anything illegal here? Say what it is. By the way, Fusion is a highly respected, well-known, research firm. Anything but shadowy! The principal, Simpson, is an acknowledged U.S. experts on Russian affairs, and knew Steele, who in turn had worked closely with Mueller on other projects. Mueller and Steele are friends. The report on Trump was originally funded by a disgruntled Fat Cat Republican donor trying to stop Trump from getting the nomination. When he realized it was a lost cause, he stopped further funding, and Fusion shopped the project around. The DNC bit, and the rest is history. Apparently Mueller wasn't able to confirm the alleged meeting in Prague between a Trump camp representative, alleged to be Cohen. and a Russian operative also named. It is one of a few findings in the Steele-Fusion (edited) report that could not be confirmed.
Trust me, obtaining money from Russian Banks per se won't be Trump's crimes. However Bank fraud (i.e., lying to U.S. banks [misstating assets and liabilities in a material way], tax evasion, and money laundering will be. And campaign finance violation, a felony or civil violation, depending on the violators intent and knowledge, he has already been cited for in an indictment.] Some of his many crimes the statute has bound to have run out on. However the time Trump spent in office as President will be tolled! Feel free to trust me on that.
I guess you didn't get the answers you wanted - so you will have to wait until something, anything, PLEASE GOD...CONFIRM MY BIAS!
you were smart to lay low in this... since you were one arguing you could indict a sitting president regardless of the U.S. Constitution and DOJ guidelines. Your writing below which apparently was done to satisify your soros shell posting commitment is misguided as well. You already know that... the it was Hillary who hired fusion gps for the russian dossier... The GOP project is a red herring. It remains to be seen if Obama hired them for legal or illegal activities. Mueller was not able to confirm a lot... no obstruction because mueller found no crime of russian collusion.
You're misquoting me again. So what's new. I never would have meant to say it THAT way! That is suggesting that the Constitution prevents indicting a sitting President. Some lawyer you are! The Constitution is completely silent on the issue. So in that sense the Constitution is immaterial regarding this particular issue. But our lovely constitution does, in fact, supply myriad reasons why there should be no prohibition on indictment of a sitting president. I am one hundred percent certain that if you could exhume all of the founders today, bring them back to life, and ask them "Can a sitting President be indicted," they would say "Of Course, you idiot, the President is not above the law." But they would not understand today's politics. They wouldn't understand that in the 21st Century, in evil hands, indictment could become a political weapon. So of course the President can be indicted, the statutory and Constitutional law is completely silent on the question. But we ought to have some statutory law clarifying the issue and written in such a way as to prevent, so far as possible, indictment for purely political reasons. I.E. the standards for indictment must be set very high with regards to the evidence as determined by a Grand Jury. The silly DOJ memos in this regard, favored by one particular alcoholic J.O.T.S.C., may be ignored by all departments in government and all courts and prosecutors other than those directly under the DOJ. These stupid memos have no standing outside DOJ, and even the DOJ should look at them askance.
You really can't be misquoted on this because your argument is based on a necromantic fantasy. You made the same obtuse argument you made in the past. I can't take it seriously. The Constitution is not silent. It specifically provides the remedy. Impeachment. The Constitution and Impeachment. The Constitution, Article II, Section 4: The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
If there is anything necrotic here it's your cerebral cortex. The Constitution provides a way to fire a lawbreaker. It leaves punishment up to statutory law. It fully anticipates, because the President is not above the law, that a criminal president will be indicted and tried. It says nothing about waiting until the criminal is impeached, or out of office. Impeachment, or invoking the 25th Amendment, are procedures used to fire or replace a President; indictment and trial are procedures used to punish a person guilty of civil or criminal law violation. These are mutually exclusive procedures. We can't fire a president by convicting him of a crime. The House must impeach, and the Senate must convict to do that. We can't mete out the statutory punishment to a president for violating the law by impeaching and convicting him. To do that, we must Indict, Try and Convict, or Indict and accept a plea and its consequences.
One of the nuances attending an investigation of a president that I doubt you fully grasp is the inherent conflict of interest created when such as investigation is under supervision of DOJ. Because DOJ is a part of the Administrative Branch of Government, an investigation carried out in this manner, if it involves the president directly, should be considered by all to be inherently flawed. Investigation of the President requires that a special prosecutor, operating completely independent of DOJ, be appointed, and not, of course, appointed by the President himself. Even having DOJ appoint such an independent prosecutor raises questions of propriety. I am certain Mueller realized this. Thus he must have been won't to get involved in investigating the President and/or his immediate family. For very good reason, he restricted his investigation to Russian interference in the election and the broader question of coordination with the Trump Campaign. If you could see the entire Mueller report, and I hope we all will soon enough, I'm certain Mueller's caution in this regard would be evident. This is why, should the trail have lead toward the President or his immediate family, Mueller would, I expect, be conscientious in referring further investigation to prosecutors removed from direct DOJ supervision. This consideration is why no prudent person should consider the Mueller report, based only on the AG's immediate impression, as having exonerated the President himself or his family with regard to coordination of his campaign with Russian Hacking. Mueller did not find any incontrovertible or prosecutable evidence of coordination involving the President himself or his immediate family, but where did he draw the line as far as looking? Knowing Mueller's reputation for scrupulous adherence to ethical standards, I expect he drew the line between Trump and his family and the other campaign participants. Others, Nadler's House Committee for example, are not under DOJ supervision. They will be unhampered by conflicts of interest attendant Mueller's investigation, whose supervisory chain of command led directly to the President. I would think these considerations would be of considerable concern to the President and his family, especially considering Nadler's track record in prior confrontations with Donald Trump in New York, where the score is Nadler 2, Trump 0. We should be looking for Nadler's investigation to be labeled a "witch hunt," any incriminating information turned up to be "fake news", and Mr. Nadler himself to be labeled "a loser."