addressed with communication.

In the Intermountain West the Trump voters are evangelical racists or they’re Mormons, or they’re wealthy.

The first group cannot be reached with economic talk. With the second, you can pick off the liberals and the well educated but most of that is self-selection and has already happened. With the third, they may rant about “socialism” but what it’s really about is taxation and any Dem who isn’t libertarian-lite will not be able to reach them. Libertarian candidates are poison with young voters who are women or POC.

If there’s a vast ignored mass of voters who could be swayed by economic education, they’re not in any state I’ve lived in. I have actually lived in eleven states. None of them were in the Midwest, but every other major region, I’ve been there. White Trump voters were always religious, segregationist or xenophobic.

What message would work on Midwestern whites that would not alienate the young POC we need in the South and West?

 

[Brenda Archer]

They aren't really that wrong. That's why I think that an Elizabeth Warren or a Kirsten Gillibrand (corruption and corporate ownership of the federal government were most of what she talked about last debate) or another candidate willing to not just take on big money, but to communicate exactly how they are going to do it could have a chance with younger voters - if they find a way to make themselves heard. Changing elections to publicly funded only would also make a great deal of progress, but only if a Dem wins to push for that change.

Warren is an awesome candidate who could build traction with young whites, but I haven’t seen other young voters be very excited. Bernie still really excites a lot of young people of all races and with a younger VP (because frankly he may not be good for eight years) could still be viable with actual Dems. Conservative older Dems think he’s flaky. Both of them, and Harris, are going to be spun into the ground but that could be good with the right counter spin.

Harris needs to get clearer about her economic policies.

The other candidates need better name recognition outside their home regions and having such a large roster is really bad for that. There are probably some gems but candidate Who? can’t get traction.

 

[Eunoli]

In the Intermountain West the Trump voters are evangelical racists or they’re Mormons, or they’re wealthy.

We have a shot at Utah - and its only because of Mitt Romney. I can't see him inspiring anyone to vote Trump. Other than that, the coast is all going to go blue. Colorado will likely go blue.

But, we also have shots at Michigan and Wisconsin. Look what they did in the mid-terms. That is an opportunity that can't be ignored.

 

[Eunoli]

Warren is an awesome candidate who could build traction with young whites, but I haven’t seen other young voters be very excited. Bernie still really excites a lot of young people of all races and with a younger VP (because frankly he may not be good for eight years) could still be viable with actual Dems. Conservative older Dems think he’s flaky. Both of them, and Harris, are going to be spun into the ground but that could be good with the right counter spin.

I like Bernie. I still have my "Birdie Sanders" stickers from when the sparrow landed on his shoulder in Portland. But, the moment that people start to realize that his version of Medicare for All takes away their current insurance there's going to be a lot less support for him. Elizabeth Warren has the same problem. I really, really wish they'd back up a little to the version some other candidates are offering that allows people to keep their own insurance if they want it. No one is going to want it for long, anyway. But, the Republicans will shout out "they're taking away your health care!" while denying they want to do the same and it will become very, very difficult to win when the candidates are just responding with "yes, but Medicare". Taking things away /especially healthcare or the perception of it/ has never been a winning strategy, even when logical.